The appropriate disposal practice of unused and expired medications has become a global challenge that has caught the attention of health policymakers, pharmaceutical organizations, healthcare professionals, and the wider community. The current study aimed to evaluate the awareness, attitudes, and behaviors relating to the disposal practice of unused and expired medications and medication wastage issues among the general public in Selangor, Malaysia. The quantitative, cross-sectional study was conducted using a pre-validated structured survey form. Among the approached individuals, 426 showed their willingness to participate in the study. More than 80% of the study population reported being aware of the medication wastage issue and its impact on patients and the economy. The respondents with a higher level of education (OR = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.18–2.52; p < 0.003) were more likely to be cognizant of the detrimental consequences of inappropriate waste disposal. The female respondents were more likely to report comprehending that the availability of free healthcare resources is contributing to medication waste (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.015–2.34; p < 0.005). The majority of respondents reported throwing away unused medications (202; 47.4%) and expired medications (362; 84.9%) in the garbage. The respondents believed that the provision of appropriate directions by healthcare professionals (312; 73.2%) and prescribing/dispensing medications in quantities for the duration that ensures patient adherence (114; 26.7%) could minimize medication wastage. The Ministry of Health (258; 60.5%), pharmaceutical organizations (212; 49.7%), and pharmacists (193; 45.3%) were the respondents’ perceived responsible sources of information. The current findings reported that respondents were familiar that inappropriate practices of medication wastage might have harmful consequences. However, a gap exists between their awareness and practice, and the disposal approaches practiced by the respondents were generally not appropriate.

Background: Pharmacists being the drug experts need to be well aware of the applied handling of biosimilar medicines (BSMs). They are an integral educator, trailblazer, and advocate of biosimilar integration across all clinical settings. Therefore, the current study was conducted to assess the pharmacists’ knowledge, attitude, and practices of integrating BSMs into clinical practice. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2019 to November 2019. The community pharmacies, clinical and academic settings in Karachi were approached for gathering the responses of pharmacists towards BSMs and interchangeable products using a 30-item survey form. Pearson correlation and independent sample t-test were used to identify the relationship among independent variables and the responses, considering p values < 0.05 as statistically significant. Results: Overall, there were 305 survey forms used with a response rate of 87.14%. More than 80% of the respondents have good knowledge about the definition, characteristics, safety and efficacy, compatibility, cost issues, and utilization of BSMs. Around half of the respondents (48.9%, [95% CI 46.6– 51.2]) were confident in using BSMs in clinical practice. However, they were concerned about the BSM’s safety profile (45.2%, [95% CI 42.1– 48.3]), quality (30.2%, [95% CI 28.3– 32.1]), and efficacy issues (32.3%, [95% CI 31.2– 37.5]). Conclusion: The findings revealed that pharmacists were well informed about the BSMs. However, some of the responses to the attitude demonstrated a lack of understanding of the application of that knowledge. The respondents persuaded that advanced patterns of diseases, product marketing stipulations, and need for better patient care drives higher demand for developing BSMs and were enthusiastic about gaining more insight to integrate BSMs into routine clinical practice.

Background: Non-adherence to physical therapy ranges from 14 to 70%. This could adversely affect physical functioning and requires careful monitoring. Studies that describe designing and validation of adherence measuring scales are scant. There is a growing need to formulate adherence measures for this population. The aim was to develop and validate a novel tool named as the General Rehabilitation Adherence Scale (GRAS) to measure adherence to physical therapy treatment in Pakistani patients attending rehabilitation clinics for musculoskeletal disorders. Methods: A month-long study was conducted in patients attending physical therapy sessions at clinics in two tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. It was done using block randomization technique. Sample size was calculated based on item-to-respondent ratio of 1:20. The GRAS was developed and validated using content validity, factor analyses, known group validity, and sensitivity analysis. Receiver operator curve analysis was used to determine cut-off value. Reliability and internal consistency were measured using test-retest method. Data was analyzed through IBM SPSS version 23. The study was ethically approved (IRB-NOV:15). Results: A total of 300 responses were gathered. The response rate was 92%. The final version of GRAS contained 8 items and had a content validity index of 0.89. Sampling adequacy was satisfactory, (KMO 0.7, Bartlett’s test p-value< 0.01). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 3-factor model that was fixed and confirmed at a 2-factor model. Incremental fit indices, i.e., normed fit index, comparative fit index and Tucker Lewis index, were reported > 0.95 while absolute fit index of root mean square of error of approximation was < 0.03. These values indicated a good model fit. The value for Cronbach (α) was 0.63 while it was 0.77 for McDonald’s (ω), i.e., acceptable. Test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.88, p < 0.01. Education level was observed to affect adherence (p < 0.01). A cut-off value of 12 was identified. The sensitivity and accuracy of the scale was 95%, and its specificity was 91%. Conclusion: The scale was validated in this study with satisfactory results. The availability of this tool would enhance monitoring for adherence as well as help clinicians and therapists address potential areas that may act as determinants of non-adherence.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has termed the novel coronavirus infection a pandemic based on number of confirmed cases in more than 195 countries and with risk of further spread. The infection has had drastic impact on global trade and stock markets. The Malaysian authorities realised the need to ensure availability of health resources and facilities in the country so that the healthcare professionals could treat serious cases on priority basis. Steps have been taken to ensure that health facilities are not overwhelmed with cases and do not become the source of virus spread to other healthcare staff and patients.

Background: Off-label medication usage (OLMU) is prevalent in the treatment of various diseases, including female reproductive health issues (FRHIs). However, there is a paucity of literature on the perspective of health professionals on this subject. The purpose of the current study was to assess gynecologists/obstetricians' knowledge, attitude and practice toward OLMU in the treatment of FRHIs.Methods: The current cross-sectional study was conducted in September and October 2021, at five tertiary care hospitals (two public and three private sector), different clinics and maternity homes in a metropolitan city of Karachi, Pakistan. The target population was gynecologists, obstetricians and physicians/residents working in the ob/gyn department in various hospitals and clinical settings of Karachi.Results: The overall response rate was 77.1%. The mean age of the study respondents was 36.1 ± 7.7 years; n = 85 (55.9%) respondents were working in primary patient care. The majorly reported OLMU by the respondents were clomiphene citrate in unexplained infertility (n = 66; 43.4%), metformin to improve cycle regularity in females with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) (n = 59; 38.8%) and letrozole to induce ovulation (n = 31; 20.4%). The majorly stated categories of OLMU were at a different dose (n = 95; 62.5%) and at different indications than approved to treat (n = 89; 58.5%). It was reported by the majority of the respondents (n = 95; 62.5%) that they do not follow any guidelines or regulations for OLMU in their work setting; however, the response was statistically varied with the working organization (CI 2.14–2.93; p = 0.037) and practice area (CI 2.85–4.32; p = 0.0001) of respondents.Conclusions: The present study revealed that the respondents were well-familiar with the practice of OLMU in the treatment of FRHIs. They expressed their concerns about decreasing such practices by being involved in collective decision-making procedures, and they were inclined to accept initiatives aimed at ensuring drug safety in patients.