The COVID-19 pandemic imposed dramatic changes on educational practices worldwide. Many universities and schools have moved into the delivery of their courses and educational programs utilizing fully electronic online modes. This study aims to evaluate the pharmacy student distance online learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional survey was utilized where a 3-domain survey questionnaire focused on preparedness, attitude and barriers was distributed to students at the time of conclusion of the semester. Each domain consists of multiple questions that made up a score that reflects their preparedness, attitude as well as barriers relevant to distance online learning experience. The survey was voluntarily, and all data were collected and recorded via google forms with maintaining anonymity. The response rate was about 75% (n = 309). The results’ analysis revealed no gender differences in any of these domains. However, there were some variable responses among different educational levels. The average preparedness score was 32.8 ± 7.2 (Max 45), the average attitude score was 66.8 ± 16.6 (Max 105), and the average barrier score was 43.6 ± 12.0 (Max 75). There was statistical significance difference in both preparedness score and attitude scores between different professional years (P-value <.05). However, there was no difference in barrier scores among all professional years. The results indicated that about 61.4% of the students agreed on that college of pharmacy was well-prepared and ready for the online education during the emerging COVID-19 pandemic with complete transition into online education. The results also indicated that 49.2% of the students showed positive attitude toward the provided online learning. The results indicated that about 34% of the students identify some barriers toward the provided online learning. Finally, there were strong association between the need for training on how to receive online courses and preparedness and barriers scores. E-learning experience pose challenges and presents opportunities during emergency situations. The need for training for students and faculty was highly associated with the preparedness and barriers domains rather than the infrastructure or computer literacy, so the school can improve their experience by addressing these needs.

Background: Inappropriate use of antibiotics is the leading cause of emergence of resistance. It has been estimated that two million people in the United States had infection with resistant bacteria, resulting in 23,000 deaths annually. In Jordan, more than 50% of physicians prescribe antibiotics for inappropriate indication such as common cold, and approximately 67% of adult Jordanians believe that antibiotics should be used for this purpose. It is essential to follow antibiotics prescription guidelines in order to maximize effectiveness and enhance patient safety. Objective: The study aim was to describe patterns of antibiotics prescription and adherence to guidelines of IV to oral antibiotic conversion in elderly patients visiting King Abdullah University Hospital (KAUH). Methods: A retrospective cross sectional study was conducted on hospitalized patients who were prescribed IV antibiotics. Sociodemographic and clinical data in addition to a list of IV prescribed antibiotics was collected by referring to information technology department at KAUH. Patients' eligibility for antibiotic conversion from IV to oral route was then evaluated based on Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America criteria. Results: A total of 110 antibiotics were dispensed for 80 patients, imipenem/cilastatin was the most prescribed antibiotic (41.25%), followed by cephalosporines which were prescribed for 27.5% of the participants. Approximately half of the study patients (47.5%) were prescribed IV antibiotics despite their eligibility for oral conversion. Conclusion: This study shows a shortage in the implementation of guidelines which are important to decrease antibiotic resistance and improving clinical outcomes. The clinical Pharmacist needs to be more involved in antibiotics prescription with the aim of improving effectiveness and decreasing potential antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings.

Medication errors (MEs) are a significant healthcare problem that can harm patients and increase healthcare expenses. Being immunocompromised, liver-transplant patients are at high risk for complications if MEs inflict harmful or damaging effects. The present study reviewed and analyzed all MEs reported in Liver Transplant Patients. All MEs in the Liver Transplant Patients admitted between January 2016 to August 2022 were retrieved through the computerized physician order entry system, which two expert pharmacists classified according to the type and severity risk index. A total of 314 records containing 407 MEs were committed by at least 71 physicians. Most of these errors involved drugs unrelated to managing liver-transplant-related issues. Antibiotic prescriptions had the highest mistake rate (17.0%), whereas immunosuppressants, routinely used in liver transplant patients, rank second with fewer than 14% of the identified MEs. The most often reported MEs (43.2%) are type-C errors, which, despite reaching patients, did not cause patient harm. Subgroup analysis revealed several factors associated with a statistically significant great incidence of MEs among physicians treating liver transplant patients. Although a substantial number of MEs occurred with liver transplant patients, the majority are not related to liver-transplant medications, which mainly belonged to type-C errors. This could be attributed to polypharmacy of transplant patients or the heavy workload on health care practitioners. Improving patient safety requires adopting regulations and strategies to promptly identify MEs and address potential errors.

Background: Hyperuricemia has been linked to various adverse clinical outcomes. Data on the clinical outcomes and the relationship between hyperuricemia and sepsis remain limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of hyperuricemia on clinical outcomes in sepsis patients and to identify whether it can predict the mortality in this patient population. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with sepsis admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023. The patients were divided into hyperuricemia and non-hyperuricemia groups. Hyperuricemia was defined as a serum uric acid level > 416.4 µmol/L (7.0 mg/dL) in males or >357.0 µmol/L (6.0 mg/dL) in females based on the first serum uric acid reading within 24 h of ICU admission. The primary outcome of this study was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, progression to septic shock, and ICU and hospital lengths of stay (LOSs). Results: A total of 599 patients were included in the study. Among these, 303 were in hyperuricemia group, while 296 were in the non-hyperuricemia group. The incidence of ICU and in-hospital mortality was higher in the hyperuricemia group compared to the non-hyperuricemia group (26.7% vs. 18.9% (p < 0.001) and 34.7% vs. 19.3% (p < 0.001), respectively). After adjusting for cofounders, hyperuricemia was not a predictor of ICU mortality (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.95–2.43, p = 0.083). Most secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. However, the hyperuricemia group had a higher incidence of progression to septic shock (67.3% vs. 50.7%, p < 0.001), and hospital LOS was significantly longer in the hyperuricemia group (384 vs. 264 h, p = 0.004). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrated that hyperuricemia in sepsis patients was associated with worse clinical outcomes such as higher ICU and hospital mortality. Moreover, there was a higher incidence of septic shock progression and longer hospital LOS. The other outcomes were not statistically significantly different. Further prospective research is warranted to confirm these findings.

Aim: Albumin role as fluid resuscitation in sepsis remains understudied in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous (IV) Albumin compared to Crystalloids in sepsis patients using patient-level data in Jordan.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of sepsis patients aged 18 or older admitted to intensive care units (ICU) at two major tertiary hospitals during the period 2018-2019. Patients information, type of IV fluid, clinical outcomes, and charges were retrieved from medical records. A 90-day partitioned survival model with two health states (alive and dead) was constructed to estimate the survival of sepsis patients receiving either Albumin or Crystalloids as IV fluids for resuscitation. Overall survival was predicted by fitting a Weibull model on the patient-level data from the current study. To further validate the results, and to support the assessment of uncertainty, time-dependent transition probabilities of death at each cycle were estimated and used to construct a state-transition patient-level simulation model with 10,000 microsimulation trials. Adopting the healthcare system perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) of Albumin versus Crystalloids were calculated in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from the ICU. Uncertainty was explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: In the partitioned survival model, Albumin was associated with an incremental cost of $1,007 per incremental1% in the probability of being discharged alive from the ICU. In the state-transition patient-level simulation model, ICER was $1,268 per incremental 1% in the probability of being discharged alive. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that Albumin was favored at thresholds >$800 per incremental 1%in the probability of being discharged alive from the ICU.Conclusion: IV Albumin use in sepsis patients might not be cost-effective from the healthcare perspective of Jordan. This has important implications for policymakers to readdress Albumin prescribing practice in sepsis patients.

Background: Lipid metabolism disturbances are common in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on hemodialysis (HD), leading to dyslipidemia, which is characterized by abnormal plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Although large randomized controlled trials have generally not demonstrated a survival benefit associated with statin therapy among patients receiving hemodialysis, limited observational studies have reported potential associations with improved clinical outcomes in this population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study investigated the clinical and safety outcomes of statin use in ESRD patients on HD with documented dyslipidemia over a two-year period from 1 January 2018 to 30 December 2019. The primary endpoints evaluated the clinical outcomes of statins by assessing changes in specific lipid parameters, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). The secondary endpoints assessed safety by monitoring liver enzymes and creatine kinase (CK) levels. Results: Among 179 participants, diabetes mellitus was present in 134 patients (74.9%), while 168 patients (93.9%) had hypertension. Cardiovascular events occurred in 95 patients (53.1%). Statin therapy was administered to 146 patients (82.0%), with atorvastatin being the most frequently prescribed statin (69.3%). Modest reductions in LDL-C levels were observed in the rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups, whereas slight increases were noted in the simvastatin and non-statin groups. None of these within-group changes were statistically significant. In the atorvastatin group, LDL-C decreased slightly from 2.058 to 2.003 mmol/L. The rosuvastatin group experienced a more pronounced LDL-C reduction from 2.607 to 2.113 mmol/L. Conversely, the simvastatin group showed an LDL-C increase from 1.550 to 1.901 mmol/L. Among the non-statin group, LDL-C increased from 2.678 to 2.820 mmol/L. Liver enzyme and CK levels fluctuated slightly but remained within normal ranges. Conclusions: This study evaluated statin therapy in hemodialysis patients with dyslipidemia. Although modest reductions in LDL-C levels were observed in the atorvastatin and rosuvastatin groups, statin therapy did not reduce the incidence of atherosclerotic events in hemodialysis patients with dyslipidemia. Additionally, statin use was not associated with any clinically or statistically significant effects.