Background: As the COVID-19 Delta variant has spread across the globe, healthcare workers’ (HCWs) knowledge, worries, and vaccine booster acceptance should be assessed. Methods: Online questionnaires aimed at HCWs in Saudi Arabia were distributed between 9 and 12 August 2021, aiming to evaluate HCWs’ perceptions and worries about the Delta variant as well as their feelings about receiving a booster-vaccine. Results: A total of 1279 HCWs participated, with 51.1% being physicians and 41.7% nurses. 92.5% were aware of the emergence of the Delta variant. Still, only 28.7% were found to have sufficient knowledge of the variant, and their level of worry about it was higher than their level of worry about the Alpha variant (2.32/5 versus 1.79/5). The main information sources cited by the participants were social media (50.5%), while 30.5% used scientific journals. Overall, 55.3% were willing to receive a vaccine booster, while one third would have preferred to receive a new mRNA vaccine specifically developed for the Delta variant. Factors associated with vaccine booster acceptance were receiving both vaccination doses (p = 0.008), believing that the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine is effective against variants (p < 0.001), and agreement that mixing/matching vaccines is effective against variants (p < 0.001). Conclusions: A high percentage of HCWs were aware of the Delta variant, but only a small fraction had decent quality of knowledge about it. The participants exhibited high worry levels and showed a modest acceptance of receiving a vaccine booster dose. These results should encourage public health officials to scale up educational efforts to disseminate reliable information about the different variants and provide recommendations about receiving a vaccine booster. Further research on methods to alleviate HCWs’ worries about emerging variants is warranted.

There is very little published data assessing hospital pharmacy practice in Saudi Arabia. Hence, a comprehensive survey has been undertaken to evaluate hospital pharmacy services of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Recently, we published the survey results on the prescribing and transcribing steps of the medication use process. This paper focuses on dispensing and administration. A modified-American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) survey questionnaire was personally delivered to the pharmacy directors of 48 hospitals in the Riyadh region. Three attempted follow-ups were made within 3 months to non-responders and the surveys were collected upon completion. The survey was conducted using similar methods to those of the ASHP surveys. Twenty-nine hospitals participated in the survey with a response rate of 60.4%. Centralized distribution (74%) is the most commonly used model for inpatient pharmacies. Overall, 21% of hospitals routinely use bar coding technology in medication dispensing. None of the hospitals are using a robotic distribution system to automate the dispensing of unit doses. Automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) are used by 21% of hospitals as part of their decentralized distribution model. Sixty-one percent of hospital pharmacies have IV admixture preparation area in their facility. In the use of safety technology for medication administration, only one third of hospitals are using electronic medication administration records (eMARs), 7.4% had bar-code-assisted medication administration (BCMA) and 12% had smart infusion pumps. Hospital pharmacies in the Riyadh region are fairly well developed in providing dispensing and administration services. Further improvement can be achieved by increasing the use of new technologies such as bar-code technology, unit dose drug distribution systems, pharmacy-based IV admixture services, smart infusion pumps, and automated medication distribution.

Purpose Results of a performance evaluation of an automated system for compounding antineoplastic preparations are reported. Methods Three years after the pharmacy department of a hospital in Saudi Arabia installed an i.v.-compounding robot (CytoCare, Health Robotics), data captured by the pharmacy information system and the machine’s integrated software were analyzed to assess the performance of the robot in terms of compounding accuracy, days of operation, and downtime. Results The robot was used to prepare 3.82%, 10.80%, and 13.79% of selected antineoplastics compounded in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. The robot failed to meet the specified dose accuracy range of ±5% in compounding 3 of 337 chemotherapy preparations (0.9%) in 2010, 349 of 1516 preparations (23%) in 2011, and 460 of 2993 preparations (15%) in 2012. The robot was operational on 40%, 39%, and 61% of available workdays in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. Robot throughput relative to the pharmacy’s manual compounding process was low, with substantial medication waste resulting from dose preparation failures. Implementation challenges included workflow disruptions due to robot downtime, mechanical issues (e.g., robot arm-clamping failures), difficulty obtaining gravimetric data for some drugs, and the need to recalibrate the device to accept i.v. bags, syringes, and medication vials incompatible with manufacturer specifications. Conclusion The introduction of a chemotherapy-compounding robot for preparation of patient-specific i.v. antineoplastic drugs had a limited efficiency impact in practice. This solution, with its numerous limitations and technical difficulties, is not yet mature enough for universal adoption.

Background: The purpose of this national survey is to evaluate hospital pharmacy practice in the Riyadh region of Saudi Arabia. The results of the survey pertaining to the monitoring and patient education of the medication use process were presented. Methods: We have invited pharmacy directors from all 48 hospitals in the Riyadh region to participate in a modified-American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) survey questionnaire. The survey was conducted using similar methods to those of the ASHP surveys. Results: The response rate was 60.4% (29/48). Most hospitals (23, 79%) had pharmacists regularly monitor medication therapy for patients. Of these hospitals, 61% had pharmacists monitoring medication therapy daily for less than 26% of patients, 17% monitored 26–50% of patients and 22% monitored more than half of patients daily. In 41% of hospitals, pharmacists routinely monitored serum medication concentrations or their surrogate markers; 27% gave pharmacists the authority to order initial serum medication concentrations, and 40% allowed pharmacists to adjust dosages. Pharmacists routinely documented their medication therapy monitoring activities in 52% of hospitals. Overall, 74% of hospitals had an adverse drug event (ADE) reporting system, 59% had a multidisciplinary committee responsible for reviewing ADEs, and 63% had a medication safety committee. Complete electronic medical record (EMR) systems were available in 15% of hospitals and 81% had a partial EMR system. The primary responsibility for performing patient medication education lays with nursing (37%), pharmacy (37%), or was a shared responsibility (26%). In 44% of hospitals, pharmacists provided medication education to half or more inpatients and in a third of hospitals, pharmacists gave medication education to 26% or more of patients at discharge. Conclusion: Hospital pharmacists in the Riyadh region are actively engaged in monitoring medication therapy and providing patient medication education, although there is considerable opportunity for further involvement.

Background and aims: The Middle East (ME) has a high prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), driven by obesity and type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Studies in Saudi Arabia (KSA) and United Arab Emirates (UAE) predict an escalating impact of NAFLD/NASH, particularly advanced fibrosis due to NASH (AF-NASH), increasing cases of cirrhosis, liver cancer and death. The scale of this burden in other ME countries is unknown with no reports of NAFLD/NASH healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) or costs. We estimated the clinical and economic burden of NAFLD/NASH in KSA, UAE and Kuwait. Methods: Markov models populated with country-specific obesity and T2DM prevalence data estimated numbers and progression of NAFLD/NASH patients from 2018 to 2030. Model inputs, assumptions and outputs were collected from literature, national statistics, and expert consensus. Results: Over 13 years, the KSA model estimated cases increasing as follows: patients with fibrosis F0–3 doubled to 2.5 m, compensated and decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma trebled to 212,000; liver failure or transplant patients increased four-fold to 4,086 and liver-related death escalated from < 10,000 to > 200,000. Similar trends occurred in UAE and Kuwait. Discounted lifetime costs of NASH standard-care increased totaling USD40.41 bn, 1.59 bn and 6.36 bn in KSA, UAE (Emiratis only) and Kuwait, respectively. NASH-related costs in 2019 comprised, respectively, 5.83%, 5.80% and 7.66% of national healthcare spending. Conclusions: NASH, especially AF-NASH, should be considered a higher priority in ME Public Health policy. Our analyses should inform health policy makers to mitigate the enormity of this escalating regional burden.