A major earthquake in Bam, Iran, which occurred on 26th of December,2003, claimed more than 26,000 deaths and most of the medical facilities were destroyed or left inoperative.
Although many relief organizations left Bam after the initial stage of the disaster, the necessity of medical support continued with the condition of many victims still desperate. Therefore, medical assistance was provided by HuMA in the recovery phase, and four prefabricated buildings were donated to an Urban Health Center (UHC) for use as a clinic. Essential medical equipment was provided to emergency centers in Bam. In addition, surveillance study was conducted to investigate how environmental health conditions could be improved and effective assistance be given during the recovery phase of the disaster. From monitoring of onsite disaster relief in Bam, it is concluded that the donor agencies should make efforts to continue their activities not only in the acute phase but also in sub-acute and recovery phase and if necessary to cooperate among different agencies according to their capability. Furthermore, it is suggested that close cooperation between NGOs and government agencies would lead to much faster and much more effective disaster relief for victims.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has been considered as an independent risk factor for arteriosclerotic diseases. With an anticipation that Lp(a) would also serve as a risk factor for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), we analyzed serum and tissue Lp(a) levels of patients with AAA in relation to those in healthy individuals. Serum Lp(a) levels were significantly higher in the AAA group (53.2±60.8mg/dl) than in the healthy controls (14.6±13.6mg/d) (p<0.001). The Lp(a) level in the aneurysmal wall of patients with AAA was 49.8±38.2ng/mg. There was a significant correlation between serum and aneurysmal wall Lp(a) levels in AAA patients (r²=0.79, p<0.01). Immunohistochemical examination revealed Lp(a) in the extracellular matrix of the middle layer of the tunica intima, but not in the tunica media or externa.

Objective: We evaluated patients’ degree of understanding of the effects and adverse drug reactions of SGLT2 inhibitors.Methods: We targeted 26 patients who were administered SGLT2 inhibitors during hospitalizations between April 2017 and March 2018. The survey was conducted by interviewing the patients using a questionnaire.Results: In total, 14 patients (53. 8%) were able to explain the term “efficacy.” Although 6 patients (23. 1%) understood “dehydration,” there was little understanding of “urinary tract infection” (7.7%) and “rash/erythema” (2 and 0 patients, respectively). In addition, we confirmed the details of the descriptions of adverse reactions caused by SGLT2 inhibitors with pharmacists, and found that 13 patients (50.0%) clearly received an explanation of “dehydration,” only 3 patients received an explanation of “urinary tract infection” (11.5%), and none of them comprehended “rash/erythema.” Overall, the patients’ awareness of the adverse drug reactions of SGLT2 inhibitors was low.Conclusion: Unlike common drugs for diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have been attracting attention as protective agents of the heart and kidneys. Therefore, it is expected that prescriptions for SGLT2 will increase in the future. Pharmacists need to explain the effects and adverse drug reactions of SGLT2 inhibitors to the patients as well as make the patients understand the pharmacological mechanisms of action of SGLT2 inhibitors.