Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an extraordinary strain on healthcare systems worldwide, underscoring the need for evidence-based pharmacotherapy and rational use of medicines. Despite the availability of international and national treatment guidelines, notable variations in drug selection and utilization persist across healthcare institutions. Evaluating medication use according to clinical severity is vital for ensuring therapeutic rationality, improving patient outcomes, and optimizing pharmaceutical resource management. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess medication use and associated costs among inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the Mongolia–Japan Hospital of MNUMS and the National Center for Communicable Diseases through ABC analysis Materials and Methods: : A retrospective, document-based study was conducted at the Mongolia-Japan Hospital (MJH) and the National Center for Communicable Diseases (NCCD) in Ulaanbaatar. Medical and pharmacy records of 1,012 inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 18 and December 31, 2021, were reviewed. Drug utilization was assessed using the ABC analysis method, classifying medicines based on their proportional contribution to total pharmaceutical expenditure. Comparative analyses were performed to identify differences in utilization patterns between hospitals and across clinical severity levels. Results: Of the total pharmaceutical expenditure for COVID-19 treatment, six medicines (4.5% of all drugs) were categorized as Class A, accounting for 69.7% of total costs. Class B included seven medicines (7.0%, 19.5% of total costs), while Class C comprised twenty-six medicines (88.6%, 10.6% of total costs). Remdesivir 100 mg injection, a Class A drug, represented 18.5% of total drug expenditure at MJH (used in 78 patients) and 36.2% at NCCD (used in 133 patients). Overall, approximately 70% of total expenditure was concentrated in a small number of high-cost medicines, indicating potential inefficiencies in pharmaceutical resource utilization. Conclusion This study demonstrates that a limited number of high-cost medicines, particularly Remdesivir, accounted for the majority of COVID-19 treatment expenditures. Strengthening evidence-based prescribing, rational selection, and monitoring of high-cost drugs is essential to enhance resource efficiency, ensure equitable access, and sustain hospital pharmaceutical care systems during pandemic response and beyond.

Introduction: Intraocular lens (IOL) implants are monofocal and trifocal lenses which helps to clear up the vision after cataract surgery. Goal: In this work, we aimed to compare the monofocal and trifocal IOL implantation during phacoemulsification surgery. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 133 participants. Females comprised n=81, mean n=52 into equal groups. Preoperative and Postoperative cataract surgery UCVA and BCVA were measured and compared during the after 1 day, week 1, 2 weeks and month1. Statistical analysis: The results of the study were processed using the SPSS 25.0 program after coding the data and checking for typographical errors. The normality of the data distribution was tested by inspecting a histogram. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher's test. Statistical significance was determined at a p-value lower than 0.05 Ethical statement: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences (No.2021/05/21). All patients provided written informed consent before participating in this study. Results: The mean preoperative UCVA was 1.09±0.45D in monofocal IOL group, 0.99±0.49D in trifocal IOL group. At the first week: The mean postoperative UCVA at one week was 0.34±0.29D and 0.27±0.17D, in each group respectively. The mean postoperative BCVA in the first week was 0.28±0.27D and 0.20±0.15D in each group respectively. The mean postoperative UCVA at 1 month was 0.27±0.24D and 0.15±0.16D in each group, while BCVA was 0.26±24.94D and 0.06±0.63D.There was a highly significant statistical difference between the result of UCVA preoperative and the results of UCVA at the early and last postoperative follow up. Conclusion From our results, the best corrected visual acuity and was better for Trifocal group than Monofocal group. It is evident that post-operative near UCVA and BCVA was statistically significant at monofocal and trifocal groups.