Background: This study sought to research the implementation of pharmaceutical care services and review the pharmaceutical care services used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: All articles reporting pharmacists’ implementation of pharmaceutical care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were comprehensively searched in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up toJuly 7, 2021, then included in this study. Twenty-four items of pharmaceutical care services were classified into the following 5categories: patient evaluation and monitoring, clinical decision support, compounding/dispensing/administration, patient consultation and education, and drug-related policy research and development. Results: A total of 674 articles from 100 countrieswere included, with the United States of America being the most frequently studied country. Across the 5 classified categories,compounding/dispensing/administration was most frequently examined (28.9%), followed by patient consultation and education (25.2%). Among the 24 items of pharmaceutical care services, medicine supply management was most frequently reported on (11.4%), followed by patient consultations (11.0%). The primary implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination were public health education, COVID-19 testing services, medicine supply management, and vaccination, respectively. Conclusion Pharmacists have implemented diverse pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination globally. Further studies should be conducted to determine the correlation between the characteristics of healthcare accessibility in a country and the implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19.

Background: This study sought to research the implementation of pharmaceutical care services and review the pharmaceutical care services used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: All articles reporting pharmacists’ implementation of pharmaceutical care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were comprehensively searched in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up toJuly 7, 2021, then included in this study. Twenty-four items of pharmaceutical care services were classified into the following 5categories: patient evaluation and monitoring, clinical decision support, compounding/dispensing/administration, patient consultation and education, and drug-related policy research and development. Results: A total of 674 articles from 100 countrieswere included, with the United States of America being the most frequently studied country. Across the 5 classified categories,compounding/dispensing/administration was most frequently examined (28.9%), followed by patient consultation and education (25.2%). Among the 24 items of pharmaceutical care services, medicine supply management was most frequently reported on (11.4%), followed by patient consultations (11.0%). The primary implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination were public health education, COVID-19 testing services, medicine supply management, and vaccination, respectively. Conclusion Pharmacists have implemented diverse pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination globally. Further studies should be conducted to determine the correlation between the characteristics of healthcare accessibility in a country and the implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19.

Purpose: The regions where patients diagnosed with prostate cancer by biopsy receive prostatectomy are divided into national hub and regional hubs, and to confirm the change in the role of regional hubs compared to national hub. Materials and Methods: Data from July 2013 to June 2017 encompassing 218,155 patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with prostate cancer were analyzed using the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. The degree of patient outflow was assessed by dividing the regional diagnosis-to-surgery ratio with the national ratio for each year. Based on this ratio, national and regional hubs were determined. Results: Seoul consistently maintained a patient influx with a ratio above 1.6. Busan and Gyeonggi consistently exceeded 0.9, while Ulsan and Daegu steadily increased, exceeding 1.0 between 2015 and 2016. Jeonnam province also consistently maintained the ratio above 0.7. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon remained below 0.5, indicative of substantial patient outflows, whereas Gwangju and Gyeongbuk had the highest patient outflows with ratios below 0.15. Therefore, Seoul was designated as a national hub, whereas Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam were classified as regional hubs. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon were the dominant outflow areas, while Gwangju and Gyeongbuk were the highest outflow areas. Conclusions Seoul, as the national hub for prostate cancer surgery, operated on 1.76 times more patients than any other region during 2013–2017. Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam functioned as regional hubs, but approximately 10%–20% of patients sought treatment at national hubs.

Background: This study sought to research the implementation of pharmaceutical care services and review the pharmaceutical care services used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: All articles reporting pharmacists’ implementation of pharmaceutical care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were comprehensively searched in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up toJuly 7, 2021, then included in this study. Twenty-four items of pharmaceutical care services were classified into the following 5categories: patient evaluation and monitoring, clinical decision support, compounding/dispensing/administration, patient consultation and education, and drug-related policy research and development. Results: A total of 674 articles from 100 countrieswere included, with the United States of America being the most frequently studied country. Across the 5 classified categories,compounding/dispensing/administration was most frequently examined (28.9%), followed by patient consultation and education (25.2%). Among the 24 items of pharmaceutical care services, medicine supply management was most frequently reported on (11.4%), followed by patient consultations (11.0%). The primary implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination were public health education, COVID-19 testing services, medicine supply management, and vaccination, respectively. Conclusion Pharmacists have implemented diverse pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination globally. Further studies should be conducted to determine the correlation between the characteristics of healthcare accessibility in a country and the implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19.

Background: This study sought to research the implementation of pharmaceutical care services and review the pharmaceutical care services used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: All articles reporting pharmacists’ implementation of pharmaceutical care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were comprehensively searched in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up toJuly 7, 2021, then included in this study. Twenty-four items of pharmaceutical care services were classified into the following 5categories: patient evaluation and monitoring, clinical decision support, compounding/dispensing/administration, patient consultation and education, and drug-related policy research and development. Results: A total of 674 articles from 100 countrieswere included, with the United States of America being the most frequently studied country. Across the 5 classified categories,compounding/dispensing/administration was most frequently examined (28.9%), followed by patient consultation and education (25.2%). Among the 24 items of pharmaceutical care services, medicine supply management was most frequently reported on (11.4%), followed by patient consultations (11.0%). The primary implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination were public health education, COVID-19 testing services, medicine supply management, and vaccination, respectively. Conclusion Pharmacists have implemented diverse pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and vaccination globally. Further studies should be conducted to determine the correlation between the characteristics of healthcare accessibility in a country and the implemented pharmaceutical care services for COVID-19.

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and cardiovascular safety of romosozumab compared with placebo. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science until July 2022. Primary outcomes included the change in bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline at month 6. The secondary outcomes were the change of bone turnover markers (N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (P1NP); C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX)) from baseline at month 3, and the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events for the total follow-up period. Results: A total of 7 RCTs on 8,370patients were included. Romosozumab showed better effects in improving BMD in both lumbar spine and femoral neck at month 6 (standardized mean difference, SMD 2.20 [95% CI: 1.89-2.52], SMD 0.63 [95% CI: 0.41-0.86]). In contrast to placebo, romosozumab significantly increased PINP levels and reduced CTX levels at month 3 (SMD 0.93 [95% CI: 0.65-1.22], SMD −1.03 [95% CI: −1.23~ −0.82]. However, there was no significant difference in the composite incidence of cardiovascular adverse events and major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 1.16 [95% CI: 0.82-1.65], OR 1.08 [95% CI: 0.75-1.56]). Conclusion This analysis showed that romosozumab significantly improved BMD compared to placebo and was beneficial for change in bone turnover markers. There is no significant difference in the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events compared to placebo.

Purpose: Tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) is a promising cancer therapeutic agent because of its tumor selectivity and its ability to induce apoptosis in cancer cells while sparing most normal cells. We evaluated whether docetaxel enhances TRAIL-mediated apoptosis in prostate cancer (PCa) cells and its mechanism. Materials and Methods: LNCap-LN3, PC3, and DU 145 PCa cell lines were used to investigate the effects of TRAIL with docetaxel treatment (dosages, 1, 3, 5, and 10 nmol). To evaluate the mechanism, death receptor 4 (DR4), DR5, enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) and E2F1 levels were assessed in PCa cells. Results: Hormone-sensitive LNCap-LN3 showed apoptosis in proportion to the concentration of docetaxel. Castration-resistant PC3 and DU 145 showed no change irrespective of the docetaxel concentration. However, combinations of docetaxel (2 nM) and TRAIL (100 ng/mL) had a significant effect on apoptosis of DU 145 cells. In DU 145 cells, docetaxel reduced EZH2 and elevated expression of DR4. The decrease of EZH2 by docetaxel was correlated with the E2F1 level, which was considered as the promoter of EZH2. DZNep reduced EZH2 and elevated DR4 in all PCa cells. Additionally, DZNep-enhanced TRAIL mediated reduction of PCa cell viability. Conclusions Docetaxel and the EZH2 inhibitor reduced EZH2 and elevated expression of DR4 in all PCa cell lines. Docetaxel-enhanced TRAIL mediated apoptosis in PCa via elevation of DR4 through epigenetic regulation by EZH2. To improve the efficacy of TRAIL for PCa treatment, adding docetaxel or EZH2 inhibitors to TRAIL may be promising.

No Abstract

Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGLs) are rare catecholamine-secreting neuroendocrine tumors but can be life-threatening. Although most PPGLs are benign, approximately 10% have metastatic potential. Approximately 40% cases are reported as harboring germline mutations. Therefore, timely and accurate diagnosis of PPGLs is crucial. For more than 130 years, clinical, molecular, biochemical, radiological, and pathological investigations have been rapidly advanced in the field of PPGLs. However, performing diagnostic studies to localize lesions and detect metastatic potential can be still challenging and complicated. Furthermore, great progress on genetics has shifted the paradigm of genetic testing of PPGLs. The Korean PPGL task force team consisting of the Korean Endocrine Society, the Korean Surgical Society, the Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine, the Korean Society of Pathologists, and the Korean Society of Laboratory Medicine has developed this position statement focusing on the comprehensive and updated diagnosis for PPGLs.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.