Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

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 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.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.