Background/Aims: We investigated the incidences of overall and site-specific malignancies and chemopreventive effects of statin, metformin, and aspirin in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: We collected data using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from January 2007 to April 2020. Results: The overall malignancy risk among the 35,189 ulcerative colitis patients was similar to that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.00). In male patients, standardized incidence ratios were high for thyroid cancer and low for stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer. Concurrently, standard incidence ratios were high for liver cancer and central nervous system cancer in female patients. While 122 cases of colorectal cancer occurred in the study patients, the standardized incidence ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.99). Treatment for ulcerative colitis was not associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities increased it for all malignancies. Treatment for ulcerative colitis was associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities did not increase it for colorectal cancer. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and ulcerative colitis treatment, statins showed a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies (P=0.002), while metformin and aspirin did not show any. Conclusions In ulcerative colitis patients, standardized incidence ratios for all malignancies and colorectal cancer did not increase. Adjusted hazard ratios for all malignancies increased with comorbidities and those for colorectal cancer with ulcerative colitis treatment. Statins have a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies.

Background/Aims: We investigated the incidences of overall and site-specific malignancies and chemopreventive effects of statin, metformin, and aspirin in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: We collected data using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from January 2007 to April 2020. Results: The overall malignancy risk among the 35,189 ulcerative colitis patients was similar to that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.00). In male patients, standardized incidence ratios were high for thyroid cancer and low for stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer. Concurrently, standard incidence ratios were high for liver cancer and central nervous system cancer in female patients. While 122 cases of colorectal cancer occurred in the study patients, the standardized incidence ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.99). Treatment for ulcerative colitis was not associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities increased it for all malignancies. Treatment for ulcerative colitis was associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities did not increase it for colorectal cancer. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and ulcerative colitis treatment, statins showed a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies (P=0.002), while metformin and aspirin did not show any. Conclusions In ulcerative colitis patients, standardized incidence ratios for all malignancies and colorectal cancer did not increase. Adjusted hazard ratios for all malignancies increased with comorbidities and those for colorectal cancer with ulcerative colitis treatment. Statins have a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies.

Background/Aims: We investigated the incidences of overall and site-specific malignancies and chemopreventive effects of statin, metformin, and aspirin in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: We collected data using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from January 2007 to April 2020. Results: The overall malignancy risk among the 35,189 ulcerative colitis patients was similar to that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.00). In male patients, standardized incidence ratios were high for thyroid cancer and low for stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer. Concurrently, standard incidence ratios were high for liver cancer and central nervous system cancer in female patients. While 122 cases of colorectal cancer occurred in the study patients, the standardized incidence ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.99). Treatment for ulcerative colitis was not associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities increased it for all malignancies. Treatment for ulcerative colitis was associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities did not increase it for colorectal cancer. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and ulcerative colitis treatment, statins showed a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies (P=0.002), while metformin and aspirin did not show any. Conclusions In ulcerative colitis patients, standardized incidence ratios for all malignancies and colorectal cancer did not increase. Adjusted hazard ratios for all malignancies increased with comorbidities and those for colorectal cancer with ulcerative colitis treatment. Statins have a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies.

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.

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: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard management for relapsed or high-risk non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). We reported the busulfan, melphalan, and etoposide (BuME) conditioning regimen was effective in patients with relapsed or high-risk NHL. Moreover, the busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (BuCE) conditioning regimen has been used widely in ASCT for NHL. Therefore, based on these encouraging results, this randomized phase II multicenter trial compared the outcomes of BuME and BuCE as conditioning therapies for ASCT in patients with NHL. Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either BuME (n=36) or BuCE (n=39). The BuME regimen was comprised of busulfan (3.2 mg/kg/day, intravenously) administered on days –7, –6, and –5, etoposide (400 mg/m2 intravenously) on days –5 and –4, and melphalan (50 mg/m2/day intravenously) on days –3 and –2. The BuCE regimen was comprised of busulfan (3.2 mg/kg/day intravenously) on days –7, –6, and –5, etoposide (400 mg/m2/day intravenously) on days –5 and –4, and cyclophosphamide (50 mg/kg/day intravenously) on days –3 and –2. The primary endpoint was 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Seventy-five patients were enrolled. Eleven patients (30.5%) in the BuME group and 13 patients (33.3%) in the BuCE group had disease progression or died. The 2-year PFS rate was 65.4% in the BuME group and 60.6% in the BuCE group (p=0.746). There were no non-relapse mortalities within 100 days after transplantation. Conclusion There were no significant differences in PFS between the two groups. Therefore, busulfan-based conditioning regimens, BuME and BuCE, may be important treatment substitutes for the BCNU-containing regimens.

Background: There is insufficient data on the benefits of empiric antibiotic combinations for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP). We aimed to investigate whether empiric antipseudomonal combination therapy with fluoroquinolones decreases mortality in patients with HAP. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted to 16 tertiary and general hospitals in Korea between January 1 and December 31, 2019.Patients with risk factors for combination therapy were divided into anti-pseudomonal non-carbapenem β-lactam monotherapy and fluoroquinolone combination therapy groups.Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce selection bias. Results: In total, 631 patients with HAP were enrolled. Monotherapy was prescribed in 54.7% (n = 345) of the patients, and combination therapy was prescribed in 45.3% (n = 286).There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups (16.8% vs.18.2%, P = 0.729) or even after the PSM (17.5% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.913). After the PSM, adjusted hazard ratio for 30-day mortality from the combination therapy was 1.646 (95% confidence interval, 0.782–3.461; P = 0.189) in the Cox proportional hazards model. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the appropriateness of initial empiric antibiotics between the two groups (55.0% vs. 56.8%, P = 0.898). The proportion of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens was high in both groups. Conclusion Empiric anti-pseudomonal fluoroquinolone combination therapy showed no survival benefit compared to β-lactam monotherapy in patients with HAP. Caution is needed regarding the routine combination of fluoroquinolones in the empiric treatment of HAP patients with a high risk of MDR.

Background/Aims: It remains unclear which maintenance treatment modality is most appropriate for mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).We aimed to compare on-demand treatment with continuous treatment using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the maintenance treatment for patients with non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis. Methods: Patients whose GERD symptoms improved after 4 weeks of standard dose PPI treatment were prospectively enrolled at 25 hospitals.Subsequently, the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either an on-demand or a continuous maintenance treatment group, and followed in an 8-week interval for up to 24 weeks. Results: A total of 304 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous, n = 151 vs on-demand, n = 153). The primary outcome, the overall proportion of unwillingness to continue the assigned maintenance treatment modality, failed to confirm the noninferiority of on-demand treatment (45.9%) compared to continuous treatment (36.1%). Compared with the on-demand group, the GERD symptom and health-related quality of life scores significantly more improved and the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher in the continuous treatment group, particularly at week 8 and week 16 of maintenance treatment. Work impairment scores were not different in the 2 groups, but the prescription cost was less in the on-demand group. Serum gastrin levels significantly elevated in the continuous treatment group, but not in the on-demand group. Conclusions Continuous treatment seems to be more appropriate for the initial maintenance treatment of non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis than on-demand treatment. Stepping down to on-demand treatment needs to be considered after a sufficient period of continuous treatment.