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.

Background/Aims: H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been used to treat gastritis by inhibiting gastric acid. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are more potent acid suppressants than H2RA.However, the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis remain unclear. The aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis. Methods: A double-blind, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 476 patients with endoscopic erosive gastritis to a group using esomeprazole 10 mg (DW1903) daily and a group using famotidine 20 mg (DW1903R1) daily for 2 weeks. The full-analysis set included 319 patients (DW1903, n=159; DW1903R1, n=160) and the per-protocol set included 298 patients (DW1903, n=147; DW1903R1, n=151). The primary endpoint (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoint (erosion and edema cure rates, improvement rates of hemorrhage, erythema, and symptoms) were assessed after the treatment. Adverse events were compared. Results: According to the full-analysis set, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 59.8% and 58.8%, respectively. According to the per-protocol analysis, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 61.9% and 59.6%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were not significantly different between two groups except that the hemorrhagic improvement rate was higher in DW1903 with statistical tendency. The number of adverse events were not statistically different. Conclusions DW1903 of a low-dose PPI was not inferior to DW1903R1 of H2RA. Thus, lowdose PPI can be a novel option for treating gastritis (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05163756).

Objective: The Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease–Cognition (SCOPA-Cog) was developed to assess cognition in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the SCOPACog (K-SCOPA-Cog). Methods: We enrolled 129 PD patients with movement disorders from 31 clinics in South Korea. The original version of the SCOPA-Cog was translated into Korean using the translation-retranslation method. The test–retest method with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were used to assess reliability. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Korean version (MOCA-K) and the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) were used to assess concurrent validity. Results: The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.797, and the ICC was 0.887. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation with the K-MMSE and MOCA-K scores (r = 0.546 and r = 0.683, respectively). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that the K-SCOPA-Cog has good reliability and validity.

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 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.

Background and Objectives: Globus pharyngeus is one of the most common symptoms of patients visiting otorhinolaryngology out-patient clinic, and usually long-lasting, difficult to treat, and frequently recurrent. Mucomyst®, N-acetyl cysteine is an inhalation agent mainly used for mucolysis and reducing inflammation in airway via antioxidative effect. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of inhaled Mucomyst® treatment in patients with globus pharyngeus refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI).Materials and Method We prospectively evaluated the efficacy of Mucomyst® in relieving symptoms of globus pharyngeus refractory to PPI in nine medical centers. Three hundred and three patients enrolled and finally 229 patients finished the inhaled Mucomyst® therapy for 8 weeks. We analyzed the change of Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for globus, and Globus Pharyngeus Symptom Scale (GPS) after use of Mucomyst® for 4 and 8 weeks. Results: The GPS, RSI, RFS, and VAS score significantly decreased serially in patients who finished 8 week-inhalation treatment. The GPS improvement gap was significantly correlated with initial GPS (p<0.001) in multiple regression analysis. Conclusion Inhaled Mucomyst® therapy was effective for the reduction of both subjective and objective findings in refractory globus patients. This study might suggest new treatment option for patients with globus. However, further thorough studies would be needed to assess the real effect of inhaled Mucomyst® treatment as a standard treatment for globus.

Background: The OptiscopeTM and the backward, upward, rightward pressure (BURP) maneuver are widely used in clinical practice because the BURP maneuver facilitates intubation by improving visualization of the larynx. However, the effect of the BURP maneuver is unclear when using the OptiscopeTM. Therefore, we retrospectively investigated the effect of the BURP maneuver on intubation using the OptiscopeTM. Methods: Sixty-eight patients intubated with the OptiscopeTM were enrolled. We used the BURP maneuver in Group A (n = 33) and the conventional maneuver (which does not use the BURP maneuver) in Group B (n = 35). BURP application status was a binary variable representing whether the BURP maneuver was used during the intubation. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess the effects of the BURP application status on intubation time controlling for body mass index, preoperative dental injury status, obstructive sleep apnea history, thyromental distance, sternomental distance (SMD), interincisor distance, history of neck rotation restriction, and Mallampati classification. Results: There was no difference in the intubation time between the two groups. According to the regression model (R2 = 0.308, P = 0.007), the BURP maneuver (Group A) decreased the intubation time by 6.089 seconds (95% confidence interval 1.303–10.875, P = 0.014) compared to Group B. Conclusion The BURP maneuver reduced intubation time when using the OptiscopeTM.