Clinical pharmacy services (CPS) are essential for individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not only to reduce morbidity and mortality but also to alleviate the economic burden. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the impact of CPS on adult patients with CKD. This review examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013 and 2023, sourced from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was employed to assess the quality of these studies. Five studies involving 2,738 patients with CKD at various stages indicated that CPS roles encompassed medication review, patient education, and collaboration with physicians. Furthermore, CPS facilitated improved medication reconciliation, safety, and quality of life (QoL). Clinical outcomes varied across studies; some reported improvements in interdialytic weight gain, blood pressure control, and hemoglobin levels, whereas others showed no significant difference in blood pressure management. The inconsistent results across studies highlight the need for additional research to enhance these interventions and assess their long-term effects on CKD management. However, the potential of CPS to reduce expenses in CKD management is a promising aspect that cannot be overlooked.
Following the success of our first therapeutic discovery conference in 2017 and the selection of King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC) as the first Phase 1 clinical site in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we organized our second conference in partnership with leading institutions in academic drug discovery, which included the Structural Genomic Constorium (Oxford, UK), Fraunhofer (Germany) and Institute Material Medica (China) ; the participation of members of the American Drug Discovery Consterium ; European Biotech companies ; and local pharma companies, SIPMACO and SudairPharma. In addition, we had European and Northern American venture capital experts attending and presenting at the conference. The purpose of the conference was to bridge the gap between biotech, pharma and academia regarding drug discovery and development. Its aim primarily was to: (a) bring together world experts on academic drug discovery to discuss and propose new approaches to discover and develop new therapies ; (b) establish a permanent platform for scientific exchange between academia and the biotech and pharmaceutical industries ; (c) entice national and international investors to consider funding drugs discovered in academia ; (d) educate the population about the causes of diseases, approaches to prevent them from happening and their cure ; (e) attract talent to consider the drug discovery track for their studies and career. During the conference, we discussed the unique academic drug discovery disrupting business models, which can make their discoveries easily accessible in an open source mode. This unique model accelerates the dissemination of knowledge to all world scientists to guide them in their research. This model is aimed at bringing effective and affordable medicine to all mankind in a very short time. Moreover, the program discussed rare disease targets, orphan drug discovery, immunotherapy discovery and process, the role of bioinformatics in drug discovery, anti-infective drug discovery in the era of bad bugs, natural products as a source of novel drugs and innovative drug formulation and delivery. Additionally, as the conference was organized during the surge of the epidemic, we dedicated the first day (25 February) to coronavirus science, detection and therapy. The day was co-organized with the King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(KSA) Ministry of Education to announce the grant winner for infectious diseases. Simultaneously, intensive courses were delivered to junior scientists on the principle of drug discovery, immunology and clinical trials, as well as rare diseases. The second therapeutics discovery forum provided a platform for interactive knowledge sharing and the convergence of researchers, governments, pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, hospitals and non-profit organizations on the topic of academic drug discovery. The event presented showcases on global drug discovery initiatives and demonstrated how collaborations are leading to successful new therapies. In line with the KSA 2030 vision on becoming world leaders with an innovative economy and healthy population, therapeutic discovery is becoming an area of interest to science leaders in the kingdom, and our conference gave us the opportunity to identity key areas of interest as well as potential future collaborations.
Following the success of our first therapeutic discovery conference in 2017 and the selection of King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC) as the first Phase 1 clinical site in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we organized our second conference in partnership with leading institutions in academic drug discovery, which included the Structural Genomic Constorium (Oxford, UK), Fraunhofer (Germany) and Institute Material Medica (China); the participation of members of the American Drug Discovery Consterium; European Biotech companies; and local pharma companies, SIPMACO and SudairPharma. In addition, we had European and Northern American venture capital experts attending and presenting at the conference. The purpose of the conference was to bridge the gap between biotech, pharma and academia regarding drug discovery and development. Its aim primarily was to: (a) bring together world experts on academic drug discovery to discuss and propose new approaches to discover and develop new therapies; (b) establish a permanent platform for scientific exchange between academia and the biotech and pharmaceutical industries; (c) entice national and international investors to consider funding drugs discovered in academia; (d) educate the population about the causes of diseases, approaches to prevent them from happening and their cure; (e) attract talent to consider the drug discovery track for their studies and career. During the conference, we discussed the unique academic drug discovery disrupting business models, which can make their discoveries easily accessible in an open source mode. This unique model accelerates the dissemination of knowledge to all world scientists to guide them in their research. This model is aimed at bringing effective and affordable medicine to all mankind in a very short time. Moreover, the program discussed rare disease targets, orphan drug discovery, immunotherapy discovery and process, the role of bioinformatics in drug discovery, anti-infective drug discovery in the era of bad bugs, natural products as a source of novel drugs and innovative drug formulation and delivery. Additionally, as the conference was organized during the surge of the epidemic, we dedicated the first day (25 February) to coronavirus science, detection and therapy. The day was co-organized with the King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(KSA) Ministry of Education to announce the grant winner for infectious diseases. Simultaneously, intensive courses were delivered to junior scientists on the principle of drug discovery, immunology and clinical trials, as well as rare diseases. The second therapeutics discovery forum provided a platform for interactive knowledge sharing and the convergence of researchers, governments, pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, hospitals and non-profit organizations on the topic of academic drug discovery. The event presented showcases on global drug discovery initiatives and demonstrated how collaborations are leading to successful new therapies. In line with the KSA 2030 vision on becoming world leaders with an innovative economy and healthy population, therapeutic discovery is becoming an area of interest to science leaders in the kingdom, and our conference gave us the opportunity to identity key areas of interest as well as potential future collaborations. ; This research was funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC), grant number RC15/163.
One of the grand challenges discussed during the Dagstuhl Seminar "Knowledge Graphs: New Directions for Knowledge Representation on the Semantic Web" and described in its report is that of a: "Public FAIR Knowledge Graph of Everything: We increasingly see the creation of knowledge graphs that capture information about the entirety of a class of entities. [.] This grand challenge extends this further by asking if we can create a knowledge graph of "everything" ranging from common sense concepts to location based entities. This knowledge graph should be "open to the public" in a FAIR manner democratizing this mass amount of knowledge." Although linked open data (LOD) is one knowledge graph, it is the closest realisation (and probably the only one) to a public FAIR Knowledge Graph (KG) of everything. Surely, LOD provides a unique testbed for experimenting and evaluating research hypotheses on open and FAIR KG. One of the most neglected FAIR issues about KGs is their ongoing evolution and long term preservation. We want to investigate this problem, that is to understand what preserving and supporting the evolution of KGs means and how these problems can be addressed. Clearly, the problem can be approached from different perspectives and may require the development of different approaches, including new theories, ontologies, metrics, strategies, procedures, etc. This document reports a collaborative effort performed by 9 teams of students, each guided by a senior researcher as their mentor, attending the International Semantic Web Research School (ISWS 2019). Each team provides a different perspective to the problem of knowledge graph evolution substantiated by a set of research questions as the main subject of their investigation. In addition, they provide their working definition for KG preservation and ...
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
