Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the experience of community pharmacies in the management of acute diarrhea in northern Ethiopia. MethOds: A simulated case-based cross-sectional study was conducted in community pharmacies from five towns of northern Ethiopia between April 2015 and September 2015. Convenience sampling technique was used to select sample towns. A structured questionnaire was organized to collect the information. Descriptive statistics, chisquared test, one-way analysis of variance, and binary logistic regression were performed to describe, infer, and test for association between the variables. SPSS for Windows Version 21 was used to enter and analyze the data. A 95% confidence interval and P-value of 0.05 were set to test the level of significance. Results: Approximately 113 community pharmacies were visited to collect the required data from five towns. Majority (78, 69%) of them were located away from hospitals and health care areas. Nine components of history taking were presented for dispensers. Regarding the patient history, "age" was frequently taken, (90.3%), whereas "chief complaint" was the least to be taken (23%), for patients presenting with diarrhea. Approximately 96 (85.0%) cases were provided with one or more medications. The remaining 17 (15%) cases did not receive any medication. A total of six pharmacologic groups of medications were given to alleviate acute diarrheal symptoms. Majority (66, 29.6%) of the medications were oral rehydration salts with zinc. The mean number of medications was 1.99 per visit. Components of advice, such as dose, frequency, duration, drug action, and adverse drug reactions, were found to vary among the five towns at a statistically significant level. cOnclusiOns: Community pharmacies provided inadequate treatment for acute childhood diarrhea. Inappropriate history taking and incorrect drug and food instructions have been frequently encountered during acute diarrhea management. Practitioners working in northern Ethiopia should receive proper training on the management of acute childhood diarrhea.

benchmarks. Secondary analysis across all metrics indicated engaged patients had higher use of preventive services than patients in the all and enrolled for 1 year or more categories, reflecting the desired aims of the R-Health DPC model. Conclusions: This study provides contemporary, real-world evidence on how DPC may serve as a viable model to support prevention goals set by select AHRQ, CDC, and Healthy People 2020 benchmarks.

studies, respectively, was conducted. Methods: A Bayesian ITC was performed on efficacy and safety on the non-gBRCA data from NOVA (niraparib) and gBRCA wild type data from S19 (olaparib). Efficacy analyses compared investigator (INV) and independent review committee (IRC) assessed PFS hazard ratios (HR) and TFST HR. Safety analyses included odds ratios (OR) of any grade ≥ 3 adverse event (AE), AEs leading to dose interruption, reduction, and discontinuation. Results: HRs comparing olaparib and niraparib were 0.94 (95% credible interval 0.54-1.65) for investigator-assessed PFS, and 1.25 (0.67-2.30) for IRC PFS. TFST HR was 0.78 (0.47-1.30). No significant difference in efficacy between PARPi was observed. The corresponding ORs for AE were 0.34 (0.13-0.90), 0.54 (0.16-2.06), 0.16 (0.01-2.18) and 0.21 (0.04-1.21) for any grade ≥ 3 AE, and AE leading to dose interruption, discontinuation, and reduction, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the odds of any grade ≥ 3 AE. No significant difference in AE leading to dose interruption, reduction, and discontinuation. ConClusions: ITC shows no significant difference in efficacy between olaparib capsules and niraparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with non-gBRCAm PSROC following response to chemotherapy. Olaparib shows significantly reduced odds compared with niraparib for any grade ≥ 3 AE. No significant difference was observed in AEs leading to modification in drug administration.