This study aimed to highlight the COVID-19 response by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Government of Malaysia in order to share Malaysia’s lessons and to improve future pandemic preparedness. The team conducted a rapid review using publicly available information from MOH, PubMed, and World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Research on Coronavirus Disease Database to compile Malaysia’s responses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Measures taken between 31 December 2019 and 3 June 2020 were classified into domains as well as the pillars described in the WHO COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (WHO SPRP). Malaysia’s response incorporated all pillars in the WHO SPRP and consisted of five domains, (i) whole-of-government, (ii) cordon sanitaire/lockdown, (iii) equity of access to services and supports, (iv) quarantine and isolation systems, and (v) legislation and enforcement. Some crucial measures taken were activation of a centralised multi-ministerial coordination council where MOH acted as an advisor, with collaboration from non-government organisations and private sectors which enabled an effective targeted screening approach, provision of subsidised COVID-19 treatment and screening, isolation or quarantine of all confirmed cases, close contacts and persons under investigation, with all strategies applied irrespective of citizenship. This was provided for by way of the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988. A combination of these measures enabled the nation to contain the COVID-19 outbreak by the end of June 2020.

Purpose To identify the cost and reasons of returned parenteral chemotherapy regimens at a tertiary hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Methods Data were retrospectively extracted from all the Chemotherapy Return Forms in 2016, which is a compulsory documentation accompanying each return of parenteral chemotherapy regimen. The following data were extracted: patient’s diagnosis, gender, location of treatment (i.e. ward/daycare clinic), start date of chemotherapy regimen, type of cytotoxic drug returned, dose of cytotoxic drug returned, number of cytotoxic drug preparations returned and reason for return as well as whether the returned cytotoxic drug preparations could be re-dispensed. The cost of wastage was calculated based on the cost per mg (or per unit) of the particular returned cytotoxic drug. Results One hundred and fifty-nine cases of returned chemotherapy regimen comprising of 231 parenteral cytotoxic drug preparations were analysed. The total cost of returned chemotherapy regimen for 2016 was €3632, with €756 (20.8%) worth of chemotherapy regimens returned due to preventable reasons and €2876 (79.2%) worth of chemotherapy regimens returned due to non-preventable reasons. Approximately 50% of cases returned chemotherapy regimen were due to deterioration of patient’s clinical condition and another 24.5% of cases of returned chemotherapy regimen were attributed to adverse drug reactions. Conclusion Wastage associated to non-preventable reasons such as adverse drug reactions and preventable causes like refusal of patients can be further reduced by using newer healthcare innovations and establishment of written institutional protocols or standard operating procedures as references for in-charge healthcare personnel when cytotoxic drug-related issues occur. Adoption of cost-saving strategies that have been proven by studies could further improve current cost containment strategies.

Background Insulin injection technique re-education and diabetes knowledge empowerment has led to improved glycemic control. Objectives To evaluate the impact of pharmacist’s monthly re-education on insulin injection technique (IT), lipohypertrophy, patients’ perception on insulin therapy and its effect on glycaemic control. Methods This randomized controlled, multi-centered study was conducted among type 2 diabetics from 15 government health clinics. 160 diabetics with baseline HbA1 C ≥ 8% and unsatisfactory IT technique were randomized into control or intervention group. Control group received standard pharmacist counselling during initiation and at 4th month. Intervention group received monthly counselling and IT re-education for 4 months. Assessment of diabetes, IT knowledge, adherence and perception towards diabetes were conducted using validated study tools Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS) and Medication Compliance Questionnaire (MCQ)). Results 139 patients completed the study; control group (69), intervention group (70). In control group, all outcomes shown improvement except for patient’s perception. Mean HbA1 C decreased 0.79% ± 0.24 (p = 0.001). In intervention group, all outcomes improved significantly. HbA1c reduces significantly by 1.19% ± 0.10 (p < 0.001). Monthly re-education improved patient’s perception towards insulin therapy (ITAS score reduced 1.44 ± 2.36; p = 0.021). Between groups, interventional arm shown significantly better improvement in all outcomes. Improvement was shown in IT technique (+2.02 score; p < 0.001), medication adherence (+1.48 score; p < 0.001) and ITAS (−1.99 score; p = 0.037). Mean HbA1 C reduced an additional of 0.63% (p = 0.008) compared to control arm. Conclusion Re-education is more effective in increasing adherence, reducing lipohypertrophy, improving injection technique and patient’s perception on insulin therapy, thereby providing better glycaemic control.

Background: Paracetamol/Orphenadrine is a fixed dose combination containing 35 mg orphenadrine and 450 mg paracetamol. It has analgesic and muscle relaxant properties and is widely available as generics. This study is conducted to investigate the relative bioavailability and bioequivalence between one fixed dose paracetamol/ orphenadrine combination test preparation and one fixed dose paracetamol/orphenadrine combination reference preparation in healthy volunteers under fasted condition for marketing authorization in Malaysia. Method: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2-period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. Paracetamol/Orphenadrine tablets were administered after a 10-h fast. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected at scheduled time intervals prior to and up to 72 h after dosing. Blood samples were centrifuged, and separated plasma were kept frozen (− 15°C to − 25°C) until analysis. Plasma concentrations of orphenadrine and paracetamol were quantified using liquid-chromatographytandem mass spectrometer using diphenhydramine as internal standard. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC 0-∞ , AUC 0-t and C max were determined using plasma concentration time profile for both preparations. Bioequivalence was assessed according to the ASEAN guideline acceptance criteria for bioequivalence which is the 90% confidence intervals of AUC 0-∞ , AUC 0-t and C max ratio must be within the range of 80.00-125.00%.