IntroductionThe first case of novel SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) in Pakistan was detected on 26 February 2020. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies have been tried to lessen the mortality and morbidity burden. Various vaccines have been approved. The Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan gave emergency approval for Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) COVID-19 vaccine in December 2021. The phase 3 trial of BBIBP-CorV included only 612 participants aged 60 years and above. The primary aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of BBIBPP-CorV (Sinopharm) vaccine within the Pakistani adult population aged 60 or above. The study was carried out in the Faisalabad district of Pakistan.MethodsA test negative case–control study design was used to assess safety and efficacy of BBIBP-CorV in individuals aged 60 and above against symptomatic infection, hospitalisations and mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. ORs were calculated using logistic regression model at 95% CI. ORs were used to calculate the vaccine efficacy (VE) by using the following formula.VE= (1-OR) ×100.Results3426 individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 were PCR tested between 5 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. The results showed that Sinopharm vaccine 14 days after the second dose was efficient in reducing the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, hospitalisations and mortality by 94.3%, 60.5% and 98.6%, respectively, among vaccinated individuals with a significant p value of 0.001.ConclusionOur study showed that BBIBP-CorV vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection, hospitalisations and mortality due to COVID-19.

Background: Medicines play a crucial role in the healthcare delivery of a hospital. The appropriate use of medicines gives us assessment of the quality of health services being provided in a particular region. Aim: To evaluate the prescribing practices and antibiotic utilization patterns so that the extent of irrational use can be assessed by comparing them with published ideal values set by WHO. Study design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Place and duration of study: Teaching Hospital of Faisalabad: Independent University Hospital (IUH), from Jan 2018 to June/July 2018. Methodology: 200 cases were selected through systematic random sampling from medicine/surgery wards and pharmacy registers. The standard World Health Organization prescribing indicators and AWaRe categorization of antibiotics were used to assess the prescribing practices of physicians/surgeons. Published ideal standards for each of the indicators were compared with study findings to identify extent of irrational drug use. Results: Most of the facility indicators were met with. The Drug and Therapeutic Committee (DTC) was functional. The Standard treatment guideline booklets (STGs) and Essential Drugs List (EDL) of the hospital were available. 88% of the key drugs listed in EDL were available in stock. The expenditure on antibiotics compared to total medicines was 17%. Regarding prescribing indicators: the average number of drugs prescribed per encounter was 6 (optimal value 1.6–1.8). Average no of antibiotic per prescription amounted to almost 1 (0.925). % prescriptions with an antibiotic amounted to 72% (optimal value 20-26.8%).72% antibiotics were prescribed from the EDL formulary of the hospital (optimal value 100%). Conclusion: Regarding compliance with prescribing indicators and AWaRe categorization of antibiotics by WHO, significant deviation was observed. Education and training of physicians according to WHO parameters is required to ensure rational prescribing. Keywords: Prescription pattern, WHO Prescribing Indicators, AWaRe Categorization

Background: Pelvic pain around the time of mensturation without any identifiable pathologic lesion present from menarche is called primary dysmenorrhea. The pain is believed to be related to prostaglandin (PG). Women with dysmenorrhoea have a relatively high concentration of PGF 2 alpha in menstrual fluid and suppression of PG synthesis has become the main treatment. Aim: To compare mean reduction in pain in patients presenting with primary dysmenorrhea given vitamin E & Mefenamic acid versus Mefenamic acid alone. Results: It was a randomized controlled trial which was conducted in Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, THQ Raiwind Hospital, Lahore for 6 months duration w.e.f 01/02/2017 to 31/07/2017. In this study, 18(36%) in Vitamin-E group and 21(42%) in Mefenamic acid group were between 15-20 years while 32(64%) in Vitamin-E group and 29(58%) in Mefenamic acid group were between 21-25 years, mean±sd was calculated as 20.86±2.92 and 20.66±2.86 years respectively, mean dysmenorrheal pain at baseline was recorded as 50.06±10.27 in Vitamin-E group and 50.14±10.28 in Mefenamic acid group, p value < 0.754, showing that both groups are insignificant, mean dysmenorrheal pain after treatment was recorded as 20.50±10.04 in Vitamin-E group and 30.22±10.28 in Mefenamic acid group, p value was < 0.002 showing significant difference between the two group, comparison of mean reduction in dysmenorrheal pain after treatment was recorded as 20.56±0.91 in Vitamin-E group and 10.92±0.75 in Mefenamic acid group, p value was < 0.000, showing significant difference. Conclusion: We concluded that there is a significant mean reduction in dysmenorrhic pain in patients given Mefenamic Acid + Vitamen E as compared to patients given Mefenamic Acid alone. Keywords: Dysmenorrhic pain, Mefenamic Acid + Vitamen E, mean reduction in dysmenorrhic pain

No abstract