Objectives: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are chronic illnesses of the airways affecting a good number of people in Lebanon and the Middle East. Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) are important drug delivery systems used to treat such pulmonary diseases. Drugs proven to be valuable and effective may fail to act effectively if such inhalers are used incorrectly. The purpose of this study was to assess the technical use of pMDIs by patients with pulmonary diseases presenting to the community pharmacies in Lebanon. Methods: A structured questionnaire was developed to collect data. A total of 601 patients using drugs delivered through pMDIs and presenting to 12 Lebanese community pharmacies were recruited to participate in the research project. The questionnaire items were divided into 3 subscales: subscale 1—assessing the device preparation; subscale 2—investigating the device use; and subscale 3—examining the knowledge and use of spacers. After confirming the reliability and validity of the survey tool, patients’ responses were analyzed and compared according to many variables. Results: Many patients answered inaccurately to questions assessing both the device preparation and use. Around 40% of patients said they do not coordinate the inhalation with pressing the canister down. The mean scores were 1.72 (± 0.73) over 6 and 5.67 (± 1.44) over 7 for subscales 1 and 2, respectively. The mean total score on all questions was 7.39 over 13, with a standard deviation of 1.75. While patients’ age did not impact the results, asthmatic, well-educated, male patients had fewer wrong answers when it comes to preparing and using the device ( P < .01). Conclusions: Our study showed that many patients with asthma and COPD might not be properly using their pMDIs. Appropriate inhaler use is crucial for successful pulmonary disease management. As pMDIs are one of the most difficult devices to use, proper and tailored instructions should be given to patients.

The Caprini and Padua venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment models (RAMs) are used to assess VTE risk in surgical and in medical patients respectively. This study aims to compare the proportion of medical inpatients eligible for VTE prophylaxis using the hospital Caprini-based RAM to using the Caprini and Padua RAMs and to assess the associated clinical outcomes. In a prospective observational study, we assessed 297 adult medical inpatients for whom VTE thromboprophylaxis was initiated according to the hospital Caprini-based RAM, referred to as the Lebanese American University Medical Center RAM (LAUMC-RAM). The Padua, Caprini and IMPROVE bleeding risk scores were also assessed for all patients. Bleeding and thromboembolism were evaluated at 14 and 30 days post VTE risk assessment. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was warranted in 97.6%, 99.7%, and 52.9% of patients using the Caprini-based, Caprini, and Padua RAMs respectively. The Caprini-based and Caprini RAMs were highly correlated (r = 0.873 p < 0.001) and were significantly less correlated with the Padua RAM. Major and overall bleeding occurred in 1.4% and 9.2% respectively. VTE was reported in 0.4% with no VTE related mortality. In hospitalized medical patients, the Caprini-based RAM can accurately distinguish low and high VTE risk without resulting in increased risk of bleeding.

Zoster reactivation in breast reconstructed patients is an objective proof of the reinnervation of the skin flap. Moreover, zosteriform rash in cancer patients should raise suspicion for metastasis, which can be confused with herpes zoster.

facilitate outreach and interventions to support patients with HF and increase their time at home.

Objective The objective of this exploratory analysis is to reflect and discuss which criteria of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) would be relevant as part of value determination when appraising healthcare interventions in the Lebanese context. Methods A workshop was conducted as part of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Lebanon Chapter and included the two frameworks: Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) and Advance Value Framework. Thirty-seven participants expressed their individual preferences through a qualitative and a quantitative exercise. Results In the qualitative analysis of both frameworks, participants unanimously agreed on the relevance of comparative efficacy, safety, and impact of medical costs. In EVIDEM, disease severity and unmet needs were also considered to be important criteria by more than 90 percent of the participants. In the quantitative analysis of both frameworks, disease severity ranked first (a mean normalized weight of .1 in EVIDEM and .27 in Advance Value Framework), followed by the size of the population (.09), the type of therapeutic benefit at the patient level (.09) and population level (.08), and the efficacy (.07) in EVIDEM. In the Advance Value Framework, the combined unmet need/disease severity criteria were followed by direct and meaningful end points (.15), safety (.12), contraindications (.08), and indirect surrogate end points (.07). Conclusions The results were concordant with those reported in countries that have conducted similar surveys such as France, Italy, and Spain. The MCDA methodology could be used as a cornerstone to enhance evidence-based discussions among Lebanese stakeholders involved in evaluation and decision-making purposes.