Background The cardiovascular complications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be attributed to the hyperinflammatory state leading to increased mortality in patients with COVID-19. HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (statins) are known to have pleiotropic and anti-inflammatory effects and may have antiviral activity along with their cholesterol-lowering activity. Thus, statin therapy is potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection. This study investigated the impact of statin use on the clinical outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the statin use during ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score based on patient's age and admission APACHE II and SOFA scores. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, while 30 day mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 30 days, and ICU complications were secondary endpoints. Results A total of 1,049 patients were eligible; 502 patients were included after propensity score matching (1:1 ratio). The in-hospital mortality [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.54, 0.89), P = 0.004] and 30-day mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI 0.58, 0.98), P = 0.03] were significantly lower in patients who received statin therapy on multivariable cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Moreover, patients who received statin therapy had lower odds of hospital-acquired pneumonia [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.32, 0.69), P < 0.001], lower levels of inflammatory markers on follow-up, and no increased risk of liver injury. Conclusion The use of statin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a beneficial role and survival benefit with a good safety profile.
Abstract Background Recent guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as first-line agents in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Research is currently investigating the use of Apixaban in underweight patients, with some results suggesting altered pharmacokinetics, decreased drug absorption, and potential overdosing in this population. This study examined the effectiveness and safety of standard Apixaban dosing in adult patients with atrial NVAF weighing less than 50 kg. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC); adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) below 25 who received a standard dose of Apixaban (5 mg twice daily) were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on their weight at the time of Apixaban initiation. Underweight was defined as patients weighing ≤ 50 kg, while the control group (Normal weight) comprised patients weighing > 50 kg. We followed the patients for at least one year after Apixaban initiation. The study’s primary outcome was the incidence of stroke events, while secondary outcomes included bleeding (major or minor), thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Propensity score (PS) matching with a 1:1 ratio was used based on predefined criteria and regression model was utilized as appropriate. Results A total of 1,433 patients were screened; of those, 277 were included according to the eligibility criteria. The incidence of stroke events was lower in the underweight than in the normal weight group at crude analysis (0% vs. 9.1%) p-value = 0.06), as well in regression analysis (OR (95%CI): 0.08 (0.001, 0.76), p-value = 0.002). On the other hand, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the odds of major and minor bleeding (OR (95%CI): 0.39 (0.07, 2.03), p-value = 0.26 and OR (95%CI): 1.27 (0.56, 2.84), p-value = 0.40, respectively). Conclusion This exploratory study revealed that underweight patients with NVAF who received standard doses of Apixaban had fewer stroke events compared to normal-weight patients, without statistically significant differences in bleeding events. To confirm these findings, further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer observation durations are required.
Leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are recommended as an alternative treatment in patients with mild asthma, but their effect compared with placebo is unclear.To determine the benefits and harms of LTRAs as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids compared with placebo in adults and adolescents with asthma.MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through June 2015.Peer-reviewed, English-language, randomized, controlled trials in patients with asthma that reported the effect of LTRAs versus placebo on measures of asthma control.Three researchers extracted data on study population, interventions, outcome measures, and adverse events. One researcher assessed risk of bias.Of the 2008 abstracts that were screened, 50 trials met eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses of 6 trials of LTRA monotherapy showed that LTRAs reduced the risk for an exacerbation (summary risk ratio [RR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.81]). In 4 trials of LTRAs as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids, the summary RR for exacerbation was 0.80 (CI, 0.60 to 1.07). Leukotriene-receptor antagonists either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids increased FEV1, whereas FEV1 percentage of predicted values was improved only in trials of LTRA monotherapy. Adverse event rates were similar in the intervention and comparator groups.Variation in definitions and reporting of outcomes, high risk of bias in some studies, heterogeneity of findings, possible selective outcome reporting bias, and inability to assess the effect of asthma severity on summary estimates.Leukotriene-receptor antagonists as monotherapy improved asthma control compared with placebo, but which patients are most likely to respond to treatment with LTRAs remains unclear.National Institutes of Health.
Abstract Background There is a growing recognition of the importance of teaching patient safety to medical students to improve healthcare and minimize patients’ harm; however, few studies evaluated the attitudes of pharmacy students toward patient safety. The purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes toward patient safety among pharmacy students in Saudi Arabia. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among pharmacy students from four different universities using a self-administered questionnaire. The Attitudes to Patient Safety Questionnaire III (APSQ-III) was used to measure the attitude toward patient safety. The data were presented using descriptive statistics, such as percentages and means, and compared across gender using Student’s t-test. Results All of the students who agreed to participate and signed the consent form have completed the questionnaire. Of the 347 pharmacy students who participated in the study; 63% were enrolled in the Doctor of Pharmacy Program and 37% were enrolled in the Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Sciences program. Only 46% of the participants received courses for patient safety mainly in the fourth year of their pharmacy program, and around 93% were interested to learn more about patient safety. A more positive attitude toward patient safety was reported in the domain of ‘confidence to report errors’, ‘working hours as error cause’, ‘patient involvement in reducing error’, and ‘team functioning’. However, most negative attitudes were reported in the domains of ‘Error inevitability’ and ‘Disclosure responsibility’. Gender differences were noticed in the attitude toward patient safety; female students had more positive attitudes in most domains of patient safety. Conclusions Around one-half of the surveyed pharmacy students did not receive any courses on patient safety. Our findings emphasize the need for including patient safety courses in the curricula of the different pharmacy programs given the patient safety training importance in improving the quality of patient care.
Down syndrome (DS), or Trisomy 21, is defined by the existence of an additional chromosome 21. Various physiological considerations in DS patients might lead to challenges in adequate pain management and sedation after surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the variations of the requirement needed for pain management and sedation in patients with DS who have undergone surgery compared to patients without DS.
The prevalence of venous thromboembolism is high in patients with COVID-19, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. The evidence that supports the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen in non-critically ill patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is still limited. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received standard thromboprophylaxis anticoagulation with intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for published studies until August 17th, 2022. We included studies on patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received thromboprophylaxis during their hospital stay. Patients who received standard prophylaxis dose “control group” were compared to patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis “intervention group”. Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing seven studies involving a total of 1931 patients. The risk of all-cause thrombosis was not statistically different between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 20.21]). The risk of minor bleeding was reported to be lower in patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21, 1.97), while had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the standard prophylaxis (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.43, 4.61); however, did not reach the statistical significance. The overall risk for all hospital mortality favored the utilization of intermediate to high doses over the standard thromboprophylaxis dosing (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29, 0.75). In medically ill patients with COVID-19, there is no difference between standard and intermediate to high prophylaxis dosing regarding thrombosis and bleeding. However, it appears that intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens are linked to additional survival benefits.
