METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, all AIS patients who received thrombolytic therapy in SJH and TH between January 2012 and September 2019 were included. Clinical data was extracted from admission records. The outcomes assessed were the percentage of patients who achieved excellent functional outcome at 3 months (modified Rankin scale of 0 to 1), rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (SICH), and mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 63 AIS patients who received thrombolytic therapy were included, of which 37 patients (58.7%) were treated in SJH. The median NIHSS on admission was 12 in SJH and 11.5 in TH. In all 21.6% of patients from SJH and 30.7% of patients from TH achieved favourable functional outcome at 3 months (p=0.412). There were no significant differences between the two centres in terms of the rates of SICH (10.8% in SJH and 3.8% in TH, p=0.314) and 3-month mortality (24.3% versus 12.5%, p=0.203).
CONCLUSION: The 3-month functional outcomes and complication rates of stroke thrombolysis in hospitals with or without neurologists are not significantly different. Thus non-neurologist hospitals may be able to provide thrombolysis service to AIS patients safely and effectively.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the genetic architecture of EOPD in a multi-ethnic Malaysian cohort.
METHODS: 161 index patients with PD onset ≤50 years were recruited from multiple centers across Malaysia. A two-step approach to genetic testing was used, combining a next-generation sequencing-based PD gene panel and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA).
RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (21.7%) carried pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants involving (in decreasing order of frequency): GBA1, PRKN, PINK1, DJ-1, LRRK2, and ATP13A2. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in GBA1 were identified in thirteen patients (8.1%), and were also commonly found in PRKN and PINK1 (11/161 = 6.8% and 6/161 = 3.7%, respectively). The overall detection rate was even higher in those with familial history (48.5%) or age of diagnosis ≤40 years (34.8%). PRKN exon 7 deletion and the PINK1 p.Leu347Pro variant appear to be common among Malay patients. Many novel variants were found across the PD-related genes.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel insights into the genetic architecture of EOPD in Southeast Asians, expands the genetic spectrum in PD-related genes, and highlights the importance of diversifying PD genetic research to include under-represented populations.
AIM: To develop a list of medications to facilitate appropriate prescribing among older adults.
METHODS: A preliminary list of PIM and potential prescribing omission (PPO) were generated from systematic review, supplemented with local pharmacovigilance data of adverse reaction incidents among older people. Twenty-one experts from nine specialties participated in two Delphi to determine the list of PIM and PPO in February and March 2023. Items that did not reach consensus after the second Delphi round were adjudicated by six geriatricians.
RESULTS: The preliminary list included 406 potential candidates, categorised into three sections: PIM independent of diseases, disease dependent PIM and omitted drugs that could be restarted. At the end of Delphi, 92 items were decided as PIM, including medication classes, such as antacids, laxatives, antithrombotics, antihypertensives, hormones, analgesics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antihistamines. Forty-two disease-specific PIM criteria were included, covering circulatory system, nervous system, gastrointestinal system, genitourinary system, and respiratory system. Consensus to start potentially omitted treatment was achieved in 35 statements across nine domains.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed PIM criteria can serve as a useful tool to guide clinicians and pharmacists in identifying PIMs and PPOs during medication review and facilitating informed decision-making for appropriate prescribing.
METHODS: This is an 18-month cluster-randomized, open-label, parallel-arm controlled trial conducted at 14 public hospitals in the Perak state of Malaysia. Patients aged 60 and above, who have at least one medication and one comorbidity are eligible. A stratified-cluster randomization design is employed, with 7 hospitals assigned to the control arm and 7 hospitals assigned to the intervention arm. The MALPIP screening tool will be used in the intervention group to review the medications. If PIM is detected, the pharmacists will discuss with doctors and decide whether to stop or reduce the dose. The primary outcomes of this trial are the total number of medications and number of PIM. The secondary outcomes include fall, emergency department visits, readmissions, quality of life and mortality. Outcomes will be measured during enrolment, discharge, 6, 12, and 18 months.
DISCUSSION: This REVMED trial aims to test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention initiated in the hospital will reduce the total number of medications and PIM 18 months after hospital discharge, reducing fall, emergency department visits, readmissions, mortality and lead to improvement in quality of life. Trial findings will quantify the clinical outcomes associated with reducing medications and PIM for hospitalized older adults with polypharmacy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05875623) on the 25th of May 2023. NCT05875623 Clinicaltrials.gov URL: NCT05875623 registered on 25th July 2023.
CASES: In Malaysia, until end of February 2020, there were four COVID-19 paediatric cases with ages ranging from 20 months to 11 years. All four cases were likely to have contracted the virus in China. The children had no symptoms or mild flu-like illness. The cases were managed symptomatically. None required antiviral therapy.
DISCUSSION: There were 2 major issues regarding the care of infected children. Firstly, the quarantine of an infected child with a parent who tested negative was an ethical dilemma. Secondly, oropharyngeal and nasal swabs in children were at risk of false negative results. These issues have implications for infection control. Consequently, there is a need for clearer guidelines for child quarantine and testing methods in the management of COVID-19 in children.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed across PubMed, EMBASE, Emerald Insight and grey literature sources. The key terms used in the search include 'distribution', 'method', and 'physician', focusing on research articles published in English from 2002 to 2022 that described methods or tools to measure hospital-based physicians' distribution. Relevant articles were selected through a two-level screening process and critically appraised. The primary outcome is the measurement tools used to assess the distribution of hospital-based physicians. Study characteristics, tool advantages and limitations were also extracted. The extracted data were synthesised narratively.
RESULTS: Out of 7,199 identified articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. Among the selected articles, 12 were from Asia and one from Africa. The review identified eight measurement tools: Gini coefficients and Lorenz curve, Robin Hood index, Theil index, concentration index, Workload Indicator of Staffing Need method, spatial autocorrelation analysis, mixed integer linear programming model and cohortcomponent model. These tools rely on fundamental data concerning population and physician numbers to generate outputs. Additionally, five studies employed a combination of these tools to gain a comprehensive understanding of physician distribution dynamics.
CONCLUSION: Measurement tools can be used to assess physician distribution according to population needs. Nevertheless, each tool has its own merits and limitations, underscoring the importance of employing a combination of tools. The choice of measuring tool should be tailored to the specific context and research objectives.