METHODS: Anonymised data consisting of 44 independent predictor variables from 355 adults diagnosed with COVID-19, at a UK hospital, was manually extracted from electronic patient records for retrospective, case-control analysis. Primary outcomes included inpatient mortality, required ventilatory support, and duration of inpatient treatment. Pulmonary embolism sequala was the only secondary outcome. After balancing data, key variables were feature selected for each outcome using random forests. Predictive models were then learned and constructed using Bayesian networks.
RESULTS: The proposed probabilistic models were able to predict, using feature selected risk factors, the probability of the mentioned outcomes. Overall, our findings demonstrate reliable, multivariable, quantitative predictive models for four outcomes, which utilise readily available clinical information for COVID-19 adult inpatients. Further research is required to externally validate our models and demonstrate their utility as risk stratification and clinical decision-making tools.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included data from 344 older (173 inpatients and 171 outpatients) patients, aged 60 years and above, through validated questionnaires. Medication appropriateness was assessed via Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) tool, whereas Beers and Screening Tool of Older Person's Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (STOPP) criteria were used to evaluate PIMs and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), respectively. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) and polypharmacy, as well as PROs, included Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (Katz ADL) and Older People's Quality of Life (OPQOL) were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, inpatients received significantly higher medications (6.90 ± 2.70 vs 4.49 ± 3.20) than outpatients. A significantly higher proportion of inpatients received at least one PIM (65% vs 57%) or PIP (57.4% vs 17.0%) and higher mean MAI score (1.76 ± 1.08 and 1.10 ± 0.34) and DBI score (2.67 ± 1.28 vs 1.49 ± 1.17) than outpatients. Inpatients had significantly higher total OPQOL (118.53 vs 79.95) and GFI score (5.44 vs 3.78) than outpatients. We only found significant correlations between GFI and DBI and total OPQOL and the number of PIMs.
CONCLUSIONS: Proportions of PIMs and DBI exposure were significantly higher in an inpatient setting. No significant correlations between exposures to inappropriate medications or drug burden and PROs were observed.
METHODS: This was a 4-year cross-sectional study of snakebite patients from January 2013 to December 2016 in Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah (HSNZ), Terengganu. Data was extracted from the Pharmacy Record on the usage of antivenom and patients of snakebites treated with antivenom were identified. Data of patients were then obtained from the electronic medical records.' Demographic details, clinical features and characteristics of antivenom reactions of patients were recorded in standardized data collection forms and analyzed using chi-square or Mann- Whitney U tests.
RESULTS: Of the 44 patients who received antivenom, 24 (54.5%) developed hypersensitivity reaction. All patients developed reaction early. No patient developed delayed (serum-sickness) reaction. Of the 24 patients, 14 (58.3%) had moderate to severe hypersensitivity reaction and 9 (37.5%) patients had mild reactions. Only one (4.2%) patient presented with bradycardia.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of early hypersensitivity reaction to snake antivenom in HSNZ was relatively high. Healthcare providers should be aware of the appropriate method of preparing and administering antivenom, and the management for acute hypersensitivity reactions. This will optimize the management of snakebite and ensure patient safety.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and medRxiv (preprint repository) databases (up to 7 January 2021). Pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence interval (CI) were generated using random-effects and inverse variance heterogeneity models. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was appraised using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included: two trials with an overall low risk of bias and four trials had some concerns regarding the overall risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not find significant mortality benefits with the use of tocilizumab among patients with COVID-19 relative to non-use of tocilizumab (pooled hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% CI 0.66-1.05, n = 2,057). Interestingly, the estimated effect of tocilizumab on the composite endpoint of requirement for mechanical ventilation and/or all-cause mortality indicated clinical benefits, with some evidence against our model hypothesis of no significant effect at the current sample size (pooled hazard ratio = 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.91, n = 749).
CONCLUSION: Despite no clear mortality benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, tocilizumab appears to reduce the likelihood of progression to mechanical ventilation.