METHODS: Prescriptions and costs data from Prescription Cost Analysis database and Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles presenting all suspected ADRs reported for each drug were examined. Pharmacy level prices were also obtained. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate the trends in prescribing and costs.
RESULTS: Prescribing and costs of metformin-based single pill drug combinations (as a percent mean change per year) saw an increase of 8.78% (95% Cl: 7.45%, 10.11%, p = 0.001) and 5.17% (95% Cl: 2.13%, 8.22%, p = 0.009) on average each year, respectively. Metformin was the most prescribed monotherapy drug between 2015 and 2020. The cost of prescribing metformin (as a proportion of total oral hypoglycaemic agents) has been reduced from 30% in 2015 to 17% in 2020. Metformin-dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (e.g., metformin-sitagliptin) combination was the most popular metformin-based single pill drug combination. The number of adverse drug reactions per million items dispensed shows that metformin has the lowest adverse drug reactions per million items compared to other oral hypoglycaemic drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, an increase in prescription items can be seen for metformin-based single pill drug combinations along with an increase in their costs in primary care in England between 2015 and 2020. There was a declining trend for the number of ADRs reported per million prescription items dispensed for metformin-containing single pill combinations, even though their prescription rate increased.
Methods: This retrospective, multicenter, descriptive study enrolled consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were admitted between March 1, 2021, and April 30, 2021, from three District Headquarter Hospitals in the Punjab province of Pakistan. We described patient and clinical characteristics and medications, stratified by COVID-19 severity during hospitalization: mild, moderate, and severe. In addition, an analytical study of drug utilization was conducted.
Findings: A total of 444 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. Remdesvir, corticosteroids, antibiotics, and antithrombotics were administered to 45.0%, 93.9%, 84.9%, and 60.1% of patients, respectively. Specifically, dexamethasone was the most commonly used corticosteroid among the included patients (n = 405; 91.2%), irrespective of their clinical severity. Only 60.1% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our cohort received antithrombotic therapy, and the prevalence of use was especially low (27.8%) in patients with mild illness. Of 444 patientsscreened, 399 (89.9%) patients had been discharged, and 45 patients (10.1%) died.
Implications: We provided an important glimpse into the utilization patterns of several medications of interest for the treatment of COVID-19 in Pakistan, which had not been entirely evidence-based, especially concerning systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics.
METHODS: The subjects of this study included 202 elderly (≥65 years) residents of 17 aged care homes in suburban peninsular Malaysia. Frailty was measured using the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) score and independence in daily living was measured as KATZ activity of daily living score. Medication appropriateness was assessed using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and 2015 Beers' criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM).
RESULTS: CNS medications constituted about 16% of the total, with an average of 0.8 ± 1.1 medications per resident, which reduced to 0.5 ± 0.8 medications after 3 months. Frailty (154/202) and polypharmacy (90/202) were highly prevalent in study subjects. Subjects on CNS medications had significantly higher GFI score (7.1 vs. 5.9; p = 0.031), polypharmacy (57.8 vs. 35.3%; p = 0.002), number of PIMs (0.9 vs. 0.2; p = 0.001), and mean summed MAI score (3.6 vs. 2.6; p = 0.015) than subjects not on CNS medications. Medication number was also significantly correlated with GFI (r = 0.194; p = 0.006) and KATZ (r = 0.141; p = 0.046) scores.
CONCLUSION: Frailty and polypharmacy were highly prevalent among aged care home subjects taking CNS medications. These findings support the notion that periodic regular medication review should improve the overall use of medications in elderly patients.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.
RESULTS: Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.
CONCLUSION: In general, the quality of currently available evidence for the effectiveness of CQ/HCQ in patients with COVID-19 is suboptimal. The importance of a properly designed and reported clinical trial cannot be overemphasized amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and its dismissal could lead to poorer clinical and policy decisions, resulting in wastage of already stretched invaluable health care resources.
METHODS: Electronic databases and country-specific healthcare databases were searched to identify relevant studies/reports. The quality assessment of individual studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Country-specific proportion of individuals with COVID-19 who developed ARDS and reported death were combined in a random-effect meta-analysis to give a pooled mortality estimate of ARDS.
RESULTS: The overall pooled mortality estimate among 10,815 ARDS cases in COVID-19 patients was 39% (95% CI: 23-56%). The pooled mortality estimate for China was 69% (95% CI: 67-72%). In Europe, the highest mortality estimate among COVID-19 patients with ARDS was reported in Poland (73%; 95% CI: 58-86%) while Germany had the lowest mortality estimate (13%; 95% CI: 2-29%) among COVID-19 patients with ARDS. The median crude mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with reported corticosteroid use was 28.0% (lower quartile: 13.9%; upper quartile: 53.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: The high mortality in COVID-19 associated ARDS necessitates a prompt and aggressive treatment strategy which includes corticosteroids. Most of the studies included no information on the dosing regimen of corticosteroid therapy, however, low-dose corticosteroid therapy or pulse corticosteroid therapy appears to have a beneficial role in the management of severely ill COVID-19 patients.
AIMS: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating the effect of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.
MATERIALS & METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases and clinical trial registries (up to October 17, 2021) for eligible studies. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and duration of hospital stay. Meta-analysis with the random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) of mortality and 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled standardized mean difference of duration of hospital stay with 95% CI between colchicine users and non-colchicine users was estimated using Cohen's d index.
RESULTS: The meta-analyses revealed no significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.53-1.07), but a significant reduction in the duration of hospital stay with the use of colchicine (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.59; 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.13).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The ability of colchicine to reduce the length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is consistent with its potential to prevent clinical deterioration via inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome. Nevertheless, such beneficial effects of colchicine did not translate into mortality benefits in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published studies to assess the association of RAS inhibitors with mortality as well as disease severity in COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve relevant original studies investigating mortality and severity (severe/critical disease) in COVID-19 patients with and without exposure to RAS inhibitors.
RESULTS: A total of 59 original studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty-four studies that reported adjusted effect sizes (24 studies reported mortality outcomes and 16 studies reported disease severity outcomes), conducted in RAS inhibitor-exposed and unexposed groups, were pooled in random-effects models to estimate overall risk. Quality assessment of studies revealed that most of the studies included were of fair quality. The use of an ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.95; n = 18,749) or hazard (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95; n = 26,598) of mortality compared with non-use of ACEI/ARB. However, the use of an ACEI/ARB was non-significantly associated with lower odds (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10; n = 7446) or hazard (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.66; n = 6325) of developing severe/critical disease compared with non-use of an ACEI/ARB.
DISCUSSION: Since there was no increased risk of harm, the use of RAS inhibitors for hypertension and other established clinical indications can be maintained in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: A literature search of studies related to the use of precision medicine in diabetes care was conducted in various databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus).
RESULTS: Precision medicine encompasses the integration of a wide array of personal data, including clinical, lifestyle, genetic, and various biomarker information. Its goal is to facilitate tailored treatment approaches using contemporary diagnostic and therapeutic techniques that specifically target patients based on their genetic makeup, molecular markers, phenotypic traits, or psychosocial characteristics. This article not only highlights significant advancements but also addresses key challenges, particularly focusing on the technologies that contribute to the realization of personalized and precise diabetes care.
CONCLUSION: For the successful implementation of precision diabetes medicine, collaboration and coordination among multiple stakeholders are crucial.
AREAS COVERED: Mitochondrial deficits impact insulin-resistant skeletal muscles, adipose tissue, liver, and pancreatic β-cells, affecting glucose and lipid balance. Exercise emerges as a key factor in enhancing mitochondrial function, thereby reducing insulin resistance. Additionally, the therapeutic potential of mitochondrial uncoupling, which generates heat instead of ATP, is discussed. We explore the intricate link between mitochondrial function and diabetes, investigating genetic interventions to mitigate diabetes-related complications. We also cover the impact of insulin deficiency on mitochondrial function, the role of exercise in addressing mitochondrial defects in insulin resistance, and the potential of mitochondrial uncoupling. Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis of Mitochondrial Replacement Therapies (MRT) techniques is presented.
EXPERT OPINION: MRTs hold promise in preventing the transmission of mitochondrial disease. However, addressing ethical, regulatory, and technical considerations is crucial. Integrating mitochondrial-based treatments requires a careful balance between innovation and safety. Ethical dimensions and regulatory aspects of MRT are examined, emphasizing collaborative efforts for the responsible advancement of human health.
METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional survey using a convenience sampling method conducted at the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) In-Patient Pharmacy. A validated online questionnaire assessed user satisfaction and task duration.
RESULTS: A total of 21 pharmacists and 18 pharmacy assistants participated in the survey. Most pharmacists (n = 17/21) were confident in the system, and both pharmacists and pharmacy assistants perceived it to be beneficial for patients (n = 33/39) and for reducing medication errors (n = 32/39). Pharmacy assistants spent approximately 5.34 hours on traditional work including filling medication orders (1.44 hours) after automated tablet dispensing and packaging system (ATDPS) implementation. Pharmacists spent 1.19 hours filling medication orders and 1.71 hours checking/verifying them, in contrast.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists focused mainly on clinical duties with healthcare colleagues, while pharmacy assistants handled various medication orders. Nevertheless, ATDPS reduced pharmacy staff workload in medication handling, achieving user satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study using an existing clinical registry was performed from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 at Hospital Serdang, Malaysia. Adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus had their medical records examined for disease complications, as reported by the patient at first contact with the DMTAC pharmacist.
RESULTS: The study comprised a total of 495 participants with an average HbA1c of 10.5%. About 91% (n = 451) of the 495 patients were obese/overweight. Around 37.8% (n = 187) of diabetic patients are between the ages of 50 and 59, and 59% (n = 292) have had diabetes for less than 10 years. A total of 8.5% (n = 42) and 9.7% (n = 48) consume alcohol and smoke, respectively. Around 29.9% (n = 148) had one other comorbidity (hypertension or dyslipidemia), and 63.4% (n = 314) had two comorbidities. Regarding the prevalence of complications, there were 18.9% (n = 94) who had myocardial infarction, 11.1% (n = 55) who had stroke, and 9% (n = 45) who had CKD. Age (adjusted OR = 1.03; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07; p = 0.041) and hypertension (adjusted OR = 4.06; 95% CI 1.21 to 13.60; p = 0.023) were significantly related with the prevalence of complications in patients with diabetes.
CONCLUSION: In our study, a BMI of more than 23 kg/m2 (obese/overweight) does not seem to be associated with the prevalence of complications. Age and hypertension, on the other hand, appear to be strong risk predictors of the incidence of complications. With the understanding of the recent outlook on diabetes, it is recommended that public education on the targeted population should be encouraged to negate these complications.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13410-022-01131-x.
METHODS: A systematic literature search in eight databases from January 2000 to July 2023 focusing on RCTs that compared a pharmacological intervention with a placebo for enhancing sleep in people with AD. The authors registered the study protocol at Prospero, followed the PRISMA guidelines, and produced the pooled estimates using random-effect or IVhet models.
RESULTS: Eight different interventions and 29 different sleep outcomes were examined in 14 RCTs included in this review. Eszopiclone positively affected sleep efficiency, as did orexin antagonists. However, there was no difference when melatonin was used. The interventions demonstrated low discontinuation rates and a few adverse drug reactions.
CONCLUSION: Although melatonin was the most investigated intervention, the evidence for its efficacy is inconclusive. On the other hand, trazodone and orexin receptor antagonists showed promising results; however, more RCTs are needed for definite answers.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint servers for eligible trials up to July 8, 2024. Two investigators independently screened the records and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Trials were eligible if they compared vitamin D with control interventions in adults with COVID-19. Data extraction and analysis were carried out independently, employing a random-effects model to estimate pooled odds ratios for mortality.
RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials with 2495 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality with vitamin D supplementation (pooled OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.98; I2 = 20%). Subgroup analysis for severe COVID-19 cases also indicated significant mortality reduction (pooled OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.92; I2 = 18%).
CONCLUSION: Vitamin D supplementation appears to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients, especially in severe cases. These findings highlight the potential benefits of vitamin D as an adjunct treatment in COVID-19, though further large-scale trials are needed to confirm these effects and determine optimal dosing.
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.