AREAS COVERED: There is no specific contraindication or caution related to COVID-19 on the use of antihypertensives unless patients develop severe hypotension from septic shock where all antihypertensives should be discontinued or severe hyperkalemia in which continuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors is not desired. The continuation of antiplatelet or statin is not desired when severe thrombocytopenia or severe transminitis develop, respectively. Patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulants, particularly those who are critically ill, should be considered for substitution to parenteral anticoagulants.
EXPERT OPINION: An individualized approach to medication management among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with concurrent CVDs would seem prudent with attention paid to changes in clinical conditions and medications intended for COVID-19. The decision to modify prescribed long-term CV medications should be entailed by close follow-up to check if a revision on the decision is needed, with resumption of any long-term CV medication before discharge if it is discontinued during hospitalization for COVID-19, to ensure continuity of care.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study using data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Women aged 77-82 years in 2003, and 91-96 years in 2017 were analysed, linking the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data to participants' survey data.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The association between frailty and continuous polypharmacy was determined using generalised estimating equations for log binomial regressions, controlling for confounding variables. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the proportion of women with polypharmacy, and medications that contributed to polypharmacy.
RESULTS: The proportion of women with continuous polypharmacy increased over time as they aged. Among participants who were frail (n = 833) in 2017, 35.9 % had continuous polypharmacy and 1.32 % had hyperpolypharmacy. Among those who were non-frail (n = 1966), 28.2 % had continuous polypharmacy, and 1.42 % had hyperpolypharmacy. Analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) and cardiovascular medications (e.g. furosemide and statins) commonly contributed to continuous polypharmacy among frail and non-frail women. Accounting for time and other characteristics, frail women had an 8% increased risk of continuous polypharmacy (RR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.05, 1.11) compared to non-frail women.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined, polypharmacy and frailty are key clinical and public health challenges. Given that one-third of women had continuous polypharmacy, monitoring and review of medication use among older women are important, and particularly among women who are frail.
AIMS: This study determined the use of potentially inappropriate medications according to frailty status using the Beers Criteria 2019, identified medications that should be flagged as potentially inappropriate and harmful depending on individual health factors, and determined the association between frailty and PIMs, adjusted for characteristics associated with PIMs.
METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study included 9355 participants aged 77-82 years at baseline (2003). Frailty was measured using the FRAIL (fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illness and loss of weight) scale. Generalised estimating equations using log-binomial regressions determined the association between frailty and risk of using PIMs.
RESULTS: Among participants who were frail and non-frail at baseline, the majority used ≥ 3 PIMs (74.2% and 58.5%, respectively). At 2017, the proportion using ≥ 3 PIMs remained constant in the frail group (72.0%) but increased in the non-frail group (66.0%). Commonly prescribed medications that may be potentially inappropriate in both groups included benzodiazepines, proton-pump inhibitors and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and risperidone was an additional contributor in the non-frail group. When adjusted for other characteristics, frail women had a 2% higher risk of using PIMs (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01, 1.03).
CONCLUSION: Given that the majority of frail women were using medications that may have been potentially inappropriate, it is important to consider both frailty and PIMs as indicators of health outcomes, and to review the need for PIMs for women aged 77-96 years who are frail.
METHODS: The study included 9139 female participants enrolled in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health from 2003 (aged 77-82 years) to 2017 (aged 91-96 years). Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) using log-binomial regressions were used to determine associations using repeated measures on individuals over time.
KEY FINDINGS: The majority of participants in the study remained non-frail and did not receive HMRs from 2003 [7116 (77.86%)] to 2017 [1240 (71.31%)]. The use of HMRs was low in both groups with 33 (1.68%; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.36) frail and 64 (0.89%; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14) non-frail participants receiving HMRs in 2003; by 2017, 19 (4.19%; 95% CI, 2.54 to 6.46) frail and 45 (3.50%; 95% CI, 2.57 to 4.66) non-frail participants received HMRs. Frailty was not associated with receiving a HMR (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20), although for every 1-year increase, participants were 10% more likely to receive a HMR (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.11). Participants with continuous polypharmacy, ≥4 chronic diseases, >4 general practitioner visits and Department of Veterans Affairs coverage were more likely to receive a HMR.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the proven value of HMRs for frail older people, HMRs were not used for most frail and non-frail community-dwelling women in this study. Reasons for low use of the service should be explored, with interventions to raise awareness of the benefits of the service.
METHODS: A systematic search of articles was conducted in scientific databases, with the latest update in May 2021. This paper systematically reviewed the clinical evidence available (randomized controlled trials, compassionate use studies, and case reports) on the use of remdesivir for patients with moderate or severe COVID-19.
RESULTS: A total of eleven studies were included: four studies based on compassionate use of remdesivir, three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials, three randomized, open-label, phase III trials, and one case report. Clinical improvement and mortality rates in patients who used remdesivir varied across studies.
CONCLUSION: Given the current evidence, there is insufficient data to confidently recommend the use of remdesivir alone for the treatment of adult hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. However, remdesivir may be considered along with an anti-inflammatory agent in patients with pneumonia, on oxygen support, provided there is close monitoring of clinical and laboratory parameters and adverse events.
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the medication reviews conducted in aged care facilities was performed using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, IPA, TRiP, and the Cochrane Library, with the last update in December 2015. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by 2 authors. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The SIGN checklist for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs were applied. Outcomes assessed were related to medications, reviews, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Because of the heterogeneity of the measurements, it was deemed inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis and thus a narrative approach was employed. Twenty-two studies (10 observational studies and 12 controlled trials) were included from 1141 evaluated references. Of the 12 trials, 8 studies reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews and 4 reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. The medication reviews performed in the included trials were prescription reviews (n = 8) and clinical medication reviews (n = 4). In the case of the observational studies, the majority of the studies (8/12 studies) reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews, and only 2 studies reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. Similarly, 6 studies employed prescription reviews, whereas 4 studies employed clinical medication reviews. The majority of the recommendations put forward by the pharmacist or a multidisciplinary team were accepted by physicians. The number of prescribed medications, inappropriate medications, and adverse outcomes (eg, number of deaths, frequency of hospitalizations) were reduced in the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, either working independently or with other health care professionals, appear to improve the quality of medication use in aged care settings. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn because of significant heterogeneity in measurements and potential risk for biases.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the overall evidence on the pre-admission/pre-diagnosis use of anti-CD20 among patients with COVID-19 with regards to mortality and severe illness outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and preprint servers (medRxiv, Research Square, SSRN), to identify eligible studies published up to June 13, 2023. The outcomes of interest were the development of severe illness and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio for outcomes of interest using anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies relative to non-use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed significantly increased odds for development of severe illness (pooled odds ratio 2.95; 95% confidence interval 2.30, 3.78; n = 534,349) and significantly increased odds for mortality (pooled odds ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval 1.37, 3.35; n = 333,462) with the use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, relative to non-use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, in patients with COVID-19.
CONCLUSION: Healthcare practitioners should exercise caution when prescribing these anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies during the COVID-19 pandemic to patients who are indicated for these agents, particularly those with underlying conditions like multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by systematically searching electronic databases.
KEY FINDINGS: The pooled analysis of the included trials revealed that the use of uricosurics was not associated with the risk of mortality (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.12). However, there is a potential mortality benefit associated with the use of ascorbic acid (pooled OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.94).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirmed the safety of uricosurics in COVID-19 patients, despite their potential to cause uric acid excretion, which may possess antioxidant properties.
AIMS: This study aimed to determine common combinations of medications used among women aged 77-96 years and to describe characteristics associated with these combinations.
METHODS: A cohort study of older women enroled in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health over a 15-year period was used to determine combinations of medications using latent class analysis. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine characteristics associated with these combinations.
RESULTS: The highest medication users during the study were for the cardiovascular (2003: 80.28%; 2017: 85.63%) and nervous (2003: 66.03%; 2017: 75.41%) systems. A 3-class latent model described medication use combinations: class 1: 'Cardiovascular & neurology anatomical group' (27.25%) included participants using medications of the cardiovascular and nervous systems in their later years; class 2: 'Multiple anatomical group' (16.49%) and class 3: 'Antiinfectives & multiple anatomical group' (56.27%). When compared to the reference class (class 1), the risk of participants being in class 3 was slightly higher than being in class 2 if they had > 4 general practitioner visits (RRR 2.37; 95% CI 2.08, 2.71), Department of Veterans Affairs' coverage (RRR 1.59; 95% CI 1.36, 1.86), ≥ 4 chronic diseases (RRR 3.16; 95% CI 2.56, 3.90) and were frail (RRR 1.47; 95% CI 1.27, 1.69).
CONCLUSION: Identification of combinations of medication use may provide opportunities to develop multimorbidity guidelines and target medication reviews, and may help reduce medication load for older individuals.