Ketamine-based Sedation Use in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Backgrounds

Ketamine possesses analgesia, anti-inflammation, anticonvulsant, and neuroprotection properties. However, the evidence that supports its use in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 is insufficient. The study's goal was to assess ketamine's effectiveness and safety in critically ill, mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in a multicenter retrospective-prospective cohort study. Patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021, to five ICUs in Saudi Arabia were included. Eligible patients who required MV within 24 hours of ICU admission were divided into two sub-cohort groups based on their use of ketamine (Control vs. Ketamine). The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. P/F ratio differences, lactic acid normalization, MV duration, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:2 ratio) based on the selected criteria.

Results

In total, 1,130 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 1036 patients (91.7 %) were in the control group, whereas 94 patients (8.3 %) received ketamine. The total number of patients after PS matching, was 264 patients, including 88 patients (33.3 %) who received ketamine. The ketamine group's LOS was significantly lower (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -0.26 (-0.45, -0.07), P = 0.008). Furthermore, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved 24 hours after the start of ketamine treatment compared to the pre-treatment period (6 hours) (124.9 (92.1, 184.5) vs. 106 (73.1, 129.3; P = 0.002). Additionally, the ketamine group had a substantially shorter mean time for lactic acid normalization (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -1.55 (-2.42, -0.69), P 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of MV or mortality.

Conclusions

Ketamine-based sedation was associated with lower hospital LOS and faster lactic acid normalization but no mortality benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, larger prospective studies are recommended to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative in critically ill adult patients.

The prevalence of cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the description of concurrent treatments: A two-center retrospective cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia

Background

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and obesity are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Nonetheless, their prevalence among patients with T2DM in Saudi Arabia (SA) remains unknown. As current guidelines recommend, these comorbidities require adding certain antidiabetic agents with cardiorenal benefits. However, the prescribers' adherence to these recommendations remains unclear.

Methods

A two-center retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted including adult patients (≥18 years) with T2DM admitted to hospital or seen at outpatient clinics between January and December 2020. Patients were classified into two groups based on the presence or absence of ASCVD. Patients with no prior ASCVD history were further classified based on the 10-year ASCVD risk estimation. Endpoints of interest included the prevalence of ASCVD, HF, CKD, and obesity in patients with T2DM. We also evaluated the characteristics of the utilized antidiabetic agents, statin, and aspirin therapies..

Results

Of the 1,218 included patients with T2DM, the majority were female (57.0 %), and aged 45-64 years (53.0 %) with a mean age of 59.3 ± 13.1 years. Hypertension and dyslipidemia were the most prevalent comorbidities (67.7 % and 69.0 %, respectively). Among all patients, 18.6 % had an established ASCVD and the prevalence of HF, CKD, and obesity were 5.1 %, 8.7 %, and 58.3 %, respectively. The most common types of ASCVD witnessed were revascularization (42.3 %), myocardial infarction (36.6 %), and stroke (33.9 %); with an increased prevalence of ASCVD as the age increases (52.8 % at age ≥ 65 years). In the non-ASCVD group, the 10-year ASCVD risk was intermediate or high in 62.7 % of these patients. The rates of utilization of guidelines-recommended therapies were 83.6 % for metformin, 9.4 % for GLP-1 RA, 10.8 % for SGLT2i, 35.2 % for aspirin alone or in combination with clopidogrel, and 79.7 % for statin therapy.

Conclusions

ASCVD, HF, CKD, and obesity are common complications in patients with T2DM in SA, with low overall utilization of the recommended guidelines-recommended medical therapies. Multimodal strategies should be utilized to assess T2DM and its complications, and to improve prescribers' adherence to guidelines-recommended therapies.

Team-based learning versus traditional teaching effect on pharmacy Students' Performance: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Several pharmacy schools have implemented team-based learning (TBL) in their curriculum worldwide. Yet, TBL's effectiveness compared to traditional teaching in improving students' outcomes in pharmacy education is yet to be assessed collectively. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the performance of pharmacy students following the implementation of team-based learning (TBL) in the pharmacy curriculum as opposed to traditional learning methods.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that assessed students' performance after TBL was implemented in a pharmacy curriculum. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, the review conducted searches in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar until July 26, 2023.

Results

A total of 11 studies comparing TBL against traditional teaching methods and assessing students' performance were included. The pooled analysis, involving 2,400 students from 10 studies, demonstrated a mean difference (MD) in favor of TBL (MD = 2.27, 95 % CI [-0.85, 5.40]). However, notable heterogeneity was observed with an I2 value of 82 %, and the observed difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

TBL exhibited enhanced student performance in pharmacy education compared to traditional teaching, although the difference was not statistically significant. The meta-analysis findings support the use of TBL in pharmacy education for various pharmacy courses (pharmaceutical and clinical sciences courses) and students at different levels. However, there is a need for more robust studies to comprehensively evaluate TBL, considering aspects such as students' performance and engagement, skills development, and satisfaction.

The Impact of Midodrine Tapering Versus Nontapering Regimens on the Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Midodrine has been used in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting to reduce the time to vasopressor discontinuation. The limited data supporting midodrine use have led to variability in the pattern of initiation and discontinuation of midodrine.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 midodrine discontinuation regimens during weaning vasopressors in critically ill patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City. Included patients were adults admitted to ICU who received midodrine after being unable to be weaned from intravenous vasopressors for more than 24 hours. Patients were categorized into two subgroups depending on the pattern of midodrine discontinuation (tapered dosing regimen vs. nontapered regimen). The primary endpoint was the incidence of inotropes and vasopressors re-initiation after midodrine discontinuation.

RESULTS

The incidence of inotropes or vasopressors' re-initiation after discontinuation of midodrine was lower in the tapering group (15.4%) compared with the non-tapering group (40.7%) in the crude analysis as well as regression analysis (odd ratio [OR] = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.73, P = 0.02). The time required for the antihypertensive medication(s) initiation after midodrine discontinuation was longer in patients who had dose tapering (beta coefficient (95% CI): 3.11 (0.95, 5.28), P = 0.005). Moreover, inotrope or vasopressor requirement was lower 24 hours post midodrine initiation. In contrast, the two groups had no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, or ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

These real-life data showed that tapering midodrine dosage before discontinuation in critically ill patients during weaning from vasopressor aids in reducing the frequency of inotrope or vasopressor re-initiation. Application of such a strategy might be a reasonable approach among ICU patients unless contraindicated.

Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone's clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient's age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission.

RESULTS

After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality.

The association between tocilizumab therapy and the development of thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, cohort study

The use of tocilizumab for the management of COVID-19 emerged since it modulates inflammatory markers by blocking interleukin 6 receptors. Concerns regarding higher thrombosis risk while using tocilizumab were raised in the literature. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between tocilizumab therapy and the development of thromboembolic events in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A propensity score-matched, multicenter cohort study for critically ill adult patients with COVID-19. Eligible patients admitted to ICU between March 2020 and July 2021 were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on tocilizumab use within 24 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of all thrombosis cases during ICU stay. The secondary endpoints were 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and the highest coagulation parameters follow-up (i.e., D-dimer, Fibrinogen) during the stay. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was based on nine matching covariates. Among a total of 867 eligible patients, 453 patients were matched (1:2 ratio) using propensity scores. The thrombosis events were not statistically different between the two groups in crude analysis (6.8% vs. 7.7%; p-value = 0.71) and regression analysis [OR 0.83, 95% CI (0.385, 1.786)]. Peak D-dimer levels did not change significantly when the patient received tocilizumab (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.19 (- 0.08, 0.47)), while there was a significant reduction in fibrinogen levels during ICU stay (beta coefficient (95% CI): - 0.15 (- 0.28, - 0.02)). On the other hand, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in tocilizumab-treated patients (HR 0.57, 95% CI (0.37, 0.87), [HR 0.67, 95% CI (0.46, 0.98), respectively). The use of tocilizumab in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with higher thrombosis events or peak D-dimer levels. On the other hand, fibrinogen levels, 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in the tocilizumab group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

The impact of Saudi Arabia - United States clinical pharmacy post-graduate training programs agreements on clinical pharmacy faculty in Saudi universities: A retrospective descriptive study focused on history and future recommendations

Background

There has been a growing demand for clinical pharmacy services in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in the past 3 decades. The Ministry of Education has established agreements with several institutions in the United States to secure clinical pharmacy residency and research fellowship programs opportunities for Saudi scholars. The aims of this study were to describe the Saudi scholars' clinical pharmacy training pathways and their contribution to the pharmacy profession in KSA.

Methods

This is a retrospective, descriptive study conducted on clinical pharmacy faculty in governmental Saudi universities who graduated from the US until 2023. The study outcomes included the post-graduate year-1 (PGY-1) residency match rate, post-graduate year-2 (PGY-2) acceptance rate, the PGY-2 specialties of Saudi scholars, and the number of clinical pharmacy programs established in KSA.

Results

In total, 115 Saudi scholars have pursued clinical pharmacy pathway in the US. The PGY-1 residency match rate was 80 % (92/115). In contrast, the PGY-2 acceptance rate was 60.9 % (70/115). The most common PGY-2 specialty was in infectious diseases (N = 17; 24 %). Two pharmacy colleges had established residency programs and 1 pharmacy college had established a research fellowship.

Conclusion

The Ministry of Education's efforts for clinical pharmacy program agreements were fundamental for advancing clinical pharmacy in Saudi universities. A significant number of Saudi scholars returned to KSA with clinical pharmacy degrees. There are more opportunities for further development, including expanding the clinical pharmacy program collaboration in the US and increasing the number of residency and research fellowship positions in KSA.

Real-world analysis of integration of sacubitril/valsartan into clinical practice in Saudi Arabia

Despite the demonstrated advantages of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure, the pivotal Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, which explored this class of medications, did not include individuals from Saudi Arabia. Recognizing that different nations and ethnic groups may exhibit unique characteristics, this study aimed to compare the demographics and outcomes of patients in Saudi Arabia who received sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) with those enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF trial. In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we included all adult patients diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) within a tertiary healthcare system in Saudi Arabia between January 2018 and December 2021 and were initiated on Sac/Val. The primary objective was to compare the patient characteristics of those initiating Sac/Val treatment with the participants in the PARADIGM-HF trial. The secondary endpoints included the initiation setting, dose initiation, and titration, as well as alterations in B-type natriuretic peptide and ejection fraction at the 6-month mark. Furthermore, we reported the hospitalization and mortality event rates at the 12-month time point. The study included 400 patients with HFrEF receiving Sac/Val. Compared with the PARADIGM-HF trial, the cohort had a younger mean age and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus. SAC/VAL was prescribed as the initial therapy for 34% of the patients, while the remaining participants were initially treated with either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker before transitioning to Sac/Val. Approximately 75% of patients were initiated on 100 mg Sac/Val twice daily, and 90% initiated therapy in the inpatient setting. The mean ejection fraction significantly improved from 26.5 ± 8.4% to 30.5 ± 6.4% at 6 months (P < .001), while the median B-type natriuretic peptide level change was not significant (P = .39). Our study revealed notable disparities in the baseline characteristics of patients with HFrEF compared with those in the PARADIGM-HF trial. These findings offer valuable real-world insights into the prescription patterns and outcomes of Sac/Val in patients with HFrEF in Saudi Arabia, an aspect not previously represented in the PARADIGM-HF study.

The use of Tocilizumab in COVID-19 critically ill patients with renal impairment: a multicenter, cohort study

Tocilizumab (TCZ) is recommended in patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen therapy or ventilatory support. Despite the wide use of TCZ, little is known about its safety and effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. Therefore, this study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of TCZ in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included all adult COVID-19 patients with renal impairment (eGFR˂60 mL/min) admitted to the ICUs between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on TCZ use (Control vs. TCZ). The primary endpoint was the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) during ICU stay. We screened 1599 patients for eligibility; 394 patients were eligible, and 225 patients were included after PS matching (1:2 ratio); there were 75 TCZ-treated subjects and 150 controls. The rate of AKI was higher in the TCZ group compared with the control group (72.2% versus 57.4%; p = 0.03; OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.34; p = 0.04). Additionally, the ICU length of stay was significantly longer in patients who received TCZ (17.5 days versus 12.5 days; p = 0.006, Beta coefficient: 0.30 days, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.50; p = 0.005). On the other hand, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality were lower in patients who received TCZ compared to the control group (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.73; p = 0.01 and HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.96; p = 0.03, respectively). The use of TCZ in this population was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of AKI while improving the overall survival on the other hand. Further research is needed to assess the risks and benefits of TCZ treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients with renal impairment.

Cardiovascular adverse events of antineoplastic monoclonal antibodies among cancer patients: real-world evidence from a tertiary healthcare system

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), such as trastuzumab, bevacizumab, and pertuzumab have been the mainstay of therapy in cancer patients. Despite proven efficacy of the monoclonal antibodies, cardiovascular-induced adverse events such as heart failure, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, and hemorrhage remain a major complication. The European society of cardiology address that concern with antineoplastic monoclonal antibodies issuing a guideline to manage and monitor chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. There is limited evidence of the real-world prevalence of cardiovascular (CV) events induced by monoclonal antibodies among patients with cancer in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of cardiovascular adverse events among patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were obtained from an electronic medical record of patients with cancer treated with one of the selected monoclonal antibodies, who met the inclusion criteria between January 2005 until June 2015 and have been followed up for at least one year. Patients were stratified into groups according to monoclonal antibodies treatment: trastuzumab, bevacizumab, pertuzumab, and combined mAbs.

RESULTS

A total of 1067 patient were included in the study, within the pre-determined study period. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease among patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies was 16.3%. The prevalence of heart failure was relatively higher in the trastuzumab group (46/626 patients, 7.3%). Among 418 patients treated with bevacizumab, hypertension was the most frequent adverse event, reported in 38 patients (9.1%), followed by thromboembolism reported in 27 patients (6.5%). Treatment discontinuation owing to cardiovascular adverse events was reported in 42/1,067 patients (3.9%).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Prevalence of antineoplastic monoclonal antibody induced cardiovascular adverse events among patients with cancer is substantially high in Saudi Arabia. There is an urgent need to streamline the practice for identifying high risk patients and flexible referral system for cardio-oncology care.

When antivirals backfire: An evaluation of favipiravir's clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Favipiravir is an oral antiviral, that might treat COVID-19 by enhancing viral eradication, particularly in patients with mild-to-moderate disease. Yet, the findings on the use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHOD

A multicenter retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) was conducted from March 2020 to July 2021. Patients were categorized based on favipiravir use (control vs. favipiravir). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during the stay.

RESULTS

After propensity score (PS) matching (1:1 ratio), 146 patients were included in the final analysis. A higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality were observed in patients receiving favipiravir compared to the control group at crude analysis (65.3% vs. 43.8%; P-value=0.009 and 56.3% vs. 40.3; P-value=0.06, respectively); however, no differences were observed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.73, 1.87; P-value =0.51 and HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53, 1.39; P-value=0.53, respectively). Conversely, the MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in patients who received favipiravir than the control group (β coefficient 0.51; CI 0.09, 0.92; P-value = 0.02, β coefficient 0.41; CI 0.17, 0.64; P-value = 0.0006, respectively). Complications during the stay were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate a reduction in mortality; instead, it was linked with longer MV duration and ICU stay. This finding suggests limiting favipiravir use to infections where it is more effective, other than COVID-19. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of the use of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in asthma critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown mortality benefits with corticosteroids in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, there is inconsistency regarding the use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone in COVID-19, and this has not been extensively evaluated in patients with a history of asthma. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in critically ill patients with asthma and COVID-19.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the in-hospital mortality. Other endpoints include 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver injury, length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFDs), and hospital-acquired infections. Propensity score (PS) matching, and regression analyses were used.

RESULTS

A total of one hundred-five patients were included. Thirty patients received methylprednisolone, whereas seventy-five patients received dexamethasone. After PS matching (1:1 ratio), patients who received methylprednisolone had higher but insignificant in-hospital mortality in both crude and logistic regression analysis, [(35.0% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.22) and (OR 2.31; CI: 0.56 - 9.59; P = 0.25), respectively]. There were no statistically significant differences in the 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring MV, AKI, acute liver injury, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and hospital-acquired infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients with asthma may lead to increased in-hospital mortality and shorter VFDs compared to dexamethasone; however, it failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret these data cautiously, and further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to establish more conclusive evidence and support these conclusions.

Survival implications vs. complications: unraveling the impact of vitamin D adjunctive use in critically ill patients with COVID-19-A multicenter cohort study

Background

Despite insufficient evidence, vitamin D has been used as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A multicenter retrospective cohort study that included all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their vitamin D use throughout their ICU stay (control vs. vitamin D). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, and ICU-acquired complications. Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analyses were employed as appropriate.

Results

A total of 1,435 patients were included in the study. Vitamin D was initiated in 177 patients (12.3%), whereas 1,258 patients did not receive it. A total of 288 patients were matched (1:1) using PS. The in-hospital mortality showed no difference between patients who received vitamin D and the control group (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87-1.71; p = 0.26). However, MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in the vitamin D group (beta coefficient 0.24 (95% CI 0.00-0.47), p = 0.05 and beta coefficient 0.16 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.33), p = 0.07, respectively). As an exploratory outcome, patients who received vitamin D were more likely to develop major bleeding than those who did not [OR 3.48 (95% CI 1.10, 10.94), p = 0.03].

Conclusion

The use of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with survival benefits but was linked with longer MV duration, ICU LOS, and higher odds of major bleeding.

Clinical characteristics and dosing of apixaban and rivaroxaban for the management of venous thromboembolism: A multi-center retrospective observational study

Background

Since the risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases with duration or inadequate anticoagulation dosage, a proper regimen of apixaban and rivaroxaban is essential in patients with VTE, especially during the acute phase. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and dosing of anticoagulants for patients who received apixaban or rivaroxaban for VTE treatment.

Methods

The multi-center retrospective observational study included patients diagnosed with VTE who had received apixaban or rivaroxaban between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. The study's description of real-world practices includes patients' characteristics, along with anticoagulant dose and duration used for lead-in or maintenance therapy to manage VTE.

Results

The study involved 695 patients with VTE; 342 of whom were treated with apixaban (49.2%), while 353 were treated with rivaroxaban (50.8%). During the acute phase, 30.1% and 19.3% of patients did not receive lead-in therapy with apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively, and 1.2% received reduced doses of either medication. Among the patients who received apixaban alone for lead-in, the majority (79.5%) received the recommended duration, while 17.1% received a shorter lead-in duration (≤5 days), with an overall mean duration of 6.5 days. Most patients who received rivaroxaban alone for lead-in (93.0%) received the drug for the recommended duration, with an overall mean duration of 20.2 days. Most of the patients who did not receive apixaban or rivaroxaban for lead-in used parenteral anticoagulants for varying durations; however, around 25.0% of these patients did not receive any lead-in anticoagulant and started on maintenance therapy. Overall, patients who did not receive apixaban or rivaroxaban lead-in therapy were commonly associated with a higher risk of bleeding according to their clinical characteristics.

Conclusion

A notable proportion of patients with VTE who were mostly at low to intermediate risk of bleeding received non-recommended doses or durations of apixaban or rivaroxaban for lead-in therapy. Large studies are needed to establish evidence about the outcomes associated with these practices.

The effect of oseltamivir use in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter propensity score-matched study

Background

Oseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance.

Results

A total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: -0.84, 95%CI: (-1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: -0.27, 95% CI: [-0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

Oseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Clinical Pharmacy Faculty Provision of Direct Patient Care, Challenges, and Opportunities

Background

The quadripartite mission of clinical track faculty members involves research, teaching, services, and direct patient care. However, the extent of faculty involvement in direct patient care remains a challenge. Thus, the study's objective is to evaluate the effort spent on direct patient care by clinical faculty of pharmacy schools in Saudi Arabia (S.A.) and identify factors that hinder or facilitate providing direct patient care services.

Methods

This multi-institutional, cross-sectional questionnaire study conducted between July 2021 and March 2022 involved several pharmacy schools' clinical pharmacy faculty members in S.A. The primary outcome was the percentage of time/effort spent on patient care services and other academic responsibilities. The secondary outcomes were the factors affecting the effort spent on direct patient care and the barriers preventing the provision of clinical services.

Results

A total of 44 faculty members took the survey. The percentage of effort spent on clinical education was highest at a median (IQR) of 37.5 (30, 50), followed by that spent on patient care [19 (10, 28.75)]. The percentages of effort spent on education and the length of academic experience were negatively associated with efforts spent on direct patient care. The most commonly reported barrier affecting fulfilling patient care duties was the lack of a clear practice policy (68%).

Conclusion

Although most clinical pharmacy faculty members were involved in direct patient care, half of them devoted only 20% or less of their time to it. An effective effort allocation for clinical faculty duties will require the development of a clinical faculty workload model that sets realistic expectations about the time spent on clinical and non-clinical duties.

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically lll Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study - New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of Early Tocilizumab Effect on Multiorgan Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been proposed as potential rescue therapy for severe COVID-19. No previous study has primarily assessed the role of TCZ in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction. Hence, this multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TCZ early use versus standard of care in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs. Patients were categorized into two groups, the treatment group includes patients who received early TCZ therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission and the control group includes patients who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the multiorgan dysfunction on day three of the ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were 30-day, and in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU-related complications. Results: After propensity score matching, 300 patients were included in the analysis based on predefined criteria with a ratio of 1:2. Patients who received TCZ had lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission compared to the control group (beta coefficient: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.01, P-value = 0.04). Moreover, respiratory failure requiring MV was statistically significantly lower in patients who received early TCZ compared to the control group (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31, 0.91, P-value = 0.02). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in patients who received TCZ than those who did not (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37, 0.85, P-value = 0 .006 and HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36, 0.82, P-value = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In addition to the mortality benefits associated with early TCZ use within 24 hours of ICU admission, the use of TCZ was associated with a significantly lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Real-World Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Apixaban & Rivaroxaban Lead-in Dosing Compared to Parenteral Lead-in Dosing in the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Although parenteral anticoagulation lead-in is not recommended with apixaban and rivaroxaban, parenteral anticoagulation is often used to replace apixaban or rivaroxaban lead-in doses for the initial phase treatment of VTE. Thus, our study compares the safety and effectiveness of lead-in parenteral anticoagulation to lead-in apixaban or rivaroxaban in patients who received apixaban or rivaroxaban for VTE treatment.

Methods

A multi-center retrospective cohort study included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to the hospital with acute VTE and treated with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. Patients were grouped depending on the lead-in anticoagulation received for initial VTE treatment into the "Direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) lead-in" group if patients received an appropriate lead-in dose of apixaban and rivaroxaban and patients who received parenteral lead-in the "parenteral lead-in" group.

Results

A total of 389 patients were included; the DOAC lead-in group included 296 patients, whereas 93 patients were in the parenteral lead-in group. VTE recurrence (rVTE) during hospitalization and within 30 days was numerically higher in the parenteral lead-in group compared to the DOAC lead-in group (3.3% vs 0.6%; p=0.09 and 1.1% vs 0.7%; p=0.560), with a significantly higher number of patients with rVTE at 90 days (5.4% vs 1.4%; p=0.039). However, none of the patient's characteristics were significantly associated with the incidence of rVTE. In addition, the major bleeding rate during hospitalization was significantly higher among the parenteral lead-in group than in the DOAC lead-in group (14.0% vs 3.7%; p<0.001).

Conclusion

Parenteral anticoagulation lead-in before starting maintenance of apixaban and rivaroxaban showed a significantly higher risk of bleeding and a trend toward higher VTE recurrence than the DOAC lead-in. This study adds to the evidence supporting the utilization of the DOAC lead-in regimen in treating patients with VTE. Still, larger studies with robust designs are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Topical Intrapleural Application of Tranexamic Acid in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Bleeding remains a common complication post-thoracic surgery. Although intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to decrease blood loss, its use has been associated with adverse effects. Accordingly, topical TXA has been proposed as an alternative to reduce bleeding with fewer systemic complications.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical TXA versus control (i.e., placebo) in patients undergoing thoracic procedures. The primary outcome was total postoperative blood loss at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included were the number of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Meta-analyses were pooled using mean difference with inverse-variance weighting and random-effects.

RESULTS

Out of the 575 unique studies that were screened, we identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 399 patients. Out of the three RCTs analyzed, two studies, accounting for 67% of the total, were found to have a low risk of bias. The primary outcome of 24-h post-operative blood loss was significantly lower in patients who received TXA (mean difference [MD] -93.6 ml, 95% CI -121.8 to -65.4 ml, I2 = 45%). In addition, the need for RBC transfusion was significantly lower in the topical TXA group compared to control (MD -0.5 units, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.3 units, I2 = 60%). However, there was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -0.3 days, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.4 days, I2 = 0%). These results remained consistent after several sensitivity analyses. The use of topical intrapleural tranexamic acid has also been found to be safe without any significant safety concerns.

CONCLUSION

Topical intrapleural TXA reduces blood loss and the need for blood transfusions during thoracic surgery. In addition, there is no evidence of the increased safety concerns associated with its use. Larger trials are necessary to validate these findings and evaluate the safety and efficacy of different dosages.

Doxycycline's Potential Role in Reducing Thrombosis and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Doxycycline has revealed potential effects in animal studies to prevent thrombosis and reduce mortality. However, less is known about its antithrombotic role in patients with COVID-19. Our study aimed to evaluate doxycycline's impact on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Patients who received doxycycline in intensive care units (ICUs) were compared to patients who did not (control). The primary outcome was the composite thrombotic events. The secondary outcomes were 30-day and in-hospital mortality, length of stay, ventilator-free days, and complications during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS) matching was used based on the selected criteria. Logistic, negative binomial, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used as appropriate. After PS (1:3) matching, 664 patients (doxycycline n = 166, control n = 498) were included. The number of thromboembolic events was lower in the doxycycline group (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26-1.08; P = .08); however, it failed to reach to a statistical significance. Moreover, D-dimer levels and 30-day mortality were lower in the doxycycline group (beta coefficient [95% CI]: -0.22 [-0.46, 0.03; P = .08]; HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52-1.00; P = .05, respectively). In addition, patients who received doxycycline had significantly lower odds of bacterial/fungal pneumonia (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; P = .02). The use of doxycycline as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 might may be a desirable therapeutic option for thrombosis reduction and survival benefits.

The Impact of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Administration in Critically ill COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study

The use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a potential benefit. This study aims to evaluate the effect of ESAs on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01-03-2020 to 31-07-2021. We included adult patients who were ≥ 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were categorized depending on ESAs administration during their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the length of stay; other endpoints were considered secondary. After propensity score matching (1:3), the overall included patients were 120. Among those, 30 patients received ESAs. A longer duration of ICU and hospital stay was observed in the ESA group (beta coefficient: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = < .01, beta coefficient: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12-0.69; P = < .01, respectively). In addition, the ESA group's ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly shorter than the control group. Moreover, patients who received ESAs have higher odds of liver injury and infections during ICU stay than the control group. The use of ESAs in COVID-19 critically ill patients was associated with longer hospital and ICU stays, with no survival benefits but linked with lower VFDs.

Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Non-Critically Ill Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Lead-in Dosing in VTE Treatment: Observational Multicenter Real-World Study

Apixaban and rivaroxaban require lead-in dosing for 7 and 21 days, respectively, when treating venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no evidence exists to support subtracting parenteral anticoagulation days from total lead-in dosing. A multicenter study was conducted, including adult patients with acute VTE who received apixaban or rivaroxaban. The patients were grouped as follows. The recommended group received oral lead-in anticoagulant for the full recommended duration. The mixed group received lead-in therapy as parenteral with oral anticoagulant. The incidence of recurrent VTE (rVTE) and major bleeding (MB) within 90 days were the main outcomes. Of the 368 included patients, 47.8% received apixaban, and 52.2% received rivaroxaban. The recommended lead-in was used in 296 patients (80.4%), whereas 72 (19.6%) received the mixed-lead-in regimen. Five patients had rVTE events within 90 days; two occurred during hospitalization in the recommended group versus none in the mixed group (0.7% vs. 0.0%; p = 1.000). After discharge, two events occurred in the recommended group and one in the mixed group (0.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.481). In terms of MB, 24 events occurred in 21 patients within 90 days. During hospitalization, 11 events occurred in the recommended group and seven in the mixed group (3.7% vs. 9.7%; p = 0.060). After discharge, five more events occurred in the recommended group and one in the mixed group (1.4% vs. 1.7%; p = 1.000). The mixed-lead-in regimen is safe and effective in comparison with the recommended-lead-in regimen.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.  METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate.  RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

The prescribing pattern of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patient with type two diabetes mellitus: A two-center retrospective cross-sectional study

Background

The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains limited, especially in those with other compelling indications. Thus, this study aimed to describe the prescribing patterns of GLP-1-RA and SGLT2i in patients with T2DM and to determine the factors that affect the prescribing of these medications.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective cross-sectional study reviewed the electronic health records of adult patients diagnosed with T2DM who received care between January and December 2020. The patients were classified according to their compelling indications into "patients who are more likely" to benefit from SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA and "patients who are less likely" to benefit from them. They were then further categorized depending on whether these medications were prescribed.

Results

A total of 1,220 patients were included; most were female (56.9%). SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA were preferably prescribed in only 19% of the patients for reasons including BMI ≥ 27 kg/m² (85.6%), uncontrolled T2DM (68.5%), high risk for ASCVD (23.9%), or established ASCVD (14%). The remaining 81.0% were underprescribed these agents. Patients at an older age or with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack had higher odds of being underprescribed (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01-1.03 and OR 2.86; 95% CI: 1.33-6.15), respectively.

Conclusion

The results concur with those of previous studies highlighting the underutilization of GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i in patients with T2DM but also with compelling indications. To optimize the use of GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i for their additional benefits, prescribers need to assess the benefits of using these agents in patients who would likely benefit from them, regardless of DM control.

Cost of cardiovascular diseases and renal complications in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A retrospective analysis of claims database

BACKGROUND

The burden of macro- and microvascular complications in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is substantial in Middle East countries. The current study assessed the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs related to cardiovascular and renal complications among patients with T2DM.

METHODOLOGY

This non-interventional, longitudinal, retrospective, cohort study collected secondary data from three insurance claims databases across Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) of patients diagnosed with T2DM. The study included adult patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with first cardiovascular disease (CVD) during index time period and at least one T2DM claim anytime during the study time period. The primary analyses were conducted per database, stratified by three cohorts; patients with at least one claim every six months during the 1-year pre-index and 1-year post-index period (cohort 1), patients with at least one claim every six months during the 1-year pre-index, and two years post-index period (cohort 2) and patients with at least one claim every six months during the 1-year pre-index and 3-year post-index period (cohort 3). For each Payer database, demographics, CVD subgroups, HCRU, and costs were analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

The study sample comprised of 72-78% male and 22-28% female T2DM patients with CVD and renal complications. Patients in the age group of 35-65 years or above contributed to the significant disease burden. Nearly 68 to 80% of T2DM patients developed one CVD event, and 19 to 31% of patients developed multiple CVD events during the follow-up period. For most patients with comorbid CVD and renal disease, the average HCRU cost for post‑index periods was higher compared to 1-year pre-index period across the different visit types and activities.

CONCLUSION

The study findings elucidates the need for early initiation of therapies that would reduce the long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes and the associated costs in patients with T2DM.

Evaluation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) treatment for moderate-to-severe ARDS in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study

Background

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as rescue therapy in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) despite the recommendation against the use of this treatment. To date, the effect of iNO on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS remains arguable. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of iNO in critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated from March 01, 2020, until July 31, 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the improvement in oxygenation parameters 24 h after iNO use. Other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used based on the predefined criteria.

Results

A total of 1598 patients were screened, and 815 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Among them, 210 patients were matched based on predefined criteria. Oxygenation parameters (PaO₂, FiO₂ requirement, P/F ratio, oxygenation index) were significantly improved 24 h after iNO administration within a median of six days of ICU admission. However, the risk of 30-day and in-hospital mortality were found to be similar between the two groups (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.82; p = 0.45 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94, 2.11; p= 0.10, respectively). On the other hand, ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly fewer, and  ICU and hospital LOS were significantly longer in the iNO group. In addition, patients who received iNO had higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR (95% CI): 2.35 (1.30, 4.26), p value = 0.005) and hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.76, 5.83), p value = 0.001).

Conclusion

In critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, iNO rescue therapy is associated with improved oxygenation parameters but no mortality benefits. Moreover, iNO use is associated with higher odds of AKI, pneumonia, longer LOS, and fewer VFDs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04158-y.

The safety and effectiveness of tocilizumab in older adult critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Evidence supports tocilizumab (TCZ) benefit and safety in adult patients with severe COVID-19. However, its effectiveness in critically ill older adult patients remains questionable. Thus, the study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TCZ in older critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study for all critically ill older adults (aged ≥65 years) with confirmed COVID-19 infection and admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). Eligible patients were categorized into two groups based on TCZ use during ICU stay (control vs TCZ). Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 368 critically ill older adult patients were included in the study. Fifty one patients (13.8%) received TCZ. The in-hospital mortality was lower in the TCZ group (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.76, P-value = 0.005). Patients who received TCZ had lower odds of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (OR [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.10-0.98], P-value = 0.04). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for 30-days mortality, ventilator-free days, length of stay, and complications during ICU stay.

CONCLUSION

Tocilizumab use in critically ill older adult patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and a similar safety profile.

The impact of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors use on the clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, cohort study

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.

Simulation-Based Education Implementation in Pharmacy Curriculum: A Review of the Current Status

Simulation-based education (SBE) is a fundamental teaching method that complements traditional teaching modalities. SBE has improved students' knowledge, understanding, and numerous essential skills within undergraduate pharmacy education, similar to traditional teaching methods. However, SBE has become crucial for developing students' teamwork, decision-making, and communication skills. Even though the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) has acknowledged the benefit of SBE in interprofessional education (IPE) and the introductory pharmacy practice experience (IPPE). This article provides evidence that SBE can be effective beyond that. This narrative review is focused on the literature related to SBE modalities and the assessment methods of student learning outcomes in the undergraduate pharmacy curriculum. The review illustrates that SBE is an effective teaching method that could be utilized within the pharmacy curriculum. The review also could help pharmacy educators decide on the best modality and placement of integrating patient simulation within the pharmacy curriculum. Combining multiple simulation techniques may be the best way to achieve the desired student learning outcomes.

The correlation between non-O blood group type and recurrent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in critically ill patients: A retrospective study

Objective

To investigate the correlation between the ABO blood group and the risk of recurrent catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CA-UTI) and multi-drug resistant (MDR) organism reinfection in the critically ill.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study enrolled adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed CA-UTI to investigate the correlation between ABO type and the susceptibility to recurrent, reinfection and MDR reinfection. Patients were classified into two groups based on ABO type (O blood group versus non-O blood group).

Results

A total of 81 patients were included in the study: 37 in the O blood group and 44 in the non-O blood group. Patients in the O blood group were associated with significantly lower odds of recurrent CA-UTI (adjusted odds ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval 0.08, 0.95), a shorter ICU length of stay (LOS) (estimate [SE] –0.24 [0.05]), hospital LOS (estimate [SE] –0.15 [0.03]) and mechanical ventilation duration (estimate [SE] –0.41 [0.07]) compared with the non-O blood group type.

Conclusion

Non-O blood group type might be a risk factor for recurrent CA-UTI and infection with MDR organism.

Evaluation of Apixaban safety and effectiveness in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The benefit of apixaban to reduce stroke risk in morbidly obese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is still undetermined. The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis recommends avoiding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC)s in morbidly obese patients (body mass index > 40 or weight > 120 kg) because of limited clinical data. This exploratory study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using apixaban in morbidly obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40) patients with AF.

Methods

An exploratory retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single-center, including adult patients with non-valvular AF using apixaban between 01/01/2016 and 31/12/2019. Patients were excluded if they were known to have liver cirrhosis Child-Pugh C, mechanical valve, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, follow up < 3 months, or using apixaban with a dose of ≤5 or > 10 mg/day. Included patients were categorized into two groups based on their BMI (BMI<40 Vs. BMI ≥ 40). The primary outcome was all thrombotic events, while the secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding after apixaban initiation. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the patient’s age, gender, and HAS-BLED score.

Results

A total of 722 patients were eligible; 254 patients were included after propensity score matching based on the selected criteria. The prevalence of all thrombotic events was similar between the two groups in the first year of apixaban initiation (OR (95%CI): 0.58 (0.13, 2.5), p-value = 0.46). In addition, the odds of developing major and minor bleeding were not statistically significant between the two groups (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 showed similar effectiveness and safety of apixaban use in both morbid and non-morbid obese patients with non-valvular AF. However, a larger randomized controlled trial with a longer follow-up period needs to confirm our findings.

Evaluation of Low-Dose Aspirin use among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study

Background

Aspirin is widely used as a cardioprotective agent due to its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties. The literature has assessed and evaluated its role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, no data are available regarding its role in COVID-19 critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg) and its impact on outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Method

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on aspirin use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria.

Results

A total of 1033 patients were eligible, and 352 patients were included after propensity score matching. The in-hospital mortality (HR 0.73 [0.56, 0.97], p = 0.03) was lower in patients who received aspirin during stay. Conversely, patients who received aspirin had a higher odds of major bleeding than those in the control group (OR 2.92 [0.91, 9.36], p = 0.07); however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed a possible mortality benefit for patients who used aspirin therapy prior to hospitalization and continued during ICU stay (HR 0.72 [0.52, 1.01], p = 0.05), but not with the new initiation of aspirin (HR 1.22 [0.68, 2.20], p = 0.50).

Conclusion

Continuation of aspirin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were receiving it prior to ICU admission may have a mortality benefit; nevertheless, it may be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding. Appropriate evaluation for safety versus benefits of utilizing aspirin therapy during ICU stay in COVID19 critically ill patients is highly recommended.

The use of dietary supplements for mental health among the Saudi population: A cross-sectional survey

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Comparison Between Standard Vs. Escalated Dose Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Two centers, Observational Study

Introduction

The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the “standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under ”escalated VTE prophylaxis dose“. The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.

Results

A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52–2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16–3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08–10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79–1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76–1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).

Conclusion

Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Evaluation of Apixaban in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Case Series and Review of Literature

Several guidelines endorsed the indefinite use warfarin or heparin-containing products for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and secondary prevention and discouraged the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for patients diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). However, adequate anticoagulation despite warfarin therapy remains a challenge in APS patients. Using DOACs in APS patients is seen in clinical practice, despite the lack of evidence to support their use in this population. In this case series, we aim to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of apixaban use in nine patients with primary or secondary APS at King Abdulaziz Medical City (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). All patients presented with APS and received apixaban with or without concomitant antiplatelet. Three patients had double positivity, and two patients had triple positivity of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Some patients tolerated apixaban during the follow-up period, but recurrent VTE and stroke were reported in some of them. Bleeding complications were evident in some cases as well. In conclusion, warfarin remains the best choice to prevent VTE recurrence in patients with APS. On the other side, apixaban use in patients with APS may have some safety and effectiveness concerns evidenced by VTE recurrence and bleeding complications. The safety and effectiveness of utilizing apixaban in APS patients need to be assessed in well-controlled randomized trials.

Statins and Risk of Thrombosis in Critically ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Coagulation abnormalities are one of the most important complications of severe COVID-19, which might lead to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Hypercoagulability with hyperfibrinogenemia causes large vessel thrombosis and major thromboembolic sequelae. Statins are potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection due to their pleiotropic effect. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of statins in reducing the risk of thrombosis among hospitalized critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were categorized based on their usage of statins throughout their ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score. The primary endpoint was the odds of all cases of thrombosis; other outcomes were considered secondary.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients were eligible; following propensity score matching, 396 patients were included (1:1 ratio). The odds of all thrombosis cases and VTE events did not differ significantly between the two groups (OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.43, 1.66), P = 0.62 and OR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43, 2.98), P = 0.81, respectively. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients who received statin therapy had lower 30-day (HR 0.72 (95 % CI 0.54, 0.97), P = 0.03) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.67 (95 % CI 0.51, 0.89), P = 0.007). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant between the two groups except for D-dimer levels (peak) during ICU stay.

CONCLUSION

The use of statin therapy during ICU stay was not associated with thrombosis reduction in critically ill patients with COVID-19; however, it has been associated with survival benefits.

Clinical pharmacy definition, required education, training and practice in Saudi Arabia: A position statement by the Saudi society of clinical pharmacy

The Saudi Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SSCP) is a scientific and professional society in the field of clinical pharmacy that operates under the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties governance. The SSCP believes that there is a need to define and describe many aspects related to the clinical pharmacy profession in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, there is an increasing demand for promoting the concept of clinical pharmacy and developing a consensus regarding the scope of practice and clinical pharmacist's required postgraduate education and training in Saudi Arabia. This paper is intended to present several position statements by the SSCP that define the concept of clinical pharmacy, describe the required education and training, and highlight clinical pharmacists' scope of practice in Saudi Arabia. This paper calls for further investigations that examine the impact of clinical pharmacists on individual and population health levels.

The Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cohort Study

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can boost the systematic inflammatory response in critically ill patients, causing a systemic hyperinflammatory state leading to multiple complications. In COVID-19 patients, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is surrounded by controversy regarding their impacts on viral infections. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICS in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its clinical outcomes. Method: A multicenter, noninterventional, cohort study for critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received ICS. All patients aged ≥ 18 years old with confirmed COVID-19 and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were screened. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the use of ICS ± long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS)-matched was used based on patient's Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic corticosteroids use, and acute kidney injury (AKI) within 24 h of ICU admission. We considered a P-value of < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 954 patients were eligible; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). The 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.53 [0.31, 0.93], P-value = 0.03) was statistically significant lower in patients who received ICS. Conversely, the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of ICS ± LABA in COVID-19 patients may have survival benefits at 30 days. However, it was not associated with in-hospital mortality benefits nor VFDs.

Association between tocilizumab and emerging multidrug-resistant organisms in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab is an IgG1 class recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits the IL-6 receptor. Several randomized clinical trials have evaluated its safety and efficacy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and these studies demonstrate conflicting results. Our study aimed to determine the association between tocilizumab treatment and microbial isolation and emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary government hospitals in Saudi Arabia. All critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units with a positive COVID-19 PCR test between March 1 and December 31, 2020, who met study criteria were included. Patients who received tocilizumab were compared to those who did not receive it.

RESULTS

A total of 738 patients who met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Of these, 262 (35.5%) received tocilizumab, and 476 (64.5%) were included in the control group. Patients who received tocilizumab had higher odds for microbial isolation (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.91-1.94, p = 0.13); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Development of resistant organisms (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51-1.98, p = 0.99) or detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.29-1.54, p = 0.34) was not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tocilizumab use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is not associated with higher microbial isolation, the emergence of resistant organisms, or the detection of CRE organisms.

The use of direct oral anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis or treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis and review of the guidelines

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is one of the most common causes of increased morbidity and mortality. The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) has been evaluated in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess efficacy and safety of using DOACs for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of CA-VTE and provide a summary for available guidelines' recommendations.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched to identify studies evaluating the use of DOACs for thromboprophylaxis or treatment in patients with cancer. Search was limited to peer-reviewed studies published in English. Studies were excluded if they were not RCTs or subgroup analyses of data derived from RCTs, if they did not report efficacy and safety data on patients with active cancer, or if they were published as an abstract. New VTE or VTE recurrence, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) were used to assess the efficacy and safety, respectively. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model risk ratios (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the pooled treatment effects of DOACs.

RESULTS

Four studies evaluating DOACs use for thromboprophylaxis and four - for treatment of CA-VTE were included. Thromboprophylaxis with DOACs was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR = 0.58; 95%CI 0.37,0.91) but with an incremental risk of major bleeding or CRNMB (RR = 1.57; 95%CI 1.10,2.26). CA-VTE treatment with DOACs was linked with a significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.44,0.87) but with an incremental risk of CRNMB (RR = 1.58; 95%CI 1.11,2.24).

CONCLUSIONS

The DOACs are associated with a lower risk of symptomatic VTE and VTE recurrence, but the risk of bleeding remains a considerable concern. Clinical decisions should be made by assessing individual patient's risk of VTE and bleeding.

Evaluation of zinc sulfate as an adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two center propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

Zinc is a trace element that plays a role in stimulating innate and acquired immunity. The role of zinc in critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with COVID-19 who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia were retrospectively assessed for zinc use from March 1, 2020 until March 31, 2021. After propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria, we assessed the association of zinc used as adjunctive therapy with the 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the in-hospital mortality, ventilator free days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complication (s) during ICU stay.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were included, 82 patients received zinc. Patients who received zinc sulfate as adjunctive therapy have a lower 30-day mortality (HR 0.52, CI 0.29, 0.92; p = 0.03). On the other hand, the in-hospital mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (HR 0.64, CI 0.37-1.10; p = 0.11). Zinc sulfate use was associated with a lower odds of acute kidney injury development during ICU stay (OR 0.46 CI 0.19-1.06; p = 0.07); however, it did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The use of zinc sulfate as an additional treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients may improve survival. Furthermore, zinc supplementation may have a protective effect on the kidneys.

Patients, Prescribers, and Institutional Factors Associated with Inappropriate Use of Acid Suppressive Therapy in Medical Wards: An Experience of a Single-Center in Saudi Arabia

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with inappropriate acid-suppressive therapy (AST) use in hospitalized medical ward patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a combined retrospective cohort study reviewing the electronic medical records of medical ward in a secondary university hospital between January 2018 and July 2019, in addition to prescriber surveys about AST knowledge. We included adult patients (≥18 years old) admitted to the medical ward who received at least one dose of AST during their hospitalization. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 335 patients were included. Most of the patients were female (66.6%), with a mean age of 42.37 ± 17.72 years; 76% (n=256) of the study subjects were prescribed AST for an inappropriate indication. Patients who were not receiving any home medications associated with high bleeding risk had higher odds of being prescribed AST inappropriately (OR, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.09-13.8). A total of 27 physicians completed the prescriber survey, and the average prescriber's knowledge score was 46.8 ± 15.6%. This score did not differ by the prescriber's position.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the overuse of AST in the medical ward. Therefore, improving providers' awareness about AST and implementing an AST stewardship program in institutions is necessary to limit this long-lasting issue.

Single versus multiple doses of Tocilizumab in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A two-center, retrospective cohort study

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the optimal tocilizumab dosing regimen.

Methods

A two-center, retrospective cohort study, for COVID19 critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). We included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older who received tocilizumab during ICU stay. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of the received tocilizumab doses. The primary outcome was the in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria.

Results

A total of 298 patients were included in the study; 70.4% (210 patients) received a single dose of tocilizumab. After adjusting for possible confounders, the 30-day mortality (HR 0.79 95% CI 0.43–1.45 P = 0.44) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.46–1.49; P = 0.53) were not significantly different between the two groups. On the flip side, patients who received multiple doses had higher pneumonia odds than a single dose (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.79–8.12 P = 0.0005).

Conclusion

Repeating tocilizumab doses were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19 critically ill patients, but it was associated with higher odds of pneumonia compared to a single dose.