AIMS: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating the effect of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.
MATERIALS & METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases and clinical trial registries (up to October 17, 2021) for eligible studies. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and duration of hospital stay. Meta-analysis with the random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) of mortality and 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled standardized mean difference of duration of hospital stay with 95% CI between colchicine users and non-colchicine users was estimated using Cohen's d index.
RESULTS: The meta-analyses revealed no significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.53-1.07), but a significant reduction in the duration of hospital stay with the use of colchicine (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.59; 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.13).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The ability of colchicine to reduce the length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is consistent with its potential to prevent clinical deterioration via inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome. Nevertheless, such beneficial effects of colchicine did not translate into mortality benefits in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published from inception to 28th February 2021. All authors were involved in the screening and selection of studies. Original studies investigating the therapeutic, humanistic, safety, and economic impact of clinical pharmacists in Pakistani patients (hospitalised or outpatients) were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in studies, and discrepancies were resolved through mutual consensus. All of the included studies were descriptively synthesised, and PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed.
RESULTS: The literature search found 751 articles from which nine studies were included; seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and two were observational studies. Three RCTs included were having a low risk of bias (ROB), two RCTs were having an unclear ROB, while two RCTs were having a high ROB. The nature of clinical pharmacist interventions included one or more components such as disease-related education, lifestyle changes, medication adherence counselling, medication therapy management, and discussions with physicians about prescription modification if necessary. Clinical pharmacist interventions reduce medication-related errors, improve therapeutic outcomes such as blood pressure, glycemic control, lipid control, CD4 T lymphocytes, and renal functions, and improve humanistic outcomes such as patient knowledge, adherence, and health-related quality of life. However, no study reported the economic outcomes of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the studies included in this systematic review suggest that clinical pharmacists play important roles in improving patients' health outcomes in Pakistan; however, it should be noted that the majority of the studies have a high risk of bias, and more research with appropriate study designs is needed.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published studies to assess the association of RAS inhibitors with mortality as well as disease severity in COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve relevant original studies investigating mortality and severity (severe/critical disease) in COVID-19 patients with and without exposure to RAS inhibitors.
RESULTS: A total of 59 original studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty-four studies that reported adjusted effect sizes (24 studies reported mortality outcomes and 16 studies reported disease severity outcomes), conducted in RAS inhibitor-exposed and unexposed groups, were pooled in random-effects models to estimate overall risk. Quality assessment of studies revealed that most of the studies included were of fair quality. The use of an ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.95; n = 18,749) or hazard (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95; n = 26,598) of mortality compared with non-use of ACEI/ARB. However, the use of an ACEI/ARB was non-significantly associated with lower odds (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10; n = 7446) or hazard (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.66; n = 6325) of developing severe/critical disease compared with non-use of an ACEI/ARB.
DISCUSSION: Since there was no increased risk of harm, the use of RAS inhibitors for hypertension and other established clinical indications can be maintained in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: A systematic literature search in eight databases from January 2000 to July 2023 focusing on RCTs that compared a pharmacological intervention with a placebo for enhancing sleep in people with AD. The authors registered the study protocol at Prospero, followed the PRISMA guidelines, and produced the pooled estimates using random-effect or IVhet models.
RESULTS: Eight different interventions and 29 different sleep outcomes were examined in 14 RCTs included in this review. Eszopiclone positively affected sleep efficiency, as did orexin antagonists. However, there was no difference when melatonin was used. The interventions demonstrated low discontinuation rates and a few adverse drug reactions.
CONCLUSION: Although melatonin was the most investigated intervention, the evidence for its efficacy is inconclusive. On the other hand, trazodone and orexin receptor antagonists showed promising results; however, more RCTs are needed for definite answers.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated the psychometric properties of Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Healthcare Provider Student (JSE-HPS) and empathic behaviour of dietetics students.
RESULTS: Undergraduate dietetics students from one private and two public universities in Malaysia participated (n = 455). Item and scale psychometric properties were examined using principal component analysis and differences in mean empathy scores for students were assessed across years of study and types of universities. A 3-factor solution emerged in the results, accounting for 26.76%, 10.75% and 6.3% of the variance. The JSE-HPS demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.83). Despite students enroled at public universities scoring higher mean empathy scores than students enroled at the private university, the difference was not significant. The only significant difference was between the empathy level of first and third year students (p = 0.033).
CONCLUSION: As empathy underpins patient-centred management in the nutrition care process, it should be well integrated into curriculum delivery so that appropriate levels of empathy can be developed to prepare work-ready healthcare professionals.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint servers for eligible trials up to July 8, 2024. Two investigators independently screened the records and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Trials were eligible if they compared vitamin D with control interventions in adults with COVID-19. Data extraction and analysis were carried out independently, employing a random-effects model to estimate pooled odds ratios for mortality.
RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials with 2495 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality with vitamin D supplementation (pooled OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.98; I2 = 20%). Subgroup analysis for severe COVID-19 cases also indicated significant mortality reduction (pooled OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.92; I2 = 18%).
CONCLUSION: Vitamin D supplementation appears to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients, especially in severe cases. These findings highlight the potential benefits of vitamin D as an adjunct treatment in COVID-19, though further large-scale trials are needed to confirm these effects and determine optimal dosing.
METHODS: The Prescription Cost Analysis database presenting the primary care prescriptions data and the Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles presenting all suspected ADRs reported for each drug were screened. The data were analyzed using linear regression analysis to examine the annual average change per year.
RESULTS: The prescription items dispensed for ADHD showed an average 11.07% (95% CI 10.54-11.60, p = .001) increase per year and there was a mean 11.54% (95% CI 11.03-12.06, p = .001) increase per year in the costs. The overall reporting of serious and fatal ADR was reduced by 1.79% per year for ADHD drugs. Guanfacine showed a 40% mean increase per year.
CONCLUSION: The increasing use of ADHD drugs within primary care in England could be a result of multiple factors such as growing ADHD prevalence.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included data from 344 older (173 inpatients and 171 outpatients) patients, aged 60 years and above, through validated questionnaires. Medication appropriateness was assessed via Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) tool, whereas Beers and Screening Tool of Older Person's Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (STOPP) criteria were used to evaluate PIMs and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), respectively. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) and polypharmacy, as well as PROs, included Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (Katz ADL) and Older People's Quality of Life (OPQOL) were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, inpatients received significantly higher medications (6.90 ± 2.70 vs 4.49 ± 3.20) than outpatients. A significantly higher proportion of inpatients received at least one PIM (65% vs 57%) or PIP (57.4% vs 17.0%) and higher mean MAI score (1.76 ± 1.08 and 1.10 ± 0.34) and DBI score (2.67 ± 1.28 vs 1.49 ± 1.17) than outpatients. Inpatients had significantly higher total OPQOL (118.53 vs 79.95) and GFI score (5.44 vs 3.78) than outpatients. We only found significant correlations between GFI and DBI and total OPQOL and the number of PIMs.
CONCLUSIONS: Proportions of PIMs and DBI exposure were significantly higher in an inpatient setting. No significant correlations between exposures to inappropriate medications or drug burden and PROs were observed.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 500 systematically sampled pharmacy students from two private and one public university. A validated, self-administered questionnaire comprised of seven sections was used to gather the data. A systematic sampling was applied to recruit the students. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were applied using SPSS® version 18.
RESULTS: Overall, the students tend to disagree that complementary therapies (CM) are a threat to public health (mean score = 3.6) and agreed that CMs include ideas and methods from which conventional medicine could benefit (mean score = 4.7). More than half (57.8%) of the participants were currently using CAM while 77.6% had used it previously. Among the current CAM modalities used by the students, CM (21.9%) was found to be the most frequently used CAM followed by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) (21%). Most of the students (74.8%) believed that lack of scientific evidence is one of the most important barriers obstructing them to use CAM. More than half of the students perceived TCM (62.8%) and music therapy (53.8%) to be effective. Majority of them (69.3%) asserted that CAM knowledge is necessary to be a well-rounded professional.
CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a high-percentage of pharmacy students who were using or had previously used at least one type of CAM. Students of higher professional years tend to agree that CMs include ideas and methods from which conventional medicine could benefit.
METHODS: A validated self-administered questionnaire was used in this cross-sectional study to collect data from final-year BPharm students enrolled at 3 government-funded universities and 1 private university in Malaysia. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis.
RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen students responded (213 from public universities and 101 from the private university). Approximately 32% of public university students and 37% of private university students ranked their own interest in pharmacy as the reason for undertaking pharmacy degree studies; 40.4% of public and 19.8% of private university respondents stated that they would enter a nonpharmacy-related career upon graduation if given the choice. Public university students ranked hospital pharmacy as their choice of first career setting (4.39, p = 0.001), while private students ranked community pharmacy first (4.1, p = 0.002). On a scale of 1 to 5, salary received the highest mean score (3.9 and 4.0, p = 0.854) as the extrinsic factor most influencing their career choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Final-year students at Malaysian public universities were most interested in hospital pharmacy practice as their first career step upon graduation, while private university students were most interested in community pharmacy. The top 3 extrinsic factors rated as significant in selecting a career destination were salary, benefits, and geographical location.