ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Favipiravir is generally used in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in Turkey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the side effects of favipiravir and whether it is a good treatment option. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study conducted in Atatürk Chest Diseases and Chest Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. METHODS: 357 patients who completed favipiravir treatment at the recommended dose were included. 37 patients with drug side effects and 320 patients without drug side effects were examined in two groups. RESULTS: Side effects were observed in 37 (10.36%) out of 357 patients using favipiravir. The most common side effect was liver dysfunction, in 26 (7.28%) of the patients. The following other side effects were also observed: diarrhea (1.4%), nausea (0.84%), abdominal pain (0.28%) and thrombocytopenia (0.28%). One patient (0.28%) presented both increased transaminases and nausea. CONCLUSION: In this study, it was determined that favipiravir may constitute an alternative for treating COVID-19 pneumonia given that its side effects are generally well tolerated and not serious.
Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/drug therapy , COVID-19/drug therapy , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Pyrazines , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Amides , SARS-CoV-2 , Nausea/chemically induced , Nausea/drug therapyABSTRACT
SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: Failure to achieve high levels of medication adherence in obstructive lung diseases is a major cause of uncontrolled disease. The purpose of this study is to reveal clinicians' opinions on the level of patient adherence and the change in adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A questionnaire containing multiple-choice questions about treatment adherence in patients with obstructive lung diseases was voluntarily applied to doctors working in a tertiary hospital for chest diseases. RESULTS: Eighty-one doctors (mean age, 37.2 years [standard deviation, 9.7 years]; 57 (70.4%) women) answered the questionnaires. Almost all clinicians participating in the study reported that they always or frequently asked patients if they adhered to treatment. Most clinicians think that in 20-50% of patients with asthma and less than 20% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a decrease in medication adherence appears in the first year of treatment. Most clinicians think the main reason for patients with obstructive lung diseases not adhering is patients' reluctance to be treated regularly. Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients' drug adherence, 43.2% of clinicians observed that adherence increased after the start of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to medication is not at the desired levels in patients with obstructive lung diseases. However, when faced with a serious health threat, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, patients realize the severity of their illness and begin using their treatments more regularly.
Subject(s)
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/drug therapy , COVID-19 , Medication Adherence , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Middle AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:This study aimed to compare pantoprazole, a proton-pomp inhibitors (PPIs), and ranitidine, a H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA), in ceasing dyspeptic symptoms in the emergency department (ED). METHODS:This randomized, double-blinded study compared the effectiveness of 50 mg ranitidine (Ulcuran?) and 40 mg pantoprazole (Pantpas?), given in a 100 mL saline solution by an intravenous rapid infusion within 2–4 minutes in patients with dyspepsia presented to the ED. Pain intensity was measured at baseline, 30 and 60 minutes after the drug administration. RESULTS:A total of 72 patients were eligible for the study. Of these patients, 2 were excluded from the study because the initial visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were under 20 mm and 4 were excluded from the statistical analysis because of being diagnosed as having other causes of epigastric pain despite being allocated to one of the study groups. Thirty-three patients in the pantoprazole group and 33 patients in the ranitidine group were analyzed ultimately. The mean age of the patients was 36.6±15 years, and 26 (39.4％) patients were male. Both of the groups reduced pain effectively at 30 [27.6±28 (18 to 37) vs. 28.3±23 (20 to 37), respectively] and 60 minutes [39.6±39 (26 to 53) vs. 42.3±25 (33 to 51), respectively]. There were 13 (39.4％) patients in the pantoprazole group and 8 (24.2％) patients in the ranitidine group who required additional drug at the end of the study (P=0.186). CONCLUSION:Intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine are not superior to each other in ceasing dyspeptic symptoms at 30 and 60 minutes in the ED.