Effect of the chronic medication use on outcome measures of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Evidence from big data

Background Concerns about the role of chronically used medications in the clinical outcomes of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have remarkable potential for the breakdown of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) management by imposing ambivalence toward medication continuation. This study aimed to investigate the association of single or combinations of chronically used medications in NCDs with clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Methods This retrospective study was conducted on the intersection of two databases, the Iranian COVID-19 registry and Iran Health Insurance Organization. The primary outcome was death due to COVID-19 hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and ventilation therapy. The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system was used for medication grouping. The frequent pattern growth algorithm was utilized to investigate the effect of medication combinations on COVID-19 outcomes. Findings Aspirin with chronic use in 10.8% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients was the most frequently used medication, followed by Atorvastatin (9.2%) and Losartan (8.0%). Adrenergics in combination with corticosteroids inhalants (ACIs) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.68–0.92) were the most associated medications with less chance of ventilation therapy. Oxicams had the least OR of 0.80 (0.73–0.87) for COVID-19 death, followed by ACIs [0.85 (0.77–0.95)] and Biguanides [0.86 (0.82–0.91)]. Conclusion The chronic use of most frequently used medications for NCDs management was not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. Thus, when indicated, physicians need to discourage patients with NCDs from discontinuing their medications for fear of possible adverse effects on COVID-19 prognosis.

Effect of the chronic medication use on outcome measures of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Evidence from big data.

Background: Concerns about the role of chronically used medications in the clinical outcomes of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have remarkable potential for the breakdown of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) management by imposing ambivalence toward medication continuation. This study aimed to investigate the association of single or combinations of chronically used medications in NCDs with clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on the intersection of two databases, the Iranian COVID-19 registry and Iran Health Insurance Organization. The primary outcome was death due to COVID-19 hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and ventilation therapy. The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system was used for medication grouping. The frequent pattern growth algorithm was utilized to investigate the effect of medication combinations on COVID-19 outcomes. Findings: Aspirin with chronic use in 10.8% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients was the most frequently used medication, followed by Atorvastatin (9.2%) and Losartan (8.0%). Adrenergics in combination with corticosteroids inhalants (ACIs) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.68-0.92) were the most associated medications with less chance of ventilation therapy. Oxicams had the least OR of 0.80 (0.73-0.87) for COVID-19 death, followed by ACIs [0.85 (0.77-0.95)] and Biguanides [0.86 (0.82-0.91)]. Conclusion: The chronic use of most frequently used medications for NCDs management was not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. Thus, when indicated, physicians need to discourage patients with NCDs from discontinuing their medications for fear of possible adverse effects on COVID-19 prognosis.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices About COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Iran During the First Wave of the Pandemic.

Background and Objective: Investigating the knowledge, attitudes, and practices about the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare workers (HCWs) could be an early step toward identifying their potential educational needs and possible factors involved in misinformation. The objective of this study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices about COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Iran during the first wave of the pandemic. Materials and Methods: The current descriptive-correlational study was conducted during the 1st days of the COVID-19 epidemic in Iran from March 24th to April 3rd, 2020. Participants included all healthcare workers at hospitals, including physicians, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, midwives, laboratory and radiology assistants, and other hospital professionals during the study period. Data were collected through an online self-administrative questionnaire. Results: The responses of 1,310 participants were analyzed, of which 900 (68.7%) were female. The mean (SD) knowledge score was 25.4 (3.3), 84.7% out of 30. More than 90% of participants correctly recognized the main symptoms, transmission route, and preventive measures for COVID-19. The mean (SD) attitude score was 16.9 (1.1), 93.9% out of 18. Most participants agreed with keeping safe physical distancing, self-isolation upon symptom onset, and city lockdowns. The mean (SD) score for general practices about COVID-19 was 20.8 (2.0), 86.7% of 24. Conclusion: The knowledge and practice of HCWs were appropriate, and their attitudes were mainly positive. However, there is still room for improvement regarding concerning misinformation and quackeries about COVID-19.

Priorities Towards Fair Allocation of Ventilators During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in severe shortage in vital resources, including invasive mechanical ventilators. The current imbalance between demand and supply of mechanical ventilators has called for investigations on the fair allocation of mechanical ventilators. OBJECTIVE: To determine the priorities of the medical experts towards the fair allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted from May 28 to Aug 20, 2020. The questionnaire was sent to 50 medical specialists as the Delphi panel. Participants were asked to rate each prioritising factor: "-1" for low priority, "+1" for high priority, and "Zero" for equal priority. RESULTS: Among 38 experts who responded to the email, the responses of 35 were analysed. 31 (88.6%) participants recommended that pregnant women be considered high priority in allocating ventilators, 27 (77.1%) mothers of children <5 years, 26 (74.3%) patients under 80-years, and 23 (65.7%) front-line-healthcare-workers. In contrast, 28 (80.0) participants recommended that patients who are terminally ill should be considered as a low priority, 27 (77.1%) patients with active-malignancy, 25 (71.4%) neurodegenerative diseases, and 16 (45.7%) patients aged >80. The panel did not reach a consensus regarding the role of patients' laboratory profiles, underlying diseases, or drug abuse in the prioritisation of ventilators. CONCLUSIONS: The panel considered pregnant mothers, mothers of children under 5 years, age groups younger than 80, and front-line healthcare workers to have high priority in allocating mechanical ventilators.

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

IMPORTANCE: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). FINDINGS: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.

Public Opinion on Priorities Toward Fair Allocation of Ventilators During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey.

Background: The rapidly growing imbalance between supply and demand for ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the principles for fair allocation of scarce resources. Failing to address public views and concerns on the subject could fuel distrust. The objective of this study was to determine the priorities of the Iranian public toward the fair allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This anonymous community-based national study was conducted from May 28 to Aug 20, 2020, in Iran. Data were collected via the Google Forms platform, using an online self-administrative questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed participants' assigned prioritization scores for ventilators based on medical and non-medical criteria. To quantify participants' responses on prioritizing ventilator allocation among sub-groups of patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation scores ranging from -2, very low priority, to +2, very high priority were assigned to each response. Results: Responses of 2,043 participants, 1,189 women, and 1,012 men, were analyzed. The mean (SD) age was 31.1 (9.5), being 32.1 (9.3) among women, and 29.9 (9.6) among men. Among all participants, 274 (13.4%) were healthcare workers. The median of assigned priority score was zero (equal) for gender, age 41-80, nationality, religion, socioeconomic, high-profile governmental position, high-profile occupation, being celebrities, employment status, smoking status, drug abuse, end-stage status, and obesity. The median assigned priority score was +2 (very high priority) for pregnancy, and having <2 years old children. The median assigned priority score was +1 (high priority) for physicians and nurses of patients with COVID-19, patients with nobel research position, those aged <40 years, those with underlying disease, immunocompromise status, and malignancy. Age>80 was the only factor participants assigned -1 (low priority) to. Conclusions: Participants stated that socioeconomic factors, except for age>80, should not be involved in prioritizing mechanical ventilators at the time of resources scarcity. Front-line physicians and nurses of COVID-19 patients, pregnant mothers, mothers who had children under 2 years old were given high priority.

COVID-19 in patients with diabetes: factors associated with worse outcomes.

Purpose: Diabetes is one of the major comorbidities associated with COVID-19. We aimed to determine the clinical and epidemiological factors associated with the mortality of COVID-19 in diabetic patients in Iran, and also the impact of prescribed antiviral and antibiotics on patients' status. Methods: In this study, we used the national registry of hospitalized patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Symptoms with diabetes from February 18, 2020, to December 22, 2020. Demographic, clinical features, treatments, concurrent comorbidities, and their associations with mortality and severity outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. Results: 78,554 diabetic in-patients with SARS symptoms were included from 31 provinces of whom 37,338 were PCR positive for COVID-19. Older age and male gender are associated with COVID-19 mortality in diabetic patients. CVD is the most frequent comorbidity (42%). CVD, kidney disease, liver disease, and COPD are associated comorbidities which increased the risk of mortality. The mortality rate is higher in diabetic patients comparing to patients with no comorbidities, particularly in younger age groups. The frequency of antiviral, and antibiotics in COVID-19 positive patients was 34%, and 31%, respectively. Antibiotic treatment has no association with mortality in COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: Diabetic patients indicate higher mortality comparing to patients without any underlying comorbidities. Restrict strategies on increasing effective health care utilization must be considered in diabetic patients, especially in those with parallel underlying comorbidities. Regarding the antibiotic resistance issue and the noticeable use of antibiotics in diabetic patients, it is recommended to prioritize an antibiotic guideline prescription in COVID-19 patients for better stewardship by countries.

How the scientific community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: A subject-level time-trend bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has triggered an avalanche of research publications, the various aspects of which need to be assessed. The objective of this study is to determine the scientific community's response patterns to COVID-19 through a bibliometric analysis of the time-trends, global contribution, international collaboration, open-access provision, science domains of focus, and the behavior of journals. METHODS: The bibliographic records on COVID-19 literature were retrieved from both PubMed and Scopus. The period for searching was set from November 1, 2019, to April 15, 2021. The bibliographic data were coupled with COVID-19 incidence to explore possible association, as well as World Bank indicators and classification of economies. RESULTS: A total of 159132 records were included in the study. Following the escalation of incidences of COVID-19 in late 2020 and early 2021, the monthly publication count made a new peak in March 2021 at 20505. Overall, 125155 (78.6%) were national, 22548 (14.2%) were bi-national, and 11429 (7.2%) were multi-national. Low-income countries with 928 (66.8%) international publications had the highest percentage of international. The open-access provision decreased from 85.5% in February 2020 to 62.0% in April 2021. As many as 82841 (70.8%) publications were related to health sciences, followed by life sciences 27031 (23.1%), social sciences 20291 (17.3%), and physical sciences 15141 (12.9%). The top three medical subjects in publications were general internal medicine, public health, and infectious diseases with 28.9%, 18.3%, and 12.6% of medical publications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The association between the incidence and publication count indicated the scientific community's interest in the ongoing situation and timely response to it. Only one-fifth of publications resulted from international collaboration, which might lead to redundancy without adding significant value. Our study underscores the necessity of policies for attraction of international collaboration and direction of vital funds toward domains of higher priority.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Safety Practices About COVID-19 Among High School Students in Iran During the First Wave of the Pandemic.

Background: School closures have inevitably deprived students of their traditional source of information. The objective of this study was to determine knowledge, attitudes, and safety practices about COVID-19 among high school students in Iran. Methods: This study was conducted from March 24th-April 3rd, 2020. Data were collected via an online-parent-administrative questionnaire. Results: Responses of 704 students were analyzed. Students' mean (SD) knowledge score was 21.5 (4.6) of 30. More than 90% of students knew about the cause of the disease, the routes of transmission, and the most renowned symptoms: dyspnea and cough. Social-and- audiovisual-media were the leading information source. Most students believed that people need to keep safe physical distancing, everyone should isolate themselves upon symptoms onset, people should avoid unnecessary in-person contact with family and friends, and that cities need to go under lockdowns if needed. Students' mean (SD) practice score was 20.2 (2.5) of 24. Most students did not go on a trip, and more than 80% said they would wear facemasks when going outside. Conclusions: High school students' knowledge and safety practices about COVID-19 were somewhat satisfactory, and their attitudes toward the disease were mainly positive. Nevertheless, some witnessed knowledge gaps, negative attitudes, and unsafe practices in the study highlighted the need for targeted education on the pandemic. Social and mass media's significant role and potential could be utilized to battle misinformation and deliver proper knowledge to young adolescents.

Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to COVID-19 in Iran: Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a rapidly growing outbreak, the future course of which is strongly determined by people's adherence to social distancing measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the knowledge level, attitudes, and practices of the Iranian population in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: A nationwide study was conducted from March 24 to April 3, 2020, whereby data were collected via an online self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Responses from 12,332 participants were analyzed. Participants' mean knowledge score was 23.2 (SD 4.3) out of 30. Most participants recognized the cause of COVID-19, its routes of transmission, its symptoms and signs, predisposing factors, and prevention measures. Social media was the leading source of information. Participants recognized the dangers of the situation and felt responsible for following social distancing protocols, as well as isolating themselves upon symptom presentation. Participants' mean practice score was 20.7 (SD 2.2) out of 24. Nearly none of the respondents went on a trip, and 92% (n=11,342) washed their hands before touching their faces. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of COVID-19 among people in Iran was nearly sufficient, their attitudes were mainly positive, and their practices were satisfactory. There is still room for improvement in correcting misinformation and protecting people from deception. Iranians appear to support government actions like social distancing and care for their and others' safety.