Anesthetic drug shortages in Pakistan: a multicentre nationwide survey.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of literature on anesthetic drug shortages and their impact on patient safety in lower-middle-income countries. We sought to determine the magnitude of the problem, the effect on patient care and safety, and the adverse patient outcomes witnessed by anesthesiologists in Pakistan METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, multicentre, cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of anesthesiologists in Pakistan (January 2021 to June 2021). The survey questionnaire was adapted from the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) survey on drug shortages and was modified based on the national essential medication list 2018 of Pakistan. It was distributed through Google Forms to anesthesiologists practicing in both the private and government sector. The names of hospitals or the identity of anesthesiologists was not required. The questionnaire consisted of 20 items and focused on the anesthesiologists' experience of drug shortages, the availability of drugs, and the impact of drug shortages on their individual practice. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six responses were received. Approximately 50% (122/246) of anesthesia practitioners in Pakistan reported anesthetic drug shortages. Fifty-seven percent of respondents mentioned using an inferior drug that may have significantly affected the delivery of anesthetic care. Four participants mentioned severe morbidity and another four mentioned observing a mortality associated with drug shortage. CONCLUSION: Anesthetic drug shortages are common in anesthetic practice in Pakistan and they appear to affect patient care and outcomes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Il existe peu de littérature sur les pénuries de médicaments anesthésiques et leur impact sur la sécurité des patients dans les pays à revenu intermédiaire ou faible. Nous avons cherché à déterminer l'ampleur du problème, l'effet sur les soins et la sécurité des patients ainsi que les issues indésirables observées par les anesthésiologistes au Pakistan. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une enquête transversale multicentrique à l'échelle nationale auprès d'un échantillon représentatif d'anesthésiologistes au Pakistan (janvier 2021 à juin 2021). Le questionnaire de l'enquête a été adapté de l'enquête de l'American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) sur les pénuries de médicaments et a été modifié en fonction de la liste nationale des médicaments essentiels 2018 du Pakistan. Il a été distribué via Google Forms aux anesthésiologistes exerçant dans les secteurs privé et gouvernemental. Les noms des hôpitaux et l'identité des anesthésiologistes n'étaient pas demandés. Le questionnaire comprenait 20 éléments et portait sur l'expérience des anesthésiologistes en matière de pénuries de médicaments, la disponibilité des médicaments et l'impact des pénuries de médicaments sur leur pratique individuelle. RéSULTATS: Deux cent quarante-six réponses ont été reçues. Environ 50 % (122/246) des praticiens anesthésistes au Pakistan ont signalé des pénuries de médicaments anesthésiques. Cinquante-sept pour cent des répondants ont mentionné avoir utilisé un médicament de qualité inférieure qui pourrait avoir eu une incidence significative sur la prestation des soins anesthésiques. Quatre participants ont mentionné une morbidité grave et quatre autres ont mentionné avoir observé une mortalité associée à une pénurie de médicaments. CONCLUSION: Les pénuries de médicaments anesthésiques sont courantes dans la pratique anesthésique au Pakistan et semblent affecter les soins aux patients et les devenirs.

Factors associated with loss of motivation and hesitation to work amongst frontline health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey from a developing country.

Background: The COVID-19 took over the world in 2020 and a lockdown has been imposed seeing its fast spread. Frontline health care workers (HCWs) were reported frequently with a lack of motivation, hesitancy and unwillingness to perform their duties during this pandemic. This cross-sectional survey aims to evaluate the factors associated with lack of motivation and increased hesitancy among the frontline HCWs to perform their duties during COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods: A total of 239 HCWs were included in this web-based cross-sectional study, who have worked during the COVID-19 pandemic. The anonymous online questionnaire was sent to all faculty, trainees and staff of Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. The survey was conducted from September 2020 to January 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. All data was exported into Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 19 for multivariate analysis. Results: The risk of getting infected was strongly reported by 180 participants, and it was associated with higher hesitation to work (aOR = 6.09 [2.55-14.59]). Fifty-one participants felt that lack of knowledge about prevention and protection was associated with lower motivation to work (aOR = 0.66 [0.35-1.25]). Participants reported higher hesitation due to the burden of changed quality of work, physical exhaustion, mental exhaustion and altered sleep patterns. Sense of feeling protected by their hospitals was a motivating factor, and participants receiving adequate support reported higher motivation to work (aOR = 2.60 [1.32-5.14]). Conclusion: Fear of infection, increased working hours, and inadequate support of the workplace played a key role in escalating the hesitancy among HCWs to perform their duties. Lack of disease knowledge and paucity of personal protective equipment further lowered the motivation levels of HCWs to work effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perception, Willingness, Barriers, and Hesitancy Towards COVID-19 Vaccine in Pakistan: Comparison Between Healthcare Workers and General Population.

Background Vaccine hesitancy has been a huge challenge in controlling preventable diseases. With the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, it is vital to know their acceptance rates among the masses. No comparative data is available on the current subject from Pakistan yet. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of a potential COVID-19 vaccine among the general population and healthcare workers (HCWs) of Pakistan, along with their perceptions and barriers to acceptance. Methods An online cross-sectional study was carried out in Pakistan from December 19, 2020, to January 10, 2021, using convenience sampling. A self-administered questionnaire consisting of 31 items was distributed after informed consent. Inclusion criteria consisted of HCWs and non-HCWs (general population) aged 18 years and above, residing in Pakistan. All analyses were done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Chi-square and T-test were used and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant for all cases. Results Of the 404 respondents (n=196 general population and n=208 HCWs), 73.5% were willing to get a proven, safe, and effective COVID-19 vaccine if it was free of cost. This was reduced to only 64.3% if the vaccine was not free and had to be paid for. A total of 168 (41.6%) participants agreed to get vaccinated immediately, while 149 (36.9%) participants concurred to get it on a delayed basis. Eighty-seven (21.5%) participants refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, amongst which a significant majority (p<0.001) of the participants were from the general population. Doctors or scientists/scholarly journals were found to be the most trusted source of information (67.6%; n=273), while fear of unknown side effects (45.5%; n=184) was found to be the most common barrier towards COVID-19 vaccination. More than half (53.5%) participants believed that the vaccine is safe, effective, and has minimal side effects, amongst which a significantly large fraction (p<0.001) belonged to the HCWs. Conclusion The acceptance rate of a safe, effective, proven, and free COVID-19 vaccine was 73.5%. The fear of unknown side effects was the most common barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The general population demonstrated less knowledge, more false perceptions, and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine. Adequate measures should be taken to educate the masses about the COVID-19 vaccine, and its safety, and further studies are required.

Use of Tocilizumab in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence.

Background and objectives A flare-up in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases threatens the health of people, and though there is no proven pharmacological treatment, many analytical studies have suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels are elevated in cases of severe COVID-19 and that the anti-IL-6 biologic agent tocilizumab may be beneficial. This is a critical review of studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab as compared to the standard regimen in patients with COVID-19. Materials and methods Online databases (PubMed and Cochrane) were searched until June 29, 2020, for original articles investigating the immunological response in COVID-19 and its treatment with tocilizumab. Data on multiple baseline characteristics and pre-specified endpoints were extracted and pooled using a random effect model. We used Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Denmark) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX) for all analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results From a total of 1,246 identified articles, 13 studies were included after duplicate removal and narrowing based on title and abstract. Of the 13 included studies, seven case-control studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis (quantitative) and six-single arm studies were used in the discussion (qualitative). These studies had 766 patients (351 in the tocilizumab arm and 414 in the control arm). Their pooled analysis demonstrated that mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (RR=0.56 [0.34, 0.92]; p=0.02; I2=76%), as was the need for artificial invasive ventilation (RR=0.34 [0.12, 0.99]; p=0.05; I2=0%) as compared to the control group. No significant differences were observed between tocilizumab and control group in intensive care unit admissions (RR=0.73 [0.15, 3.59]; p=0.70; I2=60%) and risks of post-drug infection (RR=1.29 [0.41, 4.04]; p=0.66; I2=88%). In terms of efficacy outcome, improved oxygen saturation (RR=1.13 [1.04, 1.65]; p=0.02; I2=0%) was reported to be markedly significant in tocilizumab patients when compared with the standard care group. Conclusions Our results based on pooled studies show tocilizumab to be safe and efficacious in reducing mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number of observational studies, the positive findings should be viewed cautiously and warrant further investigation.

COVID-19 and Liver Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Aims The prevalence and extent of liver damage in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain poorly understood, primarily due to small-sized epidemiological studies with varying definitions of "liver injury". We conducted a meta-analysis to derive generalizable, well-powered estimates of liver injury prevalence in COVID-19 patients. We also aimed to assess whether liver injury prevalence is significantly greater than the baseline prevalence of chronic liver disease (CLD). Our secondary aim was to study whether the degree of liver injury was associated with the severity of COVID-19. Materials and Methods Electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies reporting the prevalence of baseline CLD and current liver injury in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Liver injury was defined as an elevation in transaminases >3 times above the upper limit of normal. For the secondary analysis, all studies reporting mean liver enzyme levels in severe versus non-severe COVID-19 patients were included. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Proportions were subjected to arcsine transformation and pooled to derive pooled proportions and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup differences were tested for using the chi-square test and associated p-value. Means and their standard errors were pooled to derive weighted mean differences (WMDs) and corresponding 95% CIs. Results Electronic search yielded a total of 521 articles. After removal of duplicates and reviewing the full-texts of potential studies, a total of 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among a cohort of 8,817 patients, the prevalence of current liver injury was 15.7% (9.5%-23.0%), and this was significantly higher than the proportion of patients with a history of CLD (4.9% [2.2%-8.6%]; p < 0.001). A total of 2,900 patients in our population had severe COVID-19, and 7,184 patients had non-severe COVID-19. Serum ALT (WMD: 7.19 [4.90, 9.48]; p < 0.001; I2 = 69%), AST (WMD: 9.02 [6.89, 11.15]; p < 0.001; I2 = 73%) and bilirubin levels (WMD: 1.78 [0.86, 2.70]; p < 0.001; I2 = 82%) were significantly higher in patients with severe COVID-19 when compared to patients with non-severe disease. Albumin levels were significantly lower in patients with severe COVID-19 (WMD: -4.16 [-5.97, -2.35]; p < 0.001; I2 = 95%). Conclusions Patients with COVID-19 have a higher than expected prevalence of liver injury, and the extent of the injury is associated with the severity of the disease. Further studies are required to assess whether hepatic damage is caused by the virus, medications, or both.

Availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Among US and Pakistani Doctors in COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has put an excessive strain on healthcare systems across the globe, causing a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE is a precious commodity for health personnel to protect them against infections. We investigated the availability of PPE among doctors in the United States (US) and Pakistan. Methods A cross-sectional study, including doctors from the US and Pakistan, was carried out from April 8 to May 5, 2020. An online self-administered questionnaire was distributed to doctors working in hospitals in the US and Pakistan after a small pilot study. All analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results After informed consent, 574 doctors (60.6% from Pakistan and 39.4% from the US) were included in the analysis. The majority of the participants were females (53.3%), and the mean age of the participants was 35.3 ± 10.3 years. Most doctors (47.7%) were from medicine and allied fields. Among the participants, 87.6% of doctors from the US reported having access to masks/N95 respirators, 79.6% to gloves, 77.9% to face-shields or goggles, and 50.4% to full-suit/gown. Whereas, doctors in Pakistan reported to have poor availability of PPE with only 37.4% having access to masks/N95 respirator, 34.5% to gloves, 13.8% to face-shields or goggles, and 12.9% to full-suit/gown. The reuse of PPE was reported by 80.5% and 60.3% physicians from the US and Pakistan, respectively. More doctors from Pakistan (50.6%) reported that they had been forced to work without PPE compared to doctors in the US (7.1%). Conclusion There is a lack of different forms of PPE in the US and Pakistan. Doctors from both countries reported that they had been forced to work without PPE. Compared to the US, more doctors from Pakistan reported having faced discrimination in receiving PPE.