Association between self-reported evidence-based medicine competencies and prescribing of drugs without scientific evidence against mild COVID-19 among recently graduated physicians in Peru.

Objective: To evaluate the association between self-rated evidence-based medicine (EBM) competencies and the prescription of drugs without scientific evidence against mild COVID-19 (present with any of the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 but who do not have shortness of breath, dyspnea, or abnormal chest imaging) among recently graduated physicians in Peru. Methods: We conducted an analytical cross-sectional study where we evaluated a non-probability sample of recently graduated physicians during June and July 2021 (end of second wave of COVID-19 in Peru). Self-rated EBM competencies were assessed by four domains (formulation of a clinical question, search, analysis, and application) using a Likert scale with scores from zero to four ("Very inadequate" = 0, to "Very Adequate" = 4), it was considered as "Adequate" if the score was three or four. In addition, the variable "General competence on EBM" was rated as "Adequate" if in all domains evaluated it presented an adequate self-rating. For the outcome, drug prescription, we considered the use of ivermectin, azithromycin, other antibiotics, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and anticoagulants (drugs with no efficacy demonstrated for patients with mild COVID-19). To assess the association, we used Poisson regression models with robust variances and obtaining crude (cPR) and adjusted (aPR) prevalence ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: Of a total of 239 physicians included 70.7% prescribed at least one drug without scientific evidence. A total of 51.1% reported adequate ratings in all evaluated domains of EBM. Self-rating the "Clinical Question Formulation" competency as adequate was associated with a lower frequency of prescribing medications for mild COVID-19 (aPR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95). While self-rating as adequate the competency of "Identify possible implications of investigations" was associated with an increase in the prescription of such drugs (aPR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). Additionally, self-rating all domains as adequate were associated with less prescription (aPR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.90-0.96). Conclusion: Seven out of ten recently graduated physicians prescribed some type of medication without scientific evidence to treat patients with mild COVID-19. Having adequate self-perceived EBM competencies was associated with a lower frequency of prescribing medications without scientific evidence to manage patients with mild COVID-19.

An appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review.

The objective of the study was to evaluate all available systematic reviews on the use of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An umbrella review on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome was conducted. We performed a systematic search in the database of Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos. The ROBIS tools and GRADE methodology were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We estimated the necessary number of patients to be treated to have benefit. For the synthesis of the result, we selected the review with the lowest risk of bias. Sixteen systematic reviews including 64 randomized clinical trials and evaluating the effect of prone positional ventilation, with or without other ventilation strategies were included. Aoyama 2019 observed prone positioning, without complementary ventilation strategies, leading to a reduction in the 28-day mortality only when compared to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.95) and lung-protective ventilation in the supine position (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), with an ARR of 9.32% and 14.94%, an NNTB of 5.89 and 8.04, and a low and moderate certainty of evidence, respectively. Most reviews had severe methodological flaws that led to results with very low certainty of evidence. The review with the lowest risk of bias presented results in favor of prone positional ventilation compared with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and lung-protective ventilation. There is a need to update the available reviews to obtain more accurate results.

Factors Associated With Drug Consumption Without Scientific Evidence in Patients With Mild COVID-19 in Peru.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with the consumption of drugs without scientific evidence in patients with mild COVID-19 infection in Peru. METHODS: An analytical cross-sectional study was carried out including 372 adult patients with a history of mild COVID-19 disease. Factors associated with drug consumption were evaluated by Poisson regressions with robust variance adjustment using the bootstrapping resampling method. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent consumed some medication without scientific evidence, with antibiotics (71%) and ivermectin for human use (68%) being the most commonly used. Factors associated with the consumption of drugs to treat mild COVID-19 infection were thinking that the drugs are not effective (adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.74) and not being informed about the efficacy of the drugs (adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Education of the population seems to be the main factor that increases the consumption of drugs without scientific evidence in the Peruvian population to treat mild COVID-19.

Factors associated with prevention practices against COVID-19 in the Peruvian population: Disparities between rural and urban areas.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors associated with prevention practices against COVID-19 in the Peruvian population according to rural vs. urban locations. METHODS: Analytical cross-sectional study, secondary analysis based on a previously collected database. A sample of individuals over 18 years of age, residing in Peru and with no history of COVID-19was evaluated. Factors associated with prevention practices were evaluated using Poisson regressions with variance adjustment by region cluster and stratified by rurality. RESULTS: Of 3231 participants included, 2741 (84.8%) were from urban areas and 490 (15.2%) from rural areas. The frequency of good prevention practices against COVID-19 was 27.8% in our total sample. In urban areas the frequency of good prevention practices was 28.8% and in rural areas it was 22.5%. Factors associated with prevention practices against COVID-19 in both urban and rural areas were male sex (urban: aPR 0.64, 95%CI 0.55-0.75; rural: aPR 0.66, 95%CI 0.54-0.80) and self-considering adequately carrying out prevention practices (urban: aPR 2.48, 95%CI 2.13-2.89; rural: aPR 2.70, 95%CI 2.27-3.19). CONCLUSION: The frequency of good prevention practices against COVID-19 was less than 30% in both urban and rural areas. There are differences in the factors associated with good preventive practice against COVID-19. Only sex and considering that preventive measures were adequately carried out were associated with good prevention practices in both areas. In view of this, prevention measures should be promoted taking into account cultural principles and considering geographical location in the face of present and future outbreaks or pandemics.

Factors associated with the intention to participate in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials: A cross-sectional study in Peru.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the factors associated with the intention to participate in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials in the Peruvian population. METHODS: Cross-sectional study and secondary analysis of a database that involved Peruvian population during September 2020. The Poisson regression model was used to estimate the associated factors. RESULTS: Data from 3231 individuals were analyzed, 44.1% of whom intended to participate in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Factors associated with the outcome were being male (RPa: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.15-1.35), being from the highlands region (RPa: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.09-1.28) or jungle (RPa: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.15-1.47), having a relative that is a healthcare professional (PRa: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.28), using a medical source of information (PRa: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.17-1.41), and trusting in the possible effectiveness of vaccines (PRa: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.29-1.51). The main reason for not participating in the trial was the possibility of developing side effects (69.80%). CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need to generate a perception of safety in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, to increase the population's intention to participate in these studies, and to provide evidence-based information about the vaccine.

Factors associated with the consumption of chlorine dioxide to prevent and treat COVID-19 in the Peruvian population: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Chlorine dioxide has been promoted as an alternative for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, especially in Peru, despite the lack of evidence to support its efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with chlorine dioxide consumption in the Peruvian population. METHODS: Analytical cross-sectional study. An adult Peruvian population was evaluated where chlorine dioxide consumption was divided into two groups according to the purpose of use: as prevention (individuals without COVID-19 history) and as treatment (individuals with COVID-19 history). The associated factors in each group were evaluated using Poisson regressions with the bootstrapping resampling method. RESULTS: Of 3610 participants included, 3213 reported no history of COVID-19, and 397 had been infected. The prevalence of chlorine dioxide consumption to prevent or treat COVID-19 was 8 and 16%, respectively. Factors either positively or negatively associated with chlorine dioxide consumption for prevention were male sex (aPR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.09-1.71), being an adult or older adult (aPR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35-0.82), having a health sciences student within the family unit (aPR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.02-1.87), using medical information as the main source of information of COVID-19 (aPR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.40-0.80), having comorbidities for COVID-19 (aPR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82), considering COVID-19 dangerous and deadly (aPR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45-0.74), using medications (aPR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.25-2.06) and plants to prevent COVID-19 (aPR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.36), considering chlorine dioxide ineffective (aPR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.18-0.24), and being uninformed of its efficacy (aPR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.16-0.28). In addition, factors associated with chlorine dioxide consumption for treatment were considering COVID-19 dangerous and deadly (aPR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.96), considering chlorine dioxide ineffective (aPR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12-0.42), and being uninformed of its efficacy (aPR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of chlorine dioxide consumption to treat COVID-19 was higher than prevent. It is important to apply information strategies, prioritizing population groups with certain characteristics that are associated with a higher consumption pattern.