Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 54
Filter
2.
Pediatrics ; 149(2)2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662454

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pediatric ambulatory encounter volume and antibiotic prescribing both decreased; however, the durability of these reductions in pediatric primary care in the United States has not been assessed. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures on antibiotic prescribing in 27 pediatric primary care practices. Encounters from January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021, were included. The primary outcome was monthly antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 patients. Interrupted time series analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 69 327 total antibiotic prescriptions from April through December in 2019 and 18 935 antibiotic prescriptions during the same months in 2020, a 72.7% reduction. The reduction in prescriptions at visits for respiratory tract infection (RTI) accounted for 87.3% of this decrease. Using interrupted time series analysis, overall antibiotic prescriptions decreased from 31.6 to 6.4 prescriptions per 1000 patients in April 2020 (difference of -25.2 prescriptions per 1000 patients; 95% CI: -32.9 to -17.5). This was followed by a nonsignificant monthly increase in antibiotic prescriptions, with prescribing beginning to rebound from April to June 2021. Encounter volume also immediately decreased, and while overall encounter volume quickly started to recover, RTI encounter volume returned more slowly. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic were sustained, only beginning to rise in 2021, primarily driven by reductions in RTI encounters. Reductions in viral RTI transmission likely played a substantial role in reduced RTI visits and antibiotic prescriptions.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care , Child , Female , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Male , Pandemics , Pediatrics , Philadelphia/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
4.
PLoS Med ; 18(11): e1003829, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1595916

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic in North America has been driven by an increase in the use and potency of prescription opioids, with ensuing excessive opioid-related deaths. Internationally, there are lower rates of opioid-related mortality, possibly because of differences in prescribing and health system policies. Our aim was to compare opioid prescribing rates in patients without cancer, across 5 centers in 4 countries. In addition, we evaluated differences in the type, strength, and starting dose of medication and whether these characteristics changed over time. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults who are new users of opioids without prior cancer. Electronic health records and administrative health records from Boston (United States), Quebec and Alberta (Canada), United Kingdom, and Taiwan were used to identify patients between 2006 and 2015. Standard dosages in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) were calculated according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Age- and sex-standardized opioid prescribing rates were calculated for each jurisdiction. Of the 2,542,890 patients included, 44,690 were from Boston (US), 1,420,136 Alberta, 26,871 Quebec (Canada), 1,012,939 UK, and 38,254 Taiwan. The highest standardized opioid prescribing rates in 2014 were observed in Alberta at 66/1,000 persons compared to 52, 51, and 18/1,000 in the UK, US, and Quebec, respectively. The median MME/day (IQR) at initiation was highest in Boston at 38 (20 to 45); followed by Quebec, 27 (18 to 43); Alberta, 23 (9 to 38); UK, 12 (7 to 20); and Taiwan, 8 (4 to 11). Oxycodone was the first prescribed opioid in 65% of patients in the US cohort compared to 14% in Quebec, 4% in Alberta, 0.1% in the UK, and none in Taiwan. One of the limitations was that data were not available from all centers for the entirety of the 10-year period. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed substantial differences in opioid prescribing practices for non-cancer pain between jurisdictions. The preference to start patients on higher MME/day and more potent opioids in North America may be a contributing cause to the opioid epidemic.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Pain/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Canada , Cohort Studies , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Morphine/administration & dosage , Morphine/therapeutic use , Taiwan , United Kingdom , United States , Young Adult
6.
Ophthalmology ; 129(3): 258-266, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540882

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Emerging evidence suggests that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is disrupting health behaviors such as medication adherence. The objective of this study was to determine whether adherence to ocular hypotensive medication was affected by the pandemic and to identify factors associated with this change. DESIGN: In this cohort study, we used a controlled interrupted time series design in which the interruption was the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States on March 13, 2020. The 300-day monitoring period, which evenly bracketed this declaration, started on October 16, 2019, and ended on August 10, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma enrolled in an ongoing longitudinal National Institutes of Health-funded study initiated before the onset of the pandemic were selected if they were prescribed ocular hypotensive medication and had adherence data spanning the 300-day period. METHODS: We applied segmented regression analysis using a "slope change following a lag" impact model to obtain the adherence slopes in the periods before and after the segmentation. We compared the 2 slopes using the Davies test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was daily adherence to ocular hypotensive medication, defined as the number of doses taken divided by the number of doses prescribed, expressed in percent. Adherence was measured objectively using Medication Event Monitoring System caps. We assessed the associations between change in adherence and demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors. RESULTS: The sample included 79 patients (mean age, 71 years [standard deviation, 8 years]). Segmented regression identified a breakpoint at day 28 after the declaration of the pandemic. The slope in the period after the breakpoint (-0.04%/day) was significantly different from zero (P < 0.001) and from the slope in the period before the breakpoint (0.006%/day; P < 0.001). Mean adherence in the period before the segmentation breakpoint was significantly worse in Black patients (median, IQR: 80.6%, 36.2%) compared with White patients (median, IQR: 97.2%, 8.7%; chi-square, 15.4; P = 0.0004). A significant positive association was observed between the Connor-Davidson resilience score and the change in slope between the periods before and after the breakpoint (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to ocular hypotensive medication worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic and seems to be related to patient resilience. This collateral consequence of the pandemic may translate into vision loss that may manifest beyond its containment.


Subject(s)
Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/drug therapy , Medication Adherence/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Intraocular Pressure , Male , Middle Aged , Ophthalmic Solutions , Patients/psychology , Psychology , Resilience, Psychological , United States/epidemiology
7.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(43): e27664, 2021 Oct 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494093

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: This study examined changes in psychotropic medication use associated with the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using Kaiser Permanente Northern California electronic health records, the authors identified adult patients with fills for psychotropic medications and a non-psychotropic comparator (statins) in the 13 weeks before and after the first-known COVID-19-related death in California (March 4, 2020). Generalized estimating equations were used to derive relative risk ratios (RRR) for medication fills compared with the prior year. Analyses were stratified by new and continued fills and patient characteristics. Among 2,405,824 patients, the mean (SD) age was 49.8 (17.9) years; 52.9% were female; 47.9% identified as White; 8.0% and 7.9% had anxiety and depression disorder diagnoses, respectively. Accounting for secular trends, in the 13 weeks following March 4, 2020, there were increased fills for trazodone (RRR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.02, 1.04), decreased fills for benzodiazepines (RRR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.94, 0.96) and hypnotics (RRR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96, 0.99), and stable fills for antidepressants (RRR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99, 1.00). Relative rates of new fills decreased across most medication classes and continued fills either remained stable or demonstrated non-clinically significant decreases. Patients aged ≥65 years demonstrated decreased fills for most medication classes. In the first 13 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, fills for most psychotropic medications remained constant or showed small changes relative to the previous year. Continued (compared with new) fills accounted for observed increases in some medication classes. Older adults demonstrated decreased fills of most medications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Central Nervous System Agents/administration & dosage , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , California/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors
9.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258537, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477535

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Real-world big data studies using health insurance claims databases require extraction algorithms to accurately identify target population and outcome. However, no algorithm for Crohn's disease (CD) has yet been validated. In this study we aim to develop an algorithm for identifying CD using the claims data of the insurance system. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study to develop a CD extraction algorithm from insurance claims data was conducted. Patients visiting the Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital between January 2015-February 2019 were enrolled, and data were extracted according to inclusion criteria combining the Tenth Revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) diagnosis codes with or without prescription or surgical codes. Hundred cases that met each inclusion criterion were randomly sampled and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated according to the diagnosis in the medical chart. Of all cases, 20% were reviewed in duplicate, and the inter-observer agreement (Kappa) was also calculated. RESULTS: From the 82,898 enrolled, 255 cases were extracted by diagnosis code alone, 197 by the combination of diagnosis and prescription codes, and 197 by the combination of diagnosis codes and prescription or surgical codes. The PPV for confirmed CD cases was 83% by diagnosis codes alone, but improved to 97% by combining with prescription codes. The inter-observer agreement was 0.9903. CONCLUSIONS: Single ICD-code alone was insufficient to define CD; however, the algorithm that combined diagnosis codes with prescription codes indicated a sufficiently high PPV and will enable outcome-based research on CD using the Japanese claims database.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , Crohn Disease/diagnosis , Adult , Crohn Disease/drug therapy , Crohn Disease/surgery , Cross-Sectional Studies , Databases, Factual , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospitals, University , Humans , Japan , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data
10.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(9): e2124766, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1473777

ABSTRACT

Importance: Triplet chemotherapy with fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (FOLFOXIRI-B) is an effective first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the degree of implementation of FOLFOXIRI-B in daily practice is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the current adoption rate of FOLFOXIRI-B in patients with mCRC and investigate the perspectives of medical oncologists toward this treatment option. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 1-week, multicenter, cross-sectional study in the Netherlands used a flash mob design, which facilitates ultrafast data generation (flash) through the engagement of numerous researchers (mob). During the study week (March 1-5, 2021), patient data were retrieved from electronic health records of 47 hospitals on patients with mCRC who were referred to a medical oncologist between November 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Interviews were simultaneously conducted with 101 medical oncologists from 52 hospitals who regularly treat patients with mCRC. Exposure: First-line systemic treatment as determined by the treating physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: The FOLFOXIRI-B prescription rate was the main outcome. Current practice was compared with prescription rates in 2015 to 2018. Eligibility for treatment with FOLFOXIRI-B was estimated. An exploratory outcome was medical oncologists' reported perspectives on FOLFOXIRI-B. Results: A total of 5948 patients in the Netherlands (median age [interquartile range], 66 [57-73] years; 3503 [59%] male; and 3712 [62%] with left-sided or rectal tumor) were treated with first-line systemic therapy for synchronous mCRC. A total of 282 patients with mCRC underwent systemic therapy during the study period (2021). Of these 282 patients, 199 (71%) were treated with intensive first-line therapy other than FOLFOXIRI-B, of whom 184 (65%) were treated with oxaliplatin doublets with or without bevacizumab; 14 (5%) with irinotecan doublets with or without bevacizumab, panitumumab, or cetuximab; and 1 (0.4%) with irinotecan with bevacizumab. Fifty-four patients (19%) were treated with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy with or without bevacizumab, 1 patient (0.4%) with panitumumab monotherapy, and 3 (1%) with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In total, 25 patients (9%; 95% CI, 6%-12%) were treated with first-line FOLFOXIRI-B compared with 142 (2%; 95% CI, 2%-3%) in 2015 to 2018. During the study period, 21 of 157 eligible patients (13.4%) in the Netherlands were treated with FOLFOXIRI-B. A total of 87 medical oncologists (86%) reported discussing FOLFOXIRI-B as a treatment option with eligible patients. A total of 47 of 85 (55%) generally communicated a preference for a chemotherapy doublet to patients. These oncologists reported a significantly lower awareness of guidelines and trial results. Toxic effects were the most reported reason to prefer an alternative regimen. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that FOLFOXIRI-B prescription rates have marginally increased in the last 5 years. Considering that most medical oncologists discuss this treatment option, the prescription rate found in this study was below expectations. Awareness of guidelines and trial data seems to contribute to the discussion of available treatment options by medical oncologists, and the findings of this study suggest a need for repeated and continuing medical education.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage , Bevacizumab/administration & dosage , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Medical Oncology/statistics & numerical data , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Fluorouracil/administration & dosage , Humans , Leucovorin/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Oxaliplatin/administration & dosage , Research Design
11.
Obstet Gynecol ; 138(4): 574-577, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462516

ABSTRACT

Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care professionals have made swift accommodations to provide consistent and safe care, including emphasizing remote access to allow physical distancing. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate intramuscular injection (DMPA-IM) prescription is typically administered by a health care professional, whereas DMPA-subcutaneous has the potential to be safely self-injected by patients, avoiding contact with a health care professional. However, DMPA-subcutaneous is rarely prescribed despite its U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2004 and widespread coverage by both state Medicaid providers and many private insurers. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate users are disproportionately non-White, and thus the restriction in DMPA-subcutaneous prescribing may both stem from and contribute to systemic racial health disparities. We review evidence on acceptability, safety, and continuation rates of DMPA-subcutaneous, consider sources of implicit bias that may impede prescription of this contraceptive method, and provide recommendations for implementing DMPA-subcutaneous prescribing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Contraceptive Agents, Female/administration & dosage , Family Planning Services/statistics & numerical data , Medroxyprogesterone Acetate/administration & dosage , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Contraception/statistics & numerical data , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Family Planning Services/methods , Female , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Injections, Subcutaneous , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Administration , United States
12.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 116(8): 1738-1740, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1444536

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are curative treatments for hepatitis C. However, initiation of these treatments requires adequate healthcare access. Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in restrictions to healthcare services in March 2020. We examined the impact of COVID-19 on the number of individuals dispensed DAAs. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study examining the number of individuals dispensed DAAs in Ontario, Canada, from 2018 to 2020. Time-series models determined the impact of healthcare restrictions on DAA dispensations. RESULTS: Healthcare restrictions resulted in a 49.3% decrease in DAA dispensations (P = 0.026). DISCUSSION: COVID-19-related healthcare restrictions significantly affected access to DAAs. Studies exploring the long-term effects on reduced treatment are needed.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Hepatitis C, Chronic/drug therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Ontario
14.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 60(SI): SI51-SI58, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388016

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the adherence of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) to their immunomodulatory medication during the three-month lockdown in Germany. METHODS: From 16th March until 15th June 2020, IRD patients from private practices and rheumatology departments were asked to answer a questionnaire addressing their behaviour with respect to their immunomodulating therapy. Eight private practices and nine rheumatology departments that included rheumatology primary care centres and university hospitals participated. A total of 4252 questionnaires were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: The majority of patients (54%) were diagnosed with RA, followed by psoriatic arthritis (14%), ankylosing spondylitis (10%), connective tissue diseases (12%) and vasculitides (6%). Most of the patients (84%) reported to continue their immunomodulatory therapy. Termination of therapy was reported by only 3% of the patients. The results were independent from the type of IRD, the respective immunomodulatory therapy and by whom the patients were treated (private practices vs rheumatology departments). Younger patients (<60 years) reported just as often as older patients to discontinue their therapy. CONCLUSION: The data show that most of the patients continued their therapy in spite of the pandemic. A significant change in behaviour with regard to their immunomodulatory therapy was not observed during the three months of observation. The results support the idea that the immediate release of recommendations of the German Society of Rheumatology were well received, supporting the well-established physician-patient relationship in times of a crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Medication Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Adult , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Germany , Humans , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique ; 69(5): 255-264, 2021 Oct.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347807

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The spring 2020 COVID-19 epidemic severely impacted France's healthcare system. The associated lockdown (17 March- 11 May 2020) and the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 led patients to change their use of healthcare. This article presents the development and implementation of a real-time system to monitor i) private doctors' activity in South-eastern France, and ii) changes in prescription of drugs for people with diabetes, mental health disorders and for certain vaccines from Mars 2020 to October 2020. METHODS: Data extracted from the regional healthcare insurance databases for 2019 and 2020 were used to construct indicators of healthcare use. They were calculated on a weekly basis, starting from week 2 2020 and compared for the same period between 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: Private doctors' activity decreased during the spring 2020 lockdown (by 23 % for general practitioners and 46 % for specialists), followed by an almost complete return to normal after it ended until week 41. Over the same period, a huge increase in teleconsultations was observed, accounting for 30 % of private doctors' consultations at the height of the crisis. The start of the lockdown was marked by a peak in drug prescriptions, while vaccinations declined sharply (by 39 % for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in children under 5 years old, and by 54 % for human papillomavirus vaccine in girls aged 10-14 years old). CONCLUSION: The ongoing COVID-19 epidemic may lead to health consequences other than those directly attributable to the disease itself. Specifically, lockdowns and foregoing healthcare could be very harmful at the individual and population levels. The latter issue is a concern for French public authorities, which have implemented actions aimed at encouraging patients to immediately seek treatment. However, the COVID-19 crisis has also created opportunities, such as the roll-out of teleconsultation and tele-expertise. The indicators described here as part of the monitoring system can help public decision-makers to become more responsive and to implement tailored actions to better meet the general population's healthcare needs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , France/epidemiology , Humans , Private Practice/trends , Telemedicine/trends , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
16.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(8): e2118441, 2021 08 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335942

ABSTRACT

Importance: COVID-19 has had devastating effects on the health and well-being of older adult residents and health care professionals in nursing homes. Uncertainty about the associated consequences of these adverse effects on the use of medications common to this care setting remains. Objective: To examine the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and prescription medication changes among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study with an interrupted time-series analysis used linked health administrative data bases for residents of all nursing homes (N = 630) in Ontario, Canada. During the observation period, residents were divided into consecutive weekly cohorts. The first observation week was March 5 to 11, 2017; the last observation week was September 20 to 26, 2020. Exposures: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic on March 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly proportion of residents dispensed antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, antibiotics, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Autoregressive integrated moving average models with step and ramp intervention functions tested for level and slope changes in weekly medication use after the onset of the pandemic and were fit on prepandemic data for projected trends. Results: Across study years, the annual cohort size ranged from 75 850 to 76 549 residents (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [10.8] years; mean proportion of women, 68.9%). A significant increased slope change in the weekly proportion of residents who were dispensed antipsychotics (parameter estimate [ß] = 0.051; standard error [SE] = 0.010; P < .001), benzodiazepines (ß = 0.026; SE = 0.003; P < .001), antidepressants (ß = 0.046; SE = 0.013; P < .001), trazodone hydrochloride (ß = 0.033; SE = 0.010; P < .001), anticonvulsants (ß = 0.014; SE = 0.006; P = .03), and opioids (ß = 0.038; SE = 0.007; P < .001) was observed. The absolute difference in observed vs estimated use in the last week of the pandemic period ranged from 0.48% (for anticonvulsants) to 1.52% (for antipsychotics). No significant level or slope changes were found for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, statistically significant increases in the use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, although absolute differences were small. There were no significant changes for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors. Studies are needed to monitor whether changes in pharmacotherapy persist, regress, or accelerate during the course of the pandemic and how these changes affect resident-level outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Homes for the Aged/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Male , Ontario , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Biomed Res Int ; 2021: 9995073, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280506

ABSTRACT

Statins can help COVID-19 patients' treatment because of their involvement in angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of statins on COVID-19 severity for people who have been taking statins before COVID-19 infection. The examined research patients include people that had taken three types of statins consisting of Atorvastatin, Simvastatin, and Rosuvastatin. The case study includes 561 patients admitted to the Razi Hospital in Ghaemshahr, Iran, during February and March 2020. The illness severity was encoded based on the respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, systolic pressure, and diastolic pressure in five categories: mild, medium, severe, critical, and death. Since 69.23% of participants were in mild severity condition, the results showed the positive effect of Simvastatin on COVID-19 severity for people that take Simvastatin before being infected by the COVID-19 virus. Also, systolic pressure for this case study is 137.31, which is higher than that of the total patients. Another result of this study is that Simvastatin takers have an average of 95.77 mmHg O2Sat; however, the O2Sat is 92.42, which is medium severity for evaluating the entire case study. In the rest of this paper, we used machine learning approaches to diagnose COVID-19 patients' severity based on clinical features. Results indicated that the decision tree method could predict patients' illness severity with 87.9% accuracy. Other methods, including the K-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm, support vector machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes classifier, and discriminant analysis, showed accuracy levels of 80%, 68.8%, 61.1%, and 85.1%, respectively.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors , Aged , Algorithms , Atorvastatin/administration & dosage , Atorvastatin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Hypercholesterolemia/drug therapy , Iran , Machine Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Rosuvastatin Calcium/administration & dosage , Rosuvastatin Calcium/therapeutic use , Severity of Illness Index , Simvastatin/administration & dosage , Simvastatin/therapeutic use
19.
Drug Alcohol Depend ; 225: 108783, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240283

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To determine how clinicians with a DATA waiver to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic to emergency authorities, including use of telehealth to prescribe buprenorphine, the challenges faced by clinicians, and strategies employed by them to manage patients with OUD. METHODS: From June 23, 2020 to August 19, 2020, we conducted an electronic survey of U.S. DATA-waivered clinicians. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression were used for analysis. RESULTS: Among 10,238 respondents, 68 % were physicians, 25 % nursing-related providers, and 6% physician assistants; 28 % reported never prescribing or not prescribing in the 12 months prior to the survey. Among the 72 % of clinicians who reported past 12-month buprenorphine prescribing (i.e. active practitioners during the pandemic) 30 % reported their practice setting closed to in-person visits during COVID-19; 33 % reported remote prescribing to new patients without an in-person examination. The strongest predictors of remote buprenorphine prescribing to new patients were prescribing buprenorphine to larger numbers of patients in an average month in the past year and closure of the practice setting during the pandemic; previous experience with remote prescribing to established patients prior to COVID-19 also was a significant predictor. Among clinicians prescribing to new patients without an in-person examination, 5.5 % reported difficulties with buprenorphine induction, most commonly withdrawal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth practices and prescribing to new patients without an in-person examination were adopted by DATA-waivered clinicians during the first six months of COVID-19. Permanent adoption of these authorities may enable expanded access to buprenorphine treatment.


Subject(s)
Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/legislation & jurisprudence , Telemedicine , Adult , Aged , Female , Health Care Surveys , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology
20.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 151: w20500, 2021 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1231561

ABSTRACT

  INTRODUCTION: Complex drug management is a common challenge in the treatment of geriatric patients. Pandemic scenarios, such as the current one (COVID-19), call for a reduction of face-to-face meetings, especially for elderly patients. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the innovative concept of applying telemedical assessment to geriatric patients in the emergency department (ED) with ED standard treatment. The therapeutic recommendations regarding drug management from the two assessments were compared. A special focus was the use of potentially inadequate drugs (PIMs) for geriatric patients according to the “Fit for the Aged” (FORTA) classification. METHODS: 50 patients (40% female) aged ≥70 years and assessed with an Identification of Seniors at Risk Score (ISAR score) of ≥2 admitted to the ED were prospectively enrolled in this study between November 2017 and February 2018. In addition to the standard treatment in the ED, co-evaluation via video transmission was independently carried out by a board-certified geriatrician. Drug recommendations by ED physicians (A) and the geriatrician (B) were compared. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher frequency of recommendations regarding changes to preexisting medication (p <0.001, n = 50) via geriatric telemedicine in comparison with standard ED treatment. The geriatrician intervened significantly more often than the ED physicians: discontinuation of a drug, p <0.001; start of a new drug, p = 0.004; dose change of a drug, p = 0.001; n = 50). Based on the additional therapy recommendations of the geriatrician, the amount of medication taken by the patient was significantly reduced compared with standard ED treatment (ED assessment t(49) = 0.622 vs geriatrician’s assessment t(49) = 4.165; p <0.001; n = 50). Additionally, the number of PIMs was significantly reduced compared with standard medical treatment (p <0.001). The geriatrician changed 53.9% of the drugs (35/65) whereas the ED physicians changed only 12.3% (8/65). Recommendations for immediate drug therapy, however, were made more frequently by ED physicians (p <0.039, n = 50). DISCUSSION: An early assessment of elderly emergency patients by a geriatrician had a significant impact on the number of drug interventions in the ED. The number of PIMs could be significantly reduced. Whether this also has a positive effect on the further inpatient course needs to be investigated in further prospective studies. The study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04148027).  .


Subject(s)
Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Geriatric Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Geriatrics/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Female , Geriatrics/methods , Health Plan Implementation , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL