Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 558
Filter
1.
Int Ophthalmol ; 41(4): 1261-1269, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1826668

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has become a difficult pandemic to control worldwide. The high transmission risk and mortality rates of COVID-19 cause serious concerns in ophthalmologists and may cause disruptions in clinical functioning. This study aims to identify changes in the clinical approaches of ophthalmologists, understand their anxiety levels, and exhibit how patients' follow-up processes progress during the pandemic. METHODS: A questionnaire that including demographic information, ophthalmology clinical activity scale, and Beck anxiety scale was sent to ophthalmologists in Turkey. Google Forms was used as a survey platform in this study. RESULTS: A total of 121 ophthalmologists participated in the study. The participants stated that they could not continue routine interventional diagnosis and treatment practices during the outbreak. It was clearly stated that there were changes in their clinical approach and decreased patient examination quality. For this reason, 14.9% of physicians said to missed the diagnosis in this process. Physicians who encounter infected patients state that it is more difficult to provide ophthalmological services and their clinical approaches are affected more negatively. Anxiety levels of physicians who could access personal protective equipment (PPE) and show positive solidarity with their colleagues in the process were found to be lower. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that ophthalmologists, like other healthcare professionals, were severely affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Accordingly, healthcare managers should provide adequate PPE for ophthalmologists, organize the clinical operation, and support the mental health of ophthalmologists.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Ophthalmologists , Ophthalmology/trends , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Pandemics , Surveys and Questionnaires , Turkey/epidemiology
2.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0263437, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1793528

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great enthusiasm for the use of azithromycin with or without hydroxychloroquine. OBJECTIVES: We analyzed azithromycin consumption in Croatia in 2020 and compared this to the period 2017-2019. METHODS: Azithromycin consumption was evaluated using the IQVIA Adriatic d.o.o. database which collects data on azithromycin distribution from wholesale pharmacies to hospital and non-hospital pharmacies in Croatia. We analyzed data for the period from January 2017 to December 2020. Azithromycin distribution was measured as days of therapy (DOT) and reported as per 1000 inhabitants or per 1000 inhabitant-days. RESULTS: In the period 2017-2020, total azithromycin DOT in Croatia increased in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 (1.76, 1.91, 1.91 and 2.01/1000 inhabitant-days, respectively). Non-hospital pharmacies received 2.18 times and hospital pharmacies 4.39 times more DOT units/1000 inhabitants of azithromycin in March 2020 compared to the average distribution rate in March 2017-2019. During the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic (November and December 2020) azithromycin distribution increased considerably in hospital (3.62 and 3.19 times, respectively) and non-hospital pharmacies (1.93 and 1.84 times, respectively) compared to the average consumption in the same months in 2017-2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed increased azithromycin distribution in the period 2017-2020 which indicates azithromycin overuse. Preliminary information on COVID-19 treatments with a desire to offer and try what is available even in the absence of strong scientific evidence may have influenced practices of antimicrobial prescriptions.


Subject(s)
Azithromycin/therapeutic use , Drug Utilization/trends , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Anti-Infective Agents , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Croatia/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Drug Therapy, Combination , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
3.
Front Public Health ; 9: 741345, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775897

ABSTRACT

Background: Misuse of antibiotics is prevalent worldwide and primary care is a major contributor. Although a clear diagnosis is fundamental for rational antibiotic use, primary care physicians often struggle with diagnostic uncertainty. However, we know little about how physicians cope with this situation and its association with antibiotic prescribing. Methods: A total of 583 primary care physicians were surveyed using the Dealing with Uncertainty Questionnaire. Their prescriptions (n = 949,181) over the year 2018 were retrieved retrospectively. Two categories of behavioral patterns of participants were identified based on latent class analyses (high vs. low openness and collaborativeness) in responding to diagnostic uncertainty. Multi-level logistic regression models were established to determine the associations between these behavioral patterns and antibiotic prescribing (overall and broad-spectrum antibiotics) for illness without an indication for antibiotics and those with a conditional indication for antibiotics, respectively, after adjustment for variations of patient (level one) and physician (level two) characteristics. Results: Most physicians reported open communications with their patients (80.96%), collected further information (85.08%), and referred patients to specialists (68.95%) in dealing with diagnostic uncertainly. More than half (56.95%) sought help from colleagues. Less than 20% acted on intuition or adopted a "wait and see" strategy. About 40% participants (n = 238) were classified into the group of low openness and collaborativeness in coping with diagnostic uncertainty. They were more likely to prescribe antibiotics for the recorded illness without an indication for antibiotics (AOR = 1.013 for all antibiotics, p = 0.024; AOR = 1.047 for broad-spectrum antibiotics, p < 0.001), as well as for the recorded illness with a conditional indication for antibiotics (AOR = 1.226 for all antibiotic, p < 0.001; AOR = 1.257 for broad-spectrum antibiotics, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Low tolerance with diagnostic uncertainty is evident in primary care. Inappropriate and over antibiotic prescribing is shaped by physicians' coping methods of diagnostic uncertainty. Physicians' openness and collaborativeness in responding to diagnostic uncertainty is associated with lower antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Interventions targeting on better management of diagnostic uncertainty may offer a promising approach in reducing antibiotic use in primary care.


Subject(s)
Physicians, Primary Care , Adaptation, Psychological , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Retrospective Studies , Uncertainty
7.
J Urol ; 207(4): 916-918, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1758941
8.
JAMA ; 327(9): 846-855, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1750254

ABSTRACT

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, modified guidance for opioid agonist therapy (OAT) allowed prescribers to increase the number of take-home doses to promote treatment retention. Whether this was associated with an increased risk of overdose is unclear. Objective: To evaluate whether increased take-home doses of OAT early in the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with treatment retention and opioid-related harm. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective propensity-weighted cohort study of 21 297 people actively receiving OAT on March 21, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Changes in OAT take-home dose frequency were assessed between March 22, 2020, and April 21, 2020, and individuals were observed for up to 180 days to assess outcomes (last date of follow-up, October 18, 2020). Exposures: Exposure was defined as extended take-home doses in the first month of the pandemic within each of 4 cohorts based on OAT type and baseline take-home dose frequency (daily dispensed methadone, 5-6 take-home doses of methadone, daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone, and 5-6 take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were opioid overdose, interruption in OAT, and OAT discontinuation. Results: Among 16 862 methadone and 4435 buprenorphine/naloxone recipients, the median age ranged between 38 and 42 years, and 29.1% to 38.2% were women. Among individuals receiving daily dispensed methadone (n = 5852), initiation of take-home doses was significantly associated with lower risks of opioid overdose (6.9% vs 9.5%/person-year; weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96]), treatment discontinuation (51.0% vs 63.6%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72-0.90]), and treatment interruption (19.0% vs 23.9%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) compared with no change in take-home doses. Among individuals receiving daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone (n = 662), there was no significant difference in any outcomes between exposure groups. Among individuals receiving weekly dispensed OAT (n = 11 010 for methadone; n = 3773 for buprenorphine/naloxone), extended take-home methadone doses were significantly associated with lower risks of OAT discontinuation (14.1% vs 19.6%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.84]) and interruption in therapy (5.1% vs 7.4%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.90]), and extended take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone were significantly associated with lower risk of interruption in therapy (9.5% vs 12.9%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.99]) compared with no change in take-home doses. Other primary outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic, dispensing of increased take-home doses of opioid agonist therapy was significantly associated with lower rates of treatment interruption and discontinuation among some subsets of patients receiving opioid agonist therapy, and there were no statistically significant increases in opioid-related overdoses over 6 months of follow-up. These findings may be susceptible to residual confounding and should be interpreted cautiously.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Narcotic Antagonists/administration & dosage , Opiate Overdose/epidemiology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Buprenorphine/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Medication Adherence , Methadone/administration & dosage , Naloxone/administration & dosage , Ontario/epidemiology , Opiate Substitution Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies
9.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e221455, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1729077

ABSTRACT

Importance: Current guidelines recommend use of dexamethasone, 6 mg/d, up to 10 days or until discharge for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether patients who received less than 10 days of corticosteroids during hospitalization for COVID-19 benefit from continuing treatment at discharge has not been determined. Objective: To assess whether continuing dexamethasone treatment at discharge is associated with reduced all-cause readmissions or mortality postdischarge. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at 15 medical centers within Kaiser Permanente Southern California. The population included adults who received less than 10 days of dexamethasone, 6 mg/d, until discharge during hospitalization for COVID-19 and were discharged alive between May 1 and September 30, 2020. Exposures: Continued dexamethasone treatment at discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause readmissions or mortality within 14 days from discharge. Results: A total of 1164 patients with a median age of 55 (IQR, 44-66) years were identified. Most patients were of Hispanic ethnicity (822 [70.6%]) and male (674 [57.9%]) and required oxygen support during hospitalization (1048 [90.0%]). Of the 1164 patients, 692 (59.5%) continued dexamethasone, 6 mg/d, at discharge. A balanced cohort was created using propensity score and inverse probability of treatment weighting. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for readmissions or mortality within 14 days was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.58-1.30) for patients who continued dexamethasone therapy at discharge compared with those who did not. Similar results were produced by a sensitivity analysis that restricted the treatment group to those who received exactly 10 days of dexamethasone (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.55-1.43) and by subgroup analyses stratified by the duration of dexamethasone treatment as an inpatient (1-3 days: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.43-1.16; 4-9 days: OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.48-2.12), oxygen requirement at discharge (room air: OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.53-1.59; supplemental oxygen use: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.42-1.37), and disease duration at discharge (≤10 days: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.49-1.33; >10 days: OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.48-1.86). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with COVID-19, continuing treatment with dexamethasone, 6 mg/d, at discharge was not associated with a reduction in 14-day all-cause readmission or mortality. This finding suggests that dexamethasone should not be routinely prescribed beyond discharge for individuals with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Patient Discharge , Patient Readmission , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/mortality , California , Cohort Studies , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
10.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol ; 17(3): 342-349, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714924

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: AKI is a common complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with high mortality. Palliative care, a specialty that supports patients with serious illness, is valuable for these patients but is historically underutilized in AKI. The objectives of this paper are to describe the use of palliative care in patients with AKI and COVID-19 and their subsequent health care utilization. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of New York University Langone Health electronic health data of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March 2, 2020 and August 25, 2020. Regression models were used to examine characteristics associated with receiving a palliative care consult. RESULTS: Among patients with COVID-19 (n=4276; 40%), those with AKI (n=1310; 31%) were more likely than those without AKI (n=2966; 69%) to receive palliative care (AKI without KRT: adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.40 to 2.33; P<0.001; AKI with KRT: adjusted odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.52 to 3.97; P<0.001), even after controlling for markers of critical illness (admission to intensive care units, mechanical ventilation, or modified sequential organ failure assessment score); however, consults came significantly later (10 days from admission versus 5 days; P<0.001). Similarly, 66% of patients initiated on KRT received palliative care versus 37% (P<0.001) of those with AKI not receiving KRT, and timing was also later (12 days from admission versus 9 days; P=0.002). Despite greater use of palliative care, patients with AKI had a significantly longer length of stay, more intensive care unit admissions, and more use of mechanical ventilation. Those with AKI did have a higher frequency of discharges to inpatient hospice (6% versus 3%) and change in code status (34% versus 7%) than those without AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care was utilized more frequently for patients with AKI and COVID-19 than historically reported in AKI. Despite high mortality, consultation occurred late in the hospital course and was not associated with reduced initiation of life-sustaining interventions. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2022_02_24_CJN11030821.mp3.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Health Resources/trends , Palliative Care/trends , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Acute Kidney Injury/mortality , Acute Kidney Injury/virology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care/trends , Electronic Health Records , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Referral and Consultation/trends , Respiration, Artificial/trends , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
11.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ; 23(2): 573-581, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1716438

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To evaluate gynecologic oncologists' trends and attitudes towards the use of Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in active period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. METHODS: Online national survey sent to members of Turkish Endoscopy Platform consisting of six sections and 45 questions between the dates 1-15 June 2020 in Turkey to explore their surgical practice during the pandemic in three hospital types: Education and research hospital/university hospital, state hospital and private Hospital. Participants were gynecologic oncologists who are members of Turkish Endoscopy Platform. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of participants canceled all operations except for cancer surgeries and emergent operations. About a quarter of participants (28%) continued to operate laparoscopically and/or robotically. For the evaluation of the suspected adnexial mass (SAM) 64% used laparotomy and only 13 % operated by laparoscopy (L/S). For the management of low-risk early-stage endometrial cancer only fifth of the participants preferred to perform L/S. For endometrial cancer with high-intermediate risk factors more than half of participants preferred complete staging with laparotomy. For advanced stage ovarian cancer, one-fifth of the participants preferred to perform an explorative laparotomy, whilst 15 % preferred diagnostic laparoscopy to triage the patients for either NACT or cytoreductive surgery. On the contrary 41 % of participants chose to have cytology by paracentesis for neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Gynecologic oncologists with >10 years L/S experience used MIS more for SAM. Furthermore, experienced surgeons used L/S more for endometrial cancer patients. In busy COVID hospitals, more participants preferred laparotomy over L/S. CONCLUSION: Use of MIS decreased during the pandemic in Turkey. More experienced surgeons continued to perform MIS. Surgical treatment was the preferred approach for SAM, early-stage endometrial cancer.  However, NACT was more popular compared to radical surgery.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19 , Genital Neoplasms, Female/surgery , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Adult , Aged , Female , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/trends , Gynecology , Humans , Laparoscopy/methods , Laparoscopy/trends , Laparotomy/methods , Laparotomy/trends , Male , Middle Aged , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/trends , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods , Robotic Surgical Procedures/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical , Surgical Oncology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Turkey
12.
Int J Med Inform ; 161: 104726, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1702743

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of novel telemedicine programs within the emergency department (ED) to minimize provider exposure and conserve personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, we sought to assess how the adoption of telemedicine in the ED impacted clinical order patterns for patients with chest pain. We hypothesize that clinicians would rely more on imaging and laboratory workup for patients receiving telemedicine due to limitation in physical exams. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective, propensity score matched study was designed for patients presenting with chest pain at an ED. The study period was defined between April 1st, 2020 and September 30th, 2020. The frequency of the most frequent lab, imaging, and medication orders were compared. In addition, poisson regression analysis was performed to compare the overall number of orders between the two groups. RESULTS: 455 patients with chest pain who received telemedicine were matched to 455 similar patients without telemedicine with standardized mean difference < 0.1 for all matched covariates. The proportion of frequent lab, imaging, and medication orders were similar between the two groups. However, telemedicine patients received more orders overall (RR, 1.19, 95% CI, 1.11, 1.28, p-value < 0.001) as well as more imaging, lab, and nursing orders. The number of medication orders between the two groups remained similar. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent labs, imaging, and medications were ordered in similar proportions between the two cohorts. However, telemedicine patients had more orders placed overall. This study is an important objective assessment of the impact that telemedicine has upon clinical practice patterns and can guide future telemedicine implementation after the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Chest Pain/diagnosis , Chest Pain/epidemiology , Chest Pain/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Retrospective Studies , Telemedicine/methods
14.
J Prim Care Community Health ; 13: 21501319221076926, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1685972

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Changes in health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted opioid prescribing. This study evaluated the impact of restrictions on in-person care on opioid prescribing in the outpatient setting. The hypothesis was that after restrictions to in-person care were implemented, there would be a reduction in the number of chronic and non-chronic opioid prescriptions. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to compare the number of weekly opioid prescriptions between baseline (1/1/2019-3/14/2020), restriction (3/15/2020-6/6/2020), and reopening (6/7/2020-10/31/2020) periods at outpatient practices within a health system in Bronx, NY. Analyses were stratified by prescription type (chronic if the patient had been prescribed opioids for >90 days, or non-chronic). RESULTS: For chronic opioid prescriptions, the week restrictions were implemented, there was an increase in the number of prescriptions compared to what was predicted if there had been no interruption (34.8 prescriptions, 95% CI: 8.0, 61.7). Subsequently, the weekly trend in prescribing was not different in the restriction period or in the reopening period compared to the previous time periods. For non-chronic opioid prescriptions, during the restriction period, the weekly trend in prescribing decreased compared to baseline (-5.0 prescriptions/week, 95% CI: -9.0, -1.0). Subsequently, during the reopening period, the weekly trend in prescribing increased compared to the restriction period (6.4 prescriptions/week, 95% CI: 2.2, 10.7). CONCLUSIONS: Despite abrupt restrictions on in-person care, chronic opioid prescriptions did not decrease, which is evidence that providers evolved to meet patient needs. Changes in non-chronic prescriptions are likely related to patients electing not to pursue care for acute pain or challenges with appointment availability.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , COVID-19 , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Drug Prescriptions , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Outpatients , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , SARS-CoV-2
15.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 252, 2022 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1677503

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sweden has seen an accelerated decline in the number of dispensed antibiotic prescriptions from an already low level during the Covid-19 pandemic. This prompted us to explore whether the decrease in antibiotic prescriptions has reached a critically low level and resulted in an increase in treatment of severe complications from common infections. The aim was to study if the accelerated decrease in antibiotic sales has led to an increase in complications in outpatients with common infections. METHOD: A population-based nationwide registry study based on the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and the National Patient Register. RESULTS: The total number of dispensed antibiotic prescriptions decreased by 17% during 2020 compared to 2019. The decrease was most pronounced in younger age groups and for antibiotics targeting respiratory tract infections. The number of hospital admissions and visits to open specialist care due to pneumonia or complications related to otitis, tonsillitis, or sinusitis decreased by 4-44%. Prescriptions and numbers of visits or admissions due to urinary tract infections and skin infections remained largely unchanged compared to previous years. CONCLUSION: No increase in complications due to common bacterial infections could be detected despite an unprecedented decline in dispensed antibiotic prescriptions in outpatient care in 2020. The decrease in dispensed antibiotic prescriptions from pharmacies was probably primarily related to a general decrease in the incidence of respiratory infections due to the recommendations and restrictions implemented to mitigate the Covid-19 pandemic in Sweden. This in return led to fewer doctors' visits and consequently to fewer occasions to prescribe antibiotics, be they warranted or not.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Prescriptions , Humans , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Med Clin (Barc) ; 157(10): 480-482, 2021 11 26.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665278
17.
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
18.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0261843, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643250

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: During the first wave of the coronavirus-disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic in early 2020, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was widely prescribed in light of in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our objective was to evaluate in early 2020 the rate of French hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to treat covid-19 patients outside any therapeutic trial, compare the reasons and the determinants for having prescribed HCQ or not. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A national inquiry submitted by email from May 7 to 25, 2020, to a sample of French hospitalists: doctors managing patients hospitalized for covid-19 in a French department of internal medicine or infectious diseases and identified in the directories of French hospitals or as a member of the French Infectious Diseases Society (SPILF). Primary outcome was the percentage of hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Secondary outcomes were reasons and determinants of HCQ prescription. RESULTS: Among 400 (22.8%) responding hospitalists, 45.3% (95% CI, 40.4 to 50.1%) declared having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Two main profiles were discerned: HCQ prescribers who did not raise its efficacy as a motive, and non-prescribers who based their decision on evidence-based medicine. Multivariate analysis retained the following prescription determinants (adjusted odds ratio; 95% confidence interval): a departmental procedure for HCQ prescription (8.25; 4.79 to 14.20), having prescribed other treatments outside a therapeutic trial (3.21; 1.81 to 5.71), prior HCQ prescription (2.75; 1.5 to 5.03) and HCQ prescribed within the framework of a therapeutic trial (0.56; 0.33 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: Almost half of the hospitalists prescribed HCQ. The physician's personality (questioning or not evidence-based-medicine principles in the context of the pandemic) and departmental therapeutic procedures were the main factors influencing HCQ prescription. Establishment of "therapeutic" procedures represents a potential means to improve the quality of therapeutic decision-making during a pandemic.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalists/psychology , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Off-Label Use/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Drug Repositioning , France/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Treatment Outcome
20.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262530, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1627791

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effect of fasting on immunity is unclear. Prolonged fasting is thought to increase the risk of infection due to dehydration. This study describes antibiotic prescribing patterns before, during, and after Ramadan in a primary care setting within the Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations in the UK, most of whom are Muslims, compared to those who do not observe Ramadan. METHOD: Retrospective controlled interrupted time series analysis of electronic health record data from primary care practices. The study consists of two groups: Pakistanis/Bangladeshis and white populations. For each group, we constructed a series of aggregated, daily prescription data from 2007 to 2017 for the 30 days preceding, during, and after Ramadan, respectively. FINDINGS: Controlling for the rate in the white population, there was no evidence of increased antibiotic prescription in the Pakistani/Bangladeshi population during Ramadan, as compared to before Ramadan (IRR: 0.994; 95% CI: 0.988-1.001, p = 0.082) or after Ramadan (IRR: 1.006; 95% CI: 0.999-1.013, p = 0.082). INTERPRETATION: In this large, population-based study, we did not find any evidence to suggest that fasting was associated with an increased susceptibility to infection.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Disease Susceptibility/metabolism , Fasting/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Arabs , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Diseases/drug therapy , Communicable Diseases/transmission , Electronic Health Records , Female , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis/methods , Islam , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Primary Health Care/trends , Retrospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL