RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of extensive literature on the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 outcomes, the evidence is still controversial. We aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related outcomes by summarising the currently available evidence. METHODS: An umbrella review was conducted using Medline (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and medRxiv from inception to 1 February 2021. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis that evaluated the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes were eligible. Studies' quality was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the random-effects modelling including several subgroup analyses. Heterogenicity was assessed using I2 statistic. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021233398) and reported using PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 47 reviews were eligible for inclusion. Out of the nine COVID-19 outcomes evaluated, there was significant associations between ACEIs/ARBs use and each of death (OR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.75-0.86; I2 = 51.9%), death/ICU admission as composite outcome (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.80-0.92; I2 = 43.9%), severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.78-0.95; I2 = 68%) and hospitalisation (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.04-1.46; I2 = 76.4%). The significant reduction in death/ICU admission, however, was higher among studies which presented adjusted measure of effects (OR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.47-0.84) and were of moderate quality (OR = 0.74, 95%CI = 0.63-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Collective evidence from observational studies indicate a good quality evidence on the significant association between ACEIs/ARBs use and reduction in death and death/ICU admission, but poor-quality evidence on both reducing severe COVID-19 and increasing hospitalisation. Our findings further support the current recommendations of not discontinuing ACEIs/ARBs therapy in patients with COVID-19.
RESUMEN
Background: Antidepressants are the primary treatment for depression, and social support from social media may offer another support route. Whilst Twitter has become an interactive platform for healthcare providers and their patients, previous studies found low engagement of healthcare providers when discussing antidepressants on Twitter. This study aims to analyse the Twitter posts of healthcare providers related to antidepressants and to explore the healthcare providers' engagement and their areas of interest. Method: Tweets within a 10-day period were collected through multiple searches with a list of keywords within Twitter. The results were filtered against several inclusion criteria, including a manual screening to identify healthcare providers. A content analysis was conducted on eligible tweets where correlative themes and subthemes were identified. Key findings: Healthcare providers contributed 5.9% of the antidepressant-related tweets (n = 770/13,005). The major clinical topics referred to in the tweets were side effects, antidepressants for the treatment of COVID-19, and antidepressant studies of psychedelics. Nurses posted more tweets sharing personal experiences with commonly negative attitudes, in contrast to physicians. Links to external webpages were commonly used among healthcare providers, especially users representing healthcare organisations. Conclusions: A relatively low proportion of healthcare providers' engagement on Twitter regarding antidepressants (5.9%) was identified, with a minimal increase throughout the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to previous studies. The major clinical topics referred to in the tweets were side effects, antidepressants for the treatment of COVID-19 and antidepressant studies of psychedelics, which have been made publicly available. In general, the findings confirmed that social media platforms are a mechanism by which healthcare providers, organisations and students support patients, share information about adverse drug effects, communicate personal experiences, and share research. It is plausible that this could impact the belief and behaviours of people with lived experience of depression who may see these tweets.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare worldwide. It has altered service delivery and posed challenges to practitioners in relation to workload, well-being and support. Within primary care, changes in physicians' activities have been identified and innovative work solutions implemented. However, evidence is lacking regarding the impact of the pandemic on pharmacy personnel who work in primary care. AIM: To explore the impact of the pandemic on the working practice (including the type of services provided) and job satisfaction of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians within Scottish general practice. Due to the stressful nature of the pandemic, we hypothesise that job satisfaction will have been negatively affected. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed in May-July 2021, approximately 15 months since initial lockdown measures in the UK. The questionnaire was informed by previous literature and underwent expert review and piloting. Analysis involved descriptive statistics, non-parametric statistical tests and thematic analysis. RESULTS: 180 participants responded (approximated 16.1% response rate): 134 pharmacists (74.4%) and 46 technicians (25.6%). Responses indicated greater involvement with administrative tasks and a reduction in the provision of clinical services, which was negatively perceived by pharmacists. There was an increase in remote working, although most participants continued to have a physical presence within general practices. Face-to-face interactions with patients reduced, which was negatively perceived by participants, and telephone consults were considered efficient yet less effective. Professional development activities were challenged by increased workloads and reduced support available. Although workplace stress was apparent, there was no indication of widespread job dissatisfaction. CONCLUSION: The pandemic has impacted pharmacists and technicians, but it is unknown if changes will be permanent, and there is a need to understand which changes should continue. Future research should explore the impact of altered service delivery, including remote working, on patient care.