Is everyone invited to the discussion table? A bibliometric analysis COVID-19-related mental health literature.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has captured the mental health discussion worldwide. Examining countries' representation in this discussion could prove instrumental in identifying potential gaps in terms of ensuring a truly global conversation in times of global crisis. Methods: We collected mental health and COVID-19-related journal articles published in PubMed in 2020. We focused on the corresponding authors' countries of affiliation to explore countries' representation. We also examined these articles' academic impact and correlations with their corresponding authors' countries of affiliation. Additional journals and countries' indicators were collected from the Web of Science and World Bank websites, respectively. Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics and the VOSviewer software. Results: In total, 3492 publications were analyzed. Based on the corresponding author, high-income countries produced 61.9% of these publications. Corresponding authors from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East combined accounted for 11.8% of the publications. Europe hosted corresponding authors with the most publications and citations, and corresponding authors from North America had the largest mean journal impact factor. Conclusions: The global scientific discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic saw an increased contribution of academics from developing countries. However, authors from high-income countries have continued to shape this discussion. It is imperative to ensure the active participation of low- and middle-income countries in setting up the global mental health research agenda, particularly in situations of global crisis, such as the ongoing pandemic.

COVID-19 and antiepileptic drugs: an approach to guide practices when nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is co-prescribed.

Management and dose adjustment are a major concern for clinicians in the absence of specific clinical outcome data for patients on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in the event of short-term (5 days) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir co-exposure. Therefore, in this report, we identified drugs that require dose adjustment because of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and AEDs. We hereby used four databases (Micromedex Drug Interaction, Liverpool Drug Interaction Group for COVID-19 Therapies, Medscape Drug Interaction Checker, and Lexicomp Drug Interactions) and DDI-Predictor.In the light of applying the DDI-Predictor, for carbamazepine, clobazam, oxcarbazepine, eslicarbazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, pentobarbital, rufinamide, and valproate as CYP3A4 inducers, we recommend that a dose adjustment of short-term nirmatrelvir/ritonavir as a substrate (victim) drug would be more appropriate instead of these AEDs to avoid impending DDI-related threats in patients with epilepsy.

Physicians' knowledge of potential covid-19 drug-drug interactions: An online survey in turkey.

OBJECTIVES: Given the many medications used to treat novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its comorbidities and complications, the risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and resulting patient harm is concerning. This study aimed to shed light on physicians' knowledge of potential DDIs related to COVID-19 treatment, to determine the effect of an information brief about these DDIs on their correct response rates, and to identify factors associated with higher levels of knowledge about these DDIs. METHODS: The knowledge of physicians regarding the clinical significance and intervention of 7 common potential DDIs during COVID-19 treatment was evaluated via an online survey. Using a pretest-posttest design, the physicians completed a multiple-choice questionnaire first using their existing knowledge, then received an information brief about the DDIs and completed the same questionnaire again. Pretest and posttest scores were evaluated and factors affecting correct response rates were determined using correlation, regression, and post-hoc analyzes. RESULTS: A total of 244 physicians participated in the survey, 147 (60.2%) of whom were involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. After the information brief, there were significant increases in the number of correct responses for both clinical significance and interventions (p < 0.0001). In comparisons of pretest knowledge, physicians involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients showed significantly higher correct response rate for interventions compared to physicians who had not treated COVID-19 patients (p = 0.003). Post-hoc analysis to compare pretest correct intervention responses among all medical specialties revealed significant differences between infectious diseases and family practice (mean difference: 1.059; p = 0.005) and between internal medicine and family practice (mean difference: 1.771; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Physicians involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients had more knowledge regarding clinical significance and appropriate management of potential DDIs than those not involved. Therefore, it may be beneficial to organize trainings and issue guidelines about potential DDIs for physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.