Assessing medication use patterns by clinical outcomes severity among inpatients with COVID-19: A retrospective drug utilization study.

PURPOSE: This study assessed medication patterns for inpatients at a central hospital in Portugal and explored their relationships with clinical outcomes in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: A retrospective study analyzed inpatient medication data, coded using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system, from electronic patient records. It investigated the association between medications and clinical severity outcomes such as ICU admissions, respiratory/circulatory support needs, and hospital discharge status, including mortality (identified by ICD-10-CM/PCS codes). Multivariate analyses incorporating demographic data and comorbidities were used to adjust for potential confounders and understand the impact of medication patterns on disease progression and outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis of 2688 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (55.3% male, average age 62.8 years) revealed a significant correlation between medication types and intensity and disease severity. Cases requiring ICU admission or ECMO support often involved blood and blood-forming organ drugs. Increased use of nervous system and genitourinary hormones was observed in nonsurvivors. Corticosteroids, like dexamethasone, were common in critically ill patients, while tocilizumab was used in ECMO cases. Medications for the alimentary tract, metabolism, and cardiovascular system, although widely prescribed, were linked to more severe cases. Invasive mechanical ventilation correlated with higher usage of systemic anti-infectives and musculoskeletal medications. Trends in co-prescribing blood-forming drugs with those for acid-related disorders, analgesics, and antibacterials were associated with intensive interventions and worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights complex medication regimens in managing severe COVID-19, underscoring specific drug patterns associated with critical health outcomes. Further research is needed to explore these patterns.

Dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) to study treatment sequencing in oncology: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid evolution of the therapeutic landscape in oncology poses challenges to optimal treatment sequencing. Evidence for clinical decision-making is often limited to studies focused on treatment evaluation at a single decision point, with limited capability of identifying delayed effects of prior treatment decisions on the efficacy and feasibility of future treatments. There is a growing interest in dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) evaluation as it provides guidance on treatment individualisation based on evolving treatment and patient characteristics. In this scoping review we aim to systematically map how and to what extent DTRs have been evaluated in clinical studies to generate evidence for clinical decision-making in oncology. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will do a systematic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus and WHO international clinical trials registry platform to identify clinical studies (including protocols of ongoing studies), with either experimental or observational design, that aim to answer a clinical question and explore treatment sequencing issues in oncology using the concept of DTR. Data extraction will comprise information concerning cancer disease, clinical setting, treatments, tailoring variables, decision rules, decision points and outcomes, type of data, study design and statistical methods used for DTR evaluation. The review will be conducted according to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's manual for scoping reviews. No patients will be involved. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committee approval is not required as this scoping review will undertake secondary analysis of published literature. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented in relevant conferences. This scoping review will provide a better understanding of the methods used to generate evidence on treatment sequencing in oncology and will contribute to the identification of knowledge and methodological gaps that should be addressed.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing as an Indicator for Evaluating a Pandemic Situation: Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing is a fundamental intervention in public health. When systematically applied, it enables the breaking of chains of transmission, which is important for controlling COVID-19 transmission. In theoretically perfect contact tracing, all new cases should occur among quarantined individuals, and an epidemic should vanish. However, the availability of resources influences the capacity to perform contact tracing. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate its effectiveness threshold. We propose that this effectiveness threshold may be indirectly estimated using the ratio of COVID-19 cases arising from quarantined high-risk contacts, where higher ratios indicate better control and, under a threshold, contact tracing may fail and other restrictions become necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the ratio of COVID-19 cases in high-risk contacts quarantined through contact tracing and its potential use as an ancillary pandemic control indicator. METHODS: We built a 6-compartment epidemiological model to emulate COVID-19 infection flow according to publicly available data from Portuguese authorities. Our model extended the usual susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered model by adding a compartment Q with individuals in mandated quarantine who could develop infection or return to the susceptible pool and a compartment P with individuals protected from infection because of vaccination. To model infection dynamics, data on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (IR), time until infection, and vaccine efficacy were collected. Estimation was needed for vaccine data to reflect the timing of inoculation and booster efficacy. In total, 2 simulations were built: one adjusting for the presence and absence of variants or vaccination and another maximizing IR in quarantined individuals. Both simulations were based on a set of 100 unique parameterizations. The daily ratio of infected cases arising from high-risk contacts (q estimate) was calculated. A theoretical effectiveness threshold of contact tracing was defined for 14-day average q estimates based on the classification of COVID-19 daily cases according to the pandemic phases and was compared with the timing of population lockdowns in Portugal. A sensitivity analysis was performed to understand the relationship between different parameter values and the threshold obtained. RESULTS: An inverse relationship was found between the q estimate and daily cases in both simulations (correlations >0.70). The theoretical effectiveness thresholds for both simulations attained an alert phase positive predictive value of >70% and could have anticipated the need for additional measures in at least 4 days for the second and fourth lockdowns. Sensitivity analysis showed that only the IR and booster dose efficacy at inoculation significantly affected the q estimates. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the impact of applying an effectiveness threshold for contact tracing on decision-making. Although only theoretical thresholds could be provided, their relationship with the number of confirmed cases and the prediction of pandemic phases shows the role as an indirect indicator of the efficacy of contact tracing.

Motivation and Knowledge of Portuguese Community Pharmacists Towards the Reporting of Suspected Adverse Reactions to Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

The close contact between patients and community pharmacists, along with the extensive geographical distribution of pharmacies in Portugal, offer exceptional conditions to detect and report adverse drug reactions (ADR). This study aimed to evaluate the motivation and knowledge of spontaneous reporting of ADR by community pharmacists of Porto, Portugal. Secondly, we aimed to generate real-world evidence on the main factors determining ADR report and at raising potential alternatives to the current reporting procedure in community pharmacy. We performed a descriptive, cross-sectional, observational, anonymous web survey-based study. Between April and July 2021, a web survey was implemented, targeting community pharmacists in the Porto district, Portugal. We validated 217 surveys from pharmacists. Regular notifiers seem to be more familiarised than non-regular notifiers with the Portuguese Pharmacovigilance System (PPS), with the Portal RAM for reporting suspected ADR, and with the update of the concept of ADR. Moreover, regular notifiers seem to be more proactive with their care in questioning patients about ADR and have more self-knowledge to identify suspected ADR. Conversely, non-regular notifiers, seem to be more reluctant to be judged by their ADR reporting activities. Respondents suggested to simplify and optimise the reporting process (31% of the suggestions), or to integrate a reporting platform into the pharmacy's software (27%). This study identified opportunities to promote the ADR reporting process by community pharmacists, namely receiving feedback from the PPS on the reported case and its regulatory implications, implementing training programs in pharmacovigilance, and creating solutions to simplify the reporting process.