RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is a musculoskeletal condition that affects many individuals. While physiotherapy and acupuncture are frequently used treatments, determining their specific contributions when used alongside integrated yoga and naturopathy (IYN) therapy for relieving chronic LBP symptoms and enhancing quality of life is important. METHODOLOGY: In the present prospective randomized comparative trial, a total of 60 participants were divided into the following two groups: physiotherapy with IYN and acupuncture with IYN. The treatment duration was 10 days, and assessments were conducted both before (baseline) and after the intervention. Various assessment tools, such as the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), fingertip-to-floor test (FTF), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36), were utilized. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). RESULTS: The results revealed significant differences in VAS score, ODI, FTF score, STAI score, and SF-36 score between the physiotherapy and acupuncture groups (p<0.001). A t-test for the equality of means and a Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the two groups; these tests revealed a significant difference in disability levels, range of motion, and state of anxiety. The acupuncture group showed a significant difference in the ODI (15.9 {12.6, 19.3}; p <0.001) and state anxiety (23.0 {20.0, 26.0}; p<0.001) compared to the physiotherapy ODI (22.4 {18.5, 26.4}) and state anxiety (27.5 {25.0, 30.0}). The physiotherapy group showed a significant difference in range of motion (7.7 {5.7, 9.7}; p<0.001) compared to the acupuncture group (11.6 {9.8, 13.5}). CONCLUSION: The present study findings revealed that both physiotherapy and acupuncture, as interventions along with integrated yoga and naturopathy may be considered an effective treatment strategy for chronic LBP.
RESUMO
Background The intensive care unit (ICU) represents an important platform for conducting drug utilization analysis using defined daily dose (DDD)/100 bed-days and the financial burden of treatment as patients are seriously ill and are often suffering from chronic critical illnesses. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated the drug utilization patterns and cost of treatment in the ICU. Methods A retrospective observational analysis of the medical records obtained for the medical ICU of an apex tertiary care teaching hospital in central India was conducted for a period of three years from 2017 to 2019. All the patients admitted to the medical ICU during the study tenure were included in the study. Patients hospitalized in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), and surgical ICU were excluded from the study. The socio-demographic and clinical data, utilization of different classes of drugs, WHO-Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical (WHO-ATC) classification, DDD/100 bed days, hospital stay, etc. were analyzed. A partial pharmaco-economic analysis of the average cost of admission to patients was done. Results Data from 280 patients was assessed. The mean age was 47 ± 19.18 years and 58% were males. Antibiotics and injections were prescribed to 96% and 97.5% of the patients, respectively, during their ICU stay (median: seven days). Antimicrobial drugs were most frequently prescribed (n=1096, 68%); the most common were beta-lactams and carbapenems, followed by drugs acting on the central nervous system (5%) and cardiovascular system (4.3%). Cefoperazone/sulbactum, ceftriaxone, and piperacillin/tazobactam were the most utilized antibiotics with 8, 16, and 6 DDD/100 bed-days, respectively, while proton pump inhibitors, analgesics, and anti-epileptics were the most frequently prescribed non-antimicrobial drug class. The median cost of treatment per ICU admission was Indian Rupees (INR) 23,347 (IQR 12,552- 65,524). Conclusion Drug utilization assessment provides crucial information for understanding the usage of drugs in the settings of the ICU, and should be conducted regularly to help in the proper planning and implementation of rational drug use. Treatment costs reflect the high economic burden seen in ICU admissions.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as 'COVID-19' OR 'SARS CoV-2' AND 'Remdesivir'. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. RESULTS: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40-0.74) p = 0.0001; I 2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38-0.84) p = 0.005; I 2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19-0.54) p = 0.0001; I 2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59-1.54) p = 0.85; I 2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59-1.11) p = 0.19; I 2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86-1.80) p = 0.25; I 2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66-1.75) p = 0.77; I 2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70-1.68) p = 0.73; I 2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80-1.08) p = 0.32; I 2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73-2.62) p = 0.32; I 2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51-2.18) p = 0.89; I 2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18-4.01) p = 0.85; I 2 = 78%]. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo.The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir.There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir.There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.
RESUMO
Background Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are being widely prescribed for the treatment of various disorders in India. However, not all FDCs are rational. To know the awareness of physicians in prescribing rational FDCs was the need of the hour in order to assess the prescribing trends and rationality of FDCs. Eventually, this will help to formulate the guideline for rational use of FDCs. Methods This was a prospective observational study conducted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhopal, MP, India. Prescriptions were collected over a period of 2 months by the convenience sampling method from hospital pharmacy. The data were subjected to descriptive analysis using Microsoft Excel and Graph Pad Prism. Results were expressed in mean ± standard deviation (SD), percentages and 95% confidence interval. Results A total of 2496 drugs were prescribed in 1008 prescriptions, of which 945 (37.82%) were FDCs with an average of 0.93 ± 0.94 (mean ± SD) per prescription. Of 945, 67 (7.09%) were included in National List of Essential Medicine 2015 considered as rational. The number of prescriptions containing one or more FDCs was 629 (62.40%). FDCs were more frequently prescribed to male patients (54.92%) and in the age group of 18-30 years (33.44%). FDCs containing a proton pump inhibitor were prescribed most frequently (16.29%) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (13.96%) and multivitamins (7.83%). Conclusions Prescribing irrational FDCs was very common, and hence there is an obvious need to update our prescribers about the irrationality of FDC and motivate them to develop a habit of rational prescribing.
