Search

Introduction The effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in critically ill patients remains uncertain, as conflicting research results have been reported. Despite potential side effects and inconsistent data on safety and efficacy, NRT is still prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent withdrawal symptoms and manage agitation in patients who are smokers. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy in critically ill smoking patients. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigated the outcomes of smokers admitted to ICUs and were randomized either to receive or not receive nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during their ICU stay. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through 13 February 2023 using OVID. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS) for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using both random-effects and fixed-effect models; the latter is recommended when meta-analysis is restricted to just a few studies. The study was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under reference number CRD42023407804. Results Of 28 studies initially identified, three, with 67 patients on NRT and 72 controls, were deemed eligible for pooled analysis. Patients who received NRT experienced a shorter LOS (mean difference, MD= -3.06; 95% CI: -5.88 – -0.25, p=0.0, I 2 =0%). The mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in the NRT group, but this difference was not statistically significant (MD= -1.24; 95% CI: -3.21–0.72, p=0.22, I 2 =12.69%). Delirium duration was reported by two studies, from which pooled analysis revealed an MD of -0.50 (95% CI: -1.63–0.62, I 2 =0%). The vasopressor duration was assessed in two studies, and the overall MD for vasopressor duration was not statistically different between NRT patients and controls in the fixed-effects model (MD=0.11; 95% CI: -0.75–0.96, I 2 =0%). Conclusions Critically ill smoker patients who received NRT experienced a significantly shorter ICU LOS but no significant differences in the durations of MV, vasopressor use, or delirium.

Abstract Background Down syndrome (DS), or Trisomy 21, is defined by the existence of an additional chromosome 21. Various physiological considerations in DS patients might lead to challenges in adequate pain management and sedation after surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the variations of the requirement needed for pain management and sedation in patients with DS who have undergone surgery compared to patients without DS. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies were conducted, focusing on critically ill patients with DS who were admitted to Intensive care units (ICUs) post-surgery and received opioids and/or benzodiazepines. Searches were conducted in four databases from their inception to November 18, 2023 (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science). The primary outcome measured was the dosage of Oral Morphine Equivalent (OME) administered in the days following surgery. Fixed-effect models were used, an approach advisable when only a limited number of studies are available. Results Out of the 992 studies initially screened, the systematic review included ten studies, encompassing 730 patients, while the meta-analysis consisted of seven studies, encompassing 533 patients. Of the seven studies included in the analysis, 298 patients were identified to have DS, and 235 patients served as controls. Patients with DS showed a slight increase in OME needs on the first day, but this increase was not statistically significant (mean difference [MD] = 0.09; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: [-0.02, 0.20]; P = 0.11). There was also no significant difference in the requirement for Midazolam on the first day among DS patients (MD = 0.01; CI [-0.16, 0.19]; P = 0.88). In addition, the duration of mechanical ventilation was not statistically significant in patients with DS compared with the control group (MD = -1.46 hours; 95% CI [-9.74, 6.82]; P = 0.73). Conclusion Patients with Down syndrome did not require more sedation or analgesia in the first three days after surgery than patients without Down syndrome. Additionally, the two groups showed no significant difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Abstract Background Recent guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as first-line agents in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Research is currently investigating the use of Apixaban in underweight patients, with some results suggesting altered pharmacokinetics, decreased drug absorption, and potential overdosing in this population. This study examined the effectiveness and safety of standard Apixaban dosing in adult patients with atrial NVAF weighing less than 50 kg. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC); adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) below 25 who received a standard dose of Apixaban (5 mg twice daily) were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on their weight at the time of Apixaban initiation. Underweight was defined as patients weighing ≤ 50 kg, while the control group (Normal weight) comprised patients weighing > 50 kg. We followed the patients for at least one year after Apixaban initiation. The study’s primary outcome was the incidence of stroke events, while secondary outcomes included bleeding (major or minor), thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Propensity score (PS) matching with a 1:1 ratio was used based on predefined criteria and regression model was utilized as appropriate. Results A total of 1,433 patients were screened; of those, 277 were included according to the eligibility criteria. The incidence of stroke events was lower in the underweight than in the normal weight group at crude analysis (0% vs. 9.1%) p-value = 0.06), as well in regression analysis (OR (95%CI): 0.08 (0.001, 0.76), p-value = 0.002). On the other hand, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the odds of major and minor bleeding (OR (95%CI): 0.39 (0.07, 2.03), p-value = 0.26 and OR (95%CI): 1.27 (0.56, 2.84), p-value = 0.40, respectively). Conclusion This exploratory study revealed that underweight patients with NVAF who received standard doses of Apixaban had fewer stroke events compared to normal-weight patients, without statistically significant differences in bleeding events. To confirm these findings, further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer observation durations are required.

Backgrounds: Ketamine possesses analgesia, anti-inflammation, anticonvulsant, and neuroprotection properties. However, the evidence that supports its use in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 is insufficient. The study's goal was to assess ketamine's effectiveness and safety in critically ill, mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with COVID-19. Methods: Adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in a multicenter retrospective-prospective cohort study. Patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021, to five ICUs in Saudi Arabia were included. Eligible patients who required MV within 24 hours of ICU admission were divided into two sub-cohort groups based on their use of ketamine (Control vs. Ketamine). The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. P/F ratio differences, lactic acid normalization, MV duration, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:2 ratio) based on the selected criteria. Results: In total, 1,130 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 1036 patients (91.7 %) were in the control group, whereas 94 patients (8.3 %) received ketamine. The total number of patients after PS matching, was 264 patients, including 88 patients (33.3 %) who received ketamine. The ketamine group's LOS was significantly lower (beta coefficient (95 % CI): −0.26 (−0.45, −0.07), P = 0.008). Furthermore, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved 24 hours after the start of ketamine treatment compared to the pre-treatment period (6 hours) (124.9 (92.1, 184.5) vs. 106 (73.1, 129.3; P = 0.002). Additionally, the ketamine group had a substantially shorter mean time for lactic acid normalization (beta coefficient (95 % CI): −1.55 (−2.42, −0.69), P 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of MV or mortality. Conclusions: Ketamine-based sedation was associated with lower hospital LOS and faster lactic acid normalization but no mortality benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, larger prospective studies are recommended to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative in critically ill adult patients.

Background: Favipiravir is an oral antiviral, that might treat COVID-19 by enhancing viral eradication, particularly in patients with mild-to-moderate disease. Yet, the findings on the use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Method: A multicenter retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) was conducted from March 2020 to July 2021. Patients were categorized based on favipiravir use (control vs. favipiravir). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during the stay. Results: After propensity score (PS) matching (1:1 ratio), 146 patients were included in the final analysis. A higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality were observed in patients receiving favipiravir compared to the control group at crude analysis (65.3% vs. 43.8%; P-value=0.009 and 56.3% vs. 40.3; P-value=0.06, respectively); however, no differences were observed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.73, 1.87; P-value =0.51 and HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53, 1.39; P-value=0.53, respectively). Conversely, the MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in patients who received favipiravir than the control group (β coefficient 0.51; CI 0.09, 0.92; P-value = 0.02, β coefficient 0.41; CI 0.17, 0.64; P-value = 0.0006, respectively). Complications during the stay were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate a reduction in mortality; instead, it was linked with longer MV duration and ICU stay. This finding suggests limiting favipiravir use to infections where it is more effective, other than COVID-19. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Abstract Background Previous studies have shown mortality benefits with corticosteroids in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, there is inconsistency regarding the use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone in COVID-19, and this has not been extensively evaluated in patients with a history of asthma. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in critically ill patients with asthma and COVID-19. Methods The primary endpoint was the in-hospital mortality. Other endpoints include 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver injury, length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFDs), and hospital-acquired infections. Propensity score (PS) matching, and regression analyses were used. Results A total of one hundred-five patients were included. Thirty patients received methylprednisolone, whereas seventy-five patients received dexamethasone. After PS matching (1:1 ratio), patients who received methylprednisolone had higher but insignificant in-hospital mortality in both crude and logistic regression analysis, [(35.0% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.22) and (OR 2.31; CI: 0.56 – 9.59; P = 0.25), respectively]. There were no statistically significant differences in the 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring MV, AKI, acute liver injury, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and hospital-acquired infections. Conclusions Methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients with asthma may lead to increased in-hospital mortality and shorter VFDs compared to dexamethasone; however, it failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret these data cautiously, and further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to establish more conclusive evidence and support these conclusions.

Background: Oseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance. Results: A total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: −0.84, 95%CI: (−1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: −0.27, 95% CI: [−0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: Oseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Objectives Bleeding remains a common complication post-thoracic surgery. Although intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to decrease blood loss, its use has been associated with adverse effects. Accordingly, topical TXA has been proposed as an alternative to reduce bleeding with fewer systemic complications. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical TXA versus control (i.e., placebo) in patients undergoing thoracic procedures. The primary outcome was total postoperative blood loss at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included were the number of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Meta-analyses were pooled using mean difference with inverse-variance weighting and random-effects. Results Out of the 575 unique studies that were screened, we identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 399 patients. Out of the three RCTs analyzed, two studies, accounting for 67% of the total, were found to have a low risk of bias. The primary outcome of 24-h post-operative blood loss was significantly lower in patients who received TXA (mean difference [MD] −93.6 ml, 95% CI −121.8 to −65.4 ml, I 2 = 45%). In addition, the need for RBC transfusion was significantly lower in the topical TXA group compared to control (MD −0.5 units, 95% CI −0.8 to −0.3 units, I 2 = 60%). However, there was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD −0.3 days, 95% CI −0.9 to 0.4 days, I 2 = 0%). These results remained consistent after several sensitivity analyses. The use of topical intrapleural tranexamic acid has also been found to be safe without any significant safety concerns. Conclusion Topical intrapleural TXA reduces blood loss and the need for blood transfusions during thoracic surgery. In addition, there is no evidence of the increased safety concerns associated with its use. Larger trials are necessary to validate these findings and evaluate the safety and efficacy of different dosages.

Background: The aim of this study is to identify potential barriers to conducting and publishing pharmacy residency research. Methods: A cross-sectional study surveyed pharmacy residents in Saudi Arabia from August to September 2020. The online survey assesses residents’ characteristics, residency research experience, barriers to completion, and challenges in publishing. A Likert scale assessed factors and barriers to conducting and publishing research during residency. Descriptive statistics were performed for binary variables, with Likert scale responses visualized using Gannt charts. Results: A total of 69 residents completed the survey, of whom 63.5 percent were female, and the median age was 28 years. More than half of the residents were in R2 (56.5 %), followed by R1 (24.6 %) and R3 (4.4 %). Half of residents had prior research experience, while 84.1 % had prior research training in workshops or courses. Cohort study design was the most common type of residency research project conducted. According to residents, the main barriers to conducting research were a lack of allocated time for research during rotations (81.7 %) and a lack of a realistic timeline determined by the SCFHS to finish the research project (66.2 %). Regarding barriers to publishing research, the majority of residents reported lack of time to work on the publication process (78.6 %), lack of previous publication experience (60 %), and lack of guidance from mentors (55.7 %) as the most important barriers. Conclusion: Pharmacy residents face barriers to conducting research during their residency program, including limited allocated time during rotations, a lack of realistic timelines, and data collection limitations. Additionally, they face challenges in publishing their research due to a lack of experience, mentorship, and guidance. Future research should consider seeking the perspective of residency program directors and preceptors on research barriers and evaluating the publication rate of residents’ projects.

The use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a potential benefit. This study aims to evaluate the effect of ESAs on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01-03-2020 to 31-07-2021. We included adult patients who were ≥ 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were categorized depending on ESAs administration during their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the length of stay; other endpoints were considered secondary. After propensity score matching (1:3), the overall included patients were 120. Among those, 30 patients received ESAs. A longer duration of ICU and hospital stay was observed in the ESA group (beta coefficient: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = < .01, beta coefficient: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12-0.69; P = < .01, respectively). In addition, the ESA group's ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly shorter than the control group. Moreover, patients who received ESAs have higher odds of liver injury and infections during ICU stay than the control group. The use of ESAs in COVID-19 critically ill patients was associated with longer hospital and ICU stays, with no survival benefits but linked with lower VFDs.

Tocilizumab (TCZ) is recommended in patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen therapy or ventilatory support. Despite the wide use of TCZ, little is known about its safety and effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. Therefore, this study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of TCZ in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included all adult COVID-19 patients with renal impairment (eGFR˂60 mL/min) admitted to the ICUs between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on TCZ use (Control vs. TCZ). The primary endpoint was the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) during ICU stay. We screened 1599 patients for eligibility; 394 patients were eligible, and 225 patients were included after PS matching (1:2 ratio); there were 75 TCZ-treated subjects and 150 controls. The rate of AKI was higher in the TCZ group compared with the control group (72.2% versus 57.4%; p = 0.03; OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.34; p = 0.04). Additionally, the ICU length of stay was significantly longer in patients who received TCZ (17.5 days versus 12.5 days; p = 0.006, Beta coefficient: 0.30 days, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.50; p = 0.005). On the other hand, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality were lower in patients who received TCZ compared to the control group (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.73; p = 0.01 and HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.96; p = 0.03, respectively). The use of TCZ in this population was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of AKI while improving the overall survival on the other hand. Further research is needed to assess the risks and benefits of TCZ treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients with renal impairment.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Favipiravir treatment versus standard of care (SC) in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients from the Saudi healthcare payer perspective. Methods: We used the patient-level simulation method to simulate a cohort of 415 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease who were admitted to two Saudi COVID-19 referral hospitals: 220 patients on Favipiravir and 195 patients on SC. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Favipiravir versus SC in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from hospital and the mean time in days to discharge one patient alive. The model was performed twice: first, using unweighted, and second, using weighted clinical and economic data. Weighting using the inverse weight probability method was performed to achieve balance in baseline characteristics. Results: In the unweighted model, base case (probabilistic) ICER estimates favored Favipiravir at savings of Saudi Riyal (SAR)1,611,511 (SAR1,998,948) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive. As to mean time to discharging one patient alive, ICERs favored Favipiravir at savings of SAR11,498 (SAR11,125). Similar results were observed in the weighted model with savings using Favipiravir of SAR1,514,893 (SAR2,453,551) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive, and savings of SAR11,989 (SAR11,277) for each day a patient is discharged alive. Conclusion: From the payer perspective, the addition of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients was cost-savings over SC. Favipiravir was associated with a higher probability of discharging patients alive and lower daily spending on hospitalization than SC.

Abstract Background Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate. Results A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). Conclusion Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism is high in patients with COVID-19, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. The evidence that supports the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen in non-critically ill patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is still limited. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received standard thromboprophylaxis anticoagulation with intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for published studies until August 17th, 2022. We included studies on patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received thromboprophylaxis during their hospital stay. Patients who received standard prophylaxis dose “control group” were compared to patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis “intervention group”. Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing seven studies involving a total of 1931 patients. The risk of all-cause thrombosis was not statistically different between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 20.21]). The risk of minor bleeding was reported to be lower in patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21, 1.97), while had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the standard prophylaxis (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.43, 4.61); however, did not reach the statistical significance. The overall risk for all hospital mortality favored the utilization of intermediate to high doses over the standard thromboprophylaxis dosing (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29, 0.75). In medically ill patients with COVID-19, there is no difference between standard and intermediate to high prophylaxis dosing regarding thrombosis and bleeding. However, it appears that intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens are linked to additional survival benefits.

Doxycycline has revealed potential effects in animal studies to prevent thrombosis and reduce mortality. However, less is known about its antithrombotic role in patients with COVID-19. Our study aimed to evaluate doxycycline's impact on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Patients who received doxycycline in intensive care units (ICUs) were compared to patients who did not (control). The primary outcome was the composite thrombotic events. The secondary outcomes were 30-day and in-hospital mortality, length of stay, ventilator-free days, and complications during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS) matching was used based on the selected criteria. Logistic, negative binomial, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used as appropriate. After PS (1:3) matching, 664 patients (doxycycline n = 166, control n = 498) were included. The number of thromboembolic events was lower in the doxycycline group (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26-1.08; P = .08); however, it failed to reach to a statistical significance. Moreover, D-dimer levels and 30-day mortality were lower in the doxycycline group (beta coefficient [95% CI]: −0.22 [−0.46, 0.03; P = .08]; HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52-1.00; P = .05, respectively). In addition, patients who received doxycycline had significantly lower odds of bacterial/fungal pneumonia (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; P = .02). The use of doxycycline as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 might may be a desirable therapeutic option for thrombosis reduction and survival benefits.

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P

IntroductionThrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients.MethodologyThis retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24–48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms.ResultsA total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94–2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88–1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88–2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83–2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23–2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79–5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26–6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73–8.76), respectively.ConclusionAmong COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Background: Hormonal contraceptives (HC) are used for birth control and the treatment of premenopausal syndrome. Mood changes represent the leading reported cause of discontinuation of HC. Changes in mood vary from mild disturbances to severe clinical depression. Objectives: This study aims to estimate the prevalence of depression among HC users who visit primary health care centers in the Jazan Province of Saudi Arabia and to identify psycho-social factors that may predispose HC users to depression. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among women who visited five primary health care centers in the Jazan Province. The survey included questions about socio-demographic information and an Arabic adaptation of the Beck Depression Inventory. Results: Among the 904 women surveyed, the prevalence of HC use was 57.3%. Mood disturbances were observed in approximately one-third of these women. There is was a significant correlation between higher depression scores and a history of depression therapy (P-value < 0.001), as moderate, severe, and extreme depression was more common in those with a history of taking depression therapy. The type of contraception used was also found to be a significant factor (P-value = 0.01) in the degree of depression. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of women using HC were shown to exhibit symptoms of mood disturbance. Working, limited social support, asked whether or not they experienced living problems in the past 2 months, and having an uncomfortable or somewhat comfortable marital relationship increased the likelihood of mood disturbances. Primary health care physicians should be aware of the relatively high prevalence of mood disturbances in women using HC, to provide support and care to patients.

Remdesivir is a direct-acting inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that is used to treat severe COVID-19 infections. We report a patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who experienced palpitations and syncope two days after starting remdesivir therapy. The QTc interval was prolonged on the Electrocardiogram (ECG) without any significant electrolyte abnormalities or concomitant use of medications with QTc prolongation. Although the cardiac side effects of remdesivir therapy have been well documented, the link between remdesivir therapy and QTc interval prolongation in patients with severe COVID-19 has only been observed in a few cases. Because this arrhythmia has the potential to result in sudden cardiac death, practitioners should be aware of the QTc interval prolongation associated with remdesivir therapy.