RESUMEN
The clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 disease is mainly due to a dysregulated host response related to the overexpression of inflammatory markers. Until recently, only remdesivir had gained FDA approval for COVID-19 hospitalized patients and there are currently no evidence-based therapeutic options or options for prevention of complications that have been established. Some medical treatments such as antivirals, antibacterials, antithrombotics, antipyretics, corticosteroids, interleukin inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, immunostimulants, and vitamin supplements have been utilized. However, there are limited data to support their effectiveness. Hence, this study was attempted to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of antibacterials and antivirals used for COVID-19 using a retrospective cross-sectional approach based on the medical records of adult patients in four hospitals. The number of antibacterials was calculated in defined daily dose (DDD) per 100 bed-days unit. Both mixed-logit regression and analysis of covariance were used to determine the effectiveness of the aforementioned agents in relation to COVID-19 outcome and patients' length of stay. The model was weighed accordingly and covariates (e.g., age) were considered in the model. Heart disease was found to be the most common pre-existing condition of COVID-19 hospitalized patients in this study. Azithromycin, an antibacterial in the Watch category list, was used extensively (33-65 DDD per 100 bed-days). Oseltamivir, an antiviral approved by the FDA for influenza was the most prescribed antiviral. In addition, favipiravir was found to be a significant factor in improving patients' COVID-19 outcomes and decreasing their length of stay. This study strongly suggests that COVID-19 patients' received polypharmacy for their treatment. However, most of the drugs used did not reach statistical significance in improving the patients' condition or decreasing the length of stay. Further studies to support drug use are needed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Four oral anti-tuberculosis drugs are conceived to be the most effective ones to eradicate Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria and to obviate the resistant organisms. However, the patients' adherence and medication discrepancies are obstacles to achieving the goal. This study aimed to define the anti-tuberculosis drugs used in the hospitals and to detect the discrepancies in the continuity of the tuberculosis treatment. DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study was based on medical records of adult patients, and was conducted in two district tertiary care hospitals. Only 35 out of 136 patient records from Hospital A and 33 out of 85 records from Hospital B met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The most common systemic anti-infective drugs in the study were ceftriaxone (51.80 DDD/100 patient-days) used in Hospital A and isoniazid (59.53 DDD/100 patient-days) used in Hospital B. The number of rifampicin prescriptions was less than that of isoniazid. Each patient received an average of two DDD/100 patient-days, which is an under dosage for an effective treatment. CONCLUSION: This study showed a medication discrepancy of Tuberculosis therapy. Tuberculosis patients' medical histories are not under the full attention of treating physicians wherever they are admitted. Thus, medication reconciliation is needed to accomplish the goal of a Tuberculosis-free world in 2050.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Collaborative practice in healthcare has been recommended to improve the quality of antimicrobial stewardship interventions, a behavioral change in antimicrobial use. Insufficient knowledge regarding antibiotic resistance, the fear of complications from infections, and how providers perceive antibiotic use and resistance are likely to influence prescribing behavior. This study's objective was to identify the knowledge and belief healthcare professionals' differences about antibiotic stewardship. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey study of three hospitals in the East Java province, Indonesia utilized a 43-item questionnaire to assess antimicrobial stewardship knowledge and belief. There were 12 knowledge questions (total possible score: 12) and 31 belief questions (total possible score: 155). The Kuder Richardson 20 (KR-20) and Cronbach alpha values of the questionnaire were 0.54 and 0.92, respectively. RESULTS: Out of the 257 respondents, 19% (48/257) had a low scores of knowledge, and 39% (101/257) had low scores on belief about antibiotic stewardship (101/257). Most midwives had a low scores on knowledge (25/61) and low scores on belief (46/61). Respondents with high scores on belief were 17% (10/59) physicians, 15% (4/27) pharmacists, 8% (5/65) nurses, and 3% (2/61) midwives. CONCLUSION: Among healthcare professionals, knowledge and belief differences concerning antibiotic stewardship vary widely. These differences will affect their capability, behavior, and contribution to the healthcare team collaboration and performance. Further studies are needed to evaluate the correlation between the level of inter-professional collaboration and the quality of the antibiotic stewardship implementation.
