Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone's clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient's age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission. RESULTS: After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality.

The Impact of Midodrine Tapering Versus Nontapering Regimens on the Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Midodrine has been used in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting to reduce the time to vasopressor discontinuation. The limited data supporting midodrine use have led to variability in the pattern of initiation and discontinuation of midodrine. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 midodrine discontinuation regimens during weaning vasopressors in critically ill patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City. Included patients were adults admitted to ICU who received midodrine after being unable to be weaned from intravenous vasopressors for more than 24 hours. Patients were categorized into two subgroups depending on the pattern of midodrine discontinuation (tapered dosing regimen vs. nontapered regimen). The primary endpoint was the incidence of inotropes and vasopressors re-initiation after midodrine discontinuation. RESULTS: The incidence of inotropes or vasopressors' re-initiation after discontinuation of midodrine was lower in the tapering group (15.4%) compared with the non-tapering group (40.7%) in the crude analysis as well as regression analysis (odd ratio [OR] = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.73, P = 0.02). The time required for the antihypertensive medication(s) initiation after midodrine discontinuation was longer in patients who had dose tapering (beta coefficient (95% CI): 3.11 (0.95, 5.28), P = 0.005). Moreover, inotrope or vasopressor requirement was lower 24 hours post midodrine initiation. In contrast, the two groups had no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, or ICU length of stay. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: These real-life data showed that tapering midodrine dosage before discontinuation in critically ill patients during weaning from vasopressor aids in reducing the frequency of inotrope or vasopressor re-initiation. Application of such a strategy might be a reasonable approach among ICU patients unless contraindicated.

Team-based learning versus traditional teaching effect on pharmacy Students' Performance: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several pharmacy schools have implemented team-based learning (TBL) in their curriculum worldwide. Yet, TBL's effectiveness compared to traditional teaching in improving students' outcomes in pharmacy education is yet to be assessed collectively. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the performance of pharmacy students following the implementation of team-based learning (TBL) in the pharmacy curriculum as opposed to traditional learning methods. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that assessed students' performance after TBL was implemented in a pharmacy curriculum. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, the review conducted searches in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar until July 26, 2023. Results: A total of 11 studies comparing TBL against traditional teaching methods and assessing students' performance were included. The pooled analysis, involving 2,400 students from 10 studies, demonstrated a mean difference (MD) in favor of TBL (MD = 2.27, 95 % CI [-0.85, 5.40]). However, notable heterogeneity was observed with an I2 value of 82 %, and the observed difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: TBL exhibited enhanced student performance in pharmacy education compared to traditional teaching, although the difference was not statistically significant. The meta-analysis findings support the use of TBL in pharmacy education for various pharmacy courses (pharmaceutical and clinical sciences courses) and students at different levels. However, there is a need for more robust studies to comprehensively evaluate TBL, considering aspects such as students' performance and engagement, skills development, and satisfaction.

The impact of Saudi Arabia - United States clinical pharmacy post-graduate training programs agreements on clinical pharmacy faculty in Saudi universities: A retrospective descriptive study focused on history and future recommendations.

Background: There has been a growing demand for clinical pharmacy services in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in the past 3 decades. The Ministry of Education has established agreements with several institutions in the United States to secure clinical pharmacy residency and research fellowship programs opportunities for Saudi scholars. The aims of this study were to describe the Saudi scholars' clinical pharmacy training pathways and their contribution to the pharmacy profession in KSA. Methods: This is a retrospective, descriptive study conducted on clinical pharmacy faculty in governmental Saudi universities who graduated from the US until 2023. The study outcomes included the post-graduate year-1 (PGY-1) residency match rate, post-graduate year-2 (PGY-2) acceptance rate, the PGY-2 specialties of Saudi scholars, and the number of clinical pharmacy programs established in KSA. Results: In total, 115 Saudi scholars have pursued clinical pharmacy pathway in the US. The PGY-1 residency match rate was 80 % (92/115). In contrast, the PGY-2 acceptance rate was 60.9 % (70/115). The most common PGY-2 specialty was in infectious diseases (N = 17; 24 %). Two pharmacy colleges had established residency programs and 1 pharmacy college had established a research fellowship. Conclusion: The Ministry of Education's efforts for clinical pharmacy program agreements were fundamental for advancing clinical pharmacy in Saudi universities. A significant number of Saudi scholars returned to KSA with clinical pharmacy degrees. There are more opportunities for further development, including expanding the clinical pharmacy program collaboration in the US and increasing the number of residency and research fellowship positions in KSA.

The prevalence of cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the description of concurrent treatments: A two-center retrospective cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and obesity are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Nonetheless, their prevalence among patients with T2DM in Saudi Arabia (SA) remains unknown. As current guidelines recommend, these comorbidities require adding certain antidiabetic agents with cardiorenal benefits. However, the prescribers' adherence to these recommendations remains unclear. Methods: A two-center retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted including adult patients (≥18 years) with T2DM admitted to hospital or seen at outpatient clinics between January and December 2020. Patients were classified into two groups based on the presence or absence of ASCVD. Patients with no prior ASCVD history were further classified based on the 10-year ASCVD risk estimation. Endpoints of interest included the prevalence of ASCVD, HF, CKD, and obesity in patients with T2DM. We also evaluated the characteristics of the utilized antidiabetic agents, statin, and aspirin therapies.. Results: Of the 1,218 included patients with T2DM, the majority were female (57.0 %), and aged 45-64 years (53.0 %) with a mean age of 59.3 ± 13.1 years. Hypertension and dyslipidemia were the most prevalent comorbidities (67.7 % and 69.0 %, respectively). Among all patients, 18.6 % had an established ASCVD and the prevalence of HF, CKD, and obesity were 5.1 %, 8.7 %, and 58.3 %, respectively. The most common types of ASCVD witnessed were revascularization (42.3 %), myocardial infarction (36.6 %), and stroke (33.9 %); with an increased prevalence of ASCVD as the age increases (52.8 % at age ≥ 65 years). In the non-ASCVD group, the 10-year ASCVD risk was intermediate or high in 62.7 % of these patients. The rates of utilization of guidelines-recommended therapies were 83.6 % for metformin, 9.4 % for GLP-1 RA, 10.8 % for SGLT2i, 35.2 % for aspirin alone or in combination with clopidogrel, and 79.7 % for statin therapy. Conclusions: ASCVD, HF, CKD, and obesity are common complications in patients with T2DM in SA, with low overall utilization of the recommended guidelines-recommended medical therapies. Multimodal strategies should be utilized to assess T2DM and its complications, and to improve prescribers' adherence to guidelines-recommended therapies.

Ketamine-based Sedation Use in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

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.

The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 critically ill patients co-infected with other respiratory viruses: a multicenter, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that non-critically ill COVID-19 patients co-infected with other respiratory viruses have poor clinical outcomes. However, limited studies focused on this co-infections in critically ill patients. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients infected with COVID-19 and co-infected by other respiratory viruses. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted for all adult patients with COVID-19 who were hospitalized in the ICUs between March, 2020 and July, 2021. Eligible patients were sub-categorized into two groups based on simultaneous co-infection with other respiratory viruses throughout their ICU stay. Influenza A or B, Human Adenovirus (AdV), Human Coronavirus (i.e., 229E, HKU1, NL63, or OC43), Human Metapneumovirus, Human Rhinovirus/Enterovirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Parainfluenza virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) were among the respiratory viral infections screened. Patients were followed until discharge from the hospital or in-hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 836 patients were included in the final analysis. Eleven patients (1.3%) were infected concomitantly with other respiratory viruses. Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (38.5%) was the most commonly reported co-infection. No difference was observed between the two groups regarding the 30-day mortality (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13, 1.20; p = 0.10). The in-hospital mortality was significantly lower among co-infected patients with other respiratory viruses compared with patients who were infected with COVID-19 alone (HR 0.32 95% CI 0.10, 0.97; p = 0.04). Patients concomitantly infected with other respiratory viruses had longer median mechanical ventilation (MV) duration and hospital length of stay (LOS). CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were concomitantly infected with other respiratory viruses had comparable 30-day mortality to those not concomitantly infected. Further proactive testing and care may be required in the case of co-infection with respiratory viruses and COVID-19. The results of our study need to be confirmed by larger studies.

Evaluation of Early Tocilizumab Effect on Multiorgan Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been proposed as potential rescue therapy for severe COVID-19. No previous study has primarily assessed the role of TCZ in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction. Hence, this multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TCZ early use versus standard of care in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs. Patients were categorized into two groups, the treatment group includes patients who received early TCZ therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission and the control group includes patients who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the multiorgan dysfunction on day three of the ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were 30-day, and in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU-related complications. Results: After propensity score matching, 300 patients were included in the analysis based on predefined criteria with a ratio of 1:2. Patients who received TCZ had lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission compared to the control group (beta coefficient: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.01, P-value = 0.04). Moreover, respiratory failure requiring MV was statistically significantly lower in patients who received early TCZ compared to the control group (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31, 0.91, P-value = 0.02). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in patients who received TCZ than those who did not (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37, 0.85, P-value = 0 .006 and HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36, 0.82, P-value = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In addition to the mortality benefits associated with early TCZ use within 24 hours of ICU admission, the use of TCZ was associated with a significantly lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Evaluation of the use of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in asthma critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

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.

Clinical characteristics and dosing of apixaban and rivaroxaban for the management of venous thromboembolism: A multi-center retrospective observational study.

Background: Since the risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases with duration or inadequate anticoagulation dosage, a proper regimen of apixaban and rivaroxaban is essential in patients with VTE, especially during the acute phase. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and dosing of anticoagulants for patients who received apixaban or rivaroxaban for VTE treatment. Methods: The multi-center retrospective observational study included patients diagnosed with VTE who had received apixaban or rivaroxaban between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. The study's description of real-world practices includes patients' characteristics, along with anticoagulant dose and duration used for lead-in or maintenance therapy to manage VTE. Results: The study involved 695 patients with VTE; 342 of whom were treated with apixaban (49.2%), while 353 were treated with rivaroxaban (50.8%). During the acute phase, 30.1% and 19.3% of patients did not receive lead-in therapy with apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively, and 1.2% received reduced doses of either medication. Among the patients who received apixaban alone for lead-in, the majority (79.5%) received the recommended duration, while 17.1% received a shorter lead-in duration (≤5 days), with an overall mean duration of 6.5 days. Most patients who received rivaroxaban alone for lead-in (93.0%) received the drug for the recommended duration, with an overall mean duration of 20.2 days. Most of the patients who did not receive apixaban or rivaroxaban for lead-in used parenteral anticoagulants for varying durations; however, around 25.0% of these patients did not receive any lead-in anticoagulant and started on maintenance therapy. Overall, patients who did not receive apixaban or rivaroxaban lead-in therapy were commonly associated with a higher risk of bleeding according to their clinical characteristics. Conclusion: A notable proportion of patients with VTE who were mostly at low to intermediate risk of bleeding received non-recommended doses or durations of apixaban or rivaroxaban for lead-in therapy. Large studies are needed to establish evidence about the outcomes associated with these practices.

The effect of oseltamivir use in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter propensity score-matched study.

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.

Evaluation of Apixaban safety and effectiveness in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of apixaban to reduce stroke risk in morbidly obese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is still undetermined. The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis recommends avoiding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC)s in morbidly obese patients (body mass index > 40 or weight > 120 kg) because of limited clinical data. This exploratory study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using apixaban in morbidly obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40) patients with AF. METHODS: An exploratory retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single-center, including adult patients with non-valvular AF using apixaban between 01/01/2016 and 31/12/2019. Patients were excluded if they were known to have liver cirrhosis Child-Pugh C, mechanical valve, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, follow up < 3 months, or using apixaban with a dose of ≤5 or > 10 mg/day. Included patients were categorized into two groups based on their BMI (BMI<40 Vs. BMI ≥ 40). The primary outcome was all thrombotic events, while the secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding after apixaban initiation. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the patient's age, gender, and HAS-BLED score. RESULTS: A total of 722 patients were eligible; 254 patients were included after propensity score matching based on the selected criteria. The prevalence of all thrombotic events was similar between the two groups in the first year of apixaban initiation (OR (95%CI): 0.58 (0.13, 2.5), p-value = 0.46). In addition, the odds of developing major and minor bleeding were not statistically significant between the two groups (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 showed similar effectiveness and safety of apixaban use in both morbid and non-morbid obese patients with non-valvular AF. However, a larger randomized controlled trial with a longer follow-up period needs to confirm our findings.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study.

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.

Evaluation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) treatment for moderate-to-severe ARDS in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as rescue therapy in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) despite the recommendation against the use of this treatment. To date, the effect of iNO on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS remains arguable. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of iNO in critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated from March 01, 2020, until July 31, 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the improvement in oxygenation parameters 24 h after iNO use. Other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used based on the predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1598 patients were screened, and 815 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Among them, 210 patients were matched based on predefined criteria. Oxygenation parameters (PaO2, FiO2 requirement, P/F ratio, oxygenation index) were significantly improved 24 h after iNO administration within a median of six days of ICU admission. However, the risk of 30-day and in-hospital mortality were found to be similar between the two groups (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.82; p = 0.45 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94, 2.11; p= 0.10, respectively). On the other hand, ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly fewer, and  ICU and hospital LOS were significantly longer in the iNO group. In addition, patients who received iNO had higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR (95% CI): 2.35 (1.30, 4.26), p value = 0.005) and hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.76, 5.83), p value = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, iNO rescue therapy is associated with improved oxygenation parameters but no mortality benefits. Moreover, iNO use is associated with higher odds of AKI, pneumonia, longer LOS, and fewer VFDs.

Evaluation of Low-Dose Aspirin use among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is widely used as a cardioprotective agent due to its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties. The literature has assessed and evaluated its role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, no data are available regarding its role in COVID-19 critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg) and its impact on outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHOD: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on aspirin use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients were eligible, and 352 patients were included after propensity score matching. The in-hospital mortality (HR 0.73 [0.56, 0.97], p = 0.03) was lower in patients who received aspirin during stay. Conversely, patients who received aspirin had a higher odds of major bleeding than those in the control group (OR 2.92 [0.91, 9.36], p = 0.07); however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed a possible mortality benefit for patients who used aspirin therapy prior to hospitalization and continued during ICU stay (HR 0.72 [0.52, 1.01], p = 0.05), but not with the new initiation of aspirin (HR 1.22 [0.68, 2.20], p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Continuation of aspirin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were receiving it prior to ICU admission may have a mortality benefit; nevertheless, it may be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding. Appropriate evaluation for safety versus benefits of utilizing aspirin therapy during ICU stay in COVID19 critically ill patients is highly recommended.

The Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cohort Study.

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can boost the systematic inflammatory response in critically ill patients, causing a systemic hyperinflammatory state leading to multiple complications. In COVID-19 patients, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is surrounded by controversy regarding their impacts on viral infections. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICS in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its clinical outcomes. Method: A multicenter, noninterventional, cohort study for critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received ICS. All patients aged ≥ 18 years old with confirmed COVID-19 and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were screened. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the use of ICS ± long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS)-matched was used based on patient's Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic corticosteroids use, and acute kidney injury (AKI) within 24 h of ICU admission. We considered a P-value of < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 954 patients were eligible; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). The 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.53 [0.31, 0.93], P-value = 0.03) was statistically significant lower in patients who received ICS. Conversely, the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of ICS ± LABA in COVID-19 patients may have survival benefits at 30 days. However, it was not associated with in-hospital mortality benefits nor VFDs.

The use of dietary supplements for mental health among the Saudi population: A cross-sectional survey.

Introduction: Despite limited evidence about the efficacy and safety of dietary supplements (DSs) for improving mental health, people with or without mental disorders often tend to use them, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies focused on DS use for maintaining or improving overall health; Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of DSs for mental health among the SA population and to determine the factors that affect their use. Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on an online survey of Saudi Arabian participants between July and August 2021 with an anonymous, self-completed questionnaire distributed using convenience sampling. The questionnaire included queries related to demographic information, DS use assessment, and mental health evaluation using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7), questionnaire, and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Results: In total, 443 participants from various regions of Saudi Arabia completed the questionnaire. The prevalence of DS use in the Saudi population was 44%. Vitamin D (28%) and melatonin (20%) were the most commonly reported DSs used for mental health. The odds of DS use were three times higher in responders with previous mental health diagnoses (OR: 2.972; 95% CI: 1.602-5.515). Furthermore, the chances of using DSs almost doubled in patients with sub-threshold and moderate to severe insomnia (OR: 1.930; 95% CI: 1.191-3.126 and OR: 2.485; 95% CI: 1.247-4.954, respectively). Conclusion: Responders diagnosed by a specialist with psychiatric disorders or current insomnia had a higher chance of using DSs. Thus, healthcare providers must provide evidence-based information regarding DSs for mental health improvement and encourage the public to consult healthcare professionals before self-medicating for mental health problems.

The effectiveness and safety of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus treatment: A single-center experience in Saudi Arabia.

Background: The introduction of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) to treat the hepatitis C virus (HCV) overcame many drawbacks of interferon-based therapy. DAA achieved sustained viral response (SVR) rates above 90% and overcame many drawbacks of pegylated interferon regimens.The HCV genotype (GT) distribution varies by geographical area, with GT-4 being most prevalent in the Middle East region, including Saudi Arabia. Yet, the real-world evidence about using DAAs in the Saudi population is limited.Thus, the aim of this study to investigate the effectiveness and safety of DAAs in Saudi patients with HCV infection. Methods: A retrospective cohort study included patients treated with DAAs from 2015 to 2017 at a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All patients with HCV treated with either ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir (LDS/SOF) ± ribavarin (RBV) or ombitasvir-paritaprevir-ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) ± dasabuvir (DSV) ± RBV were included. Using a per-protocol analysis, the effectiveness outcome was the end-of-treatment response (EOTr) and Sustained virologic reponce12 weeks after competing the regimen (SVR12). The secondary safety outcome was the adverse event related to the therapy reported by the patients. Results: A total of 97 patients were included; with the majority infected with GT-4 (64 %), followed by GT-1 (18 %), in addition to 8 % having a mixed GT (1 + 4). The EOTr and SVR12 rates were 98 % and 96 %, respectively. SVR12 was 94.4 % within the LDS/SOF ± RBV group and 97.7 % within the OBV/PTV/r ± DSV ± RBV group. Only 4 % had a response failure due to relapse or breakthrough, and all were infected with mixed GT1 + 4. Medications were well tolerated with minimal side effects, including vomiting, nausea, and weakness. Conclusion: DAAs regimens are associated with high rates of SVR12 and are well tolerated with a good safety profile in Saudi HCV-infected patients.

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Association between tocilizumab and emerging multidrug-resistant organisms in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an IgG1 class recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits the IL-6 receptor. Several randomized clinical trials have evaluated its safety and efficacy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and these studies demonstrate conflicting results. Our study aimed to determine the association between tocilizumab treatment and microbial isolation and emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary government hospitals in Saudi Arabia. All critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units with a positive COVID-19 PCR test between March 1 and December 31, 2020, who met study criteria were included. Patients who received tocilizumab were compared to those who did not receive it. RESULTS: A total of 738 patients who met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Of these, 262 (35.5%) received tocilizumab, and 476 (64.5%) were included in the control group. Patients who received tocilizumab had higher odds for microbial isolation (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.91-1.94, p = 0.13); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Development of resistant organisms (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51-1.98, p = 0.99) or detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.29-1.54, p = 0.34) was not statistically significant between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is not associated with higher microbial isolation, the emergence of resistant organisms, or the detection of CRE organisms.