Empagliflozin to prevent post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Rationale and design of the EMPOAF trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common types of acute AF and can complicate the treatment course of approximately one third of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are among the newest antidiabetic drugs which can be therapeutic options for preventing POAF by different mechanisms. METHODS: Empagliflozin to Prevent POAF (EMPOAF) is an interventional, investigator-initiated, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized controlled trial which will be conducted in two referral teaching cardiology hospitals in Tehran. Four-hundred ninety-two adult patients who are scheduled for elective isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery will be randomly assigned to one of the groups of intervention (empagliflozin 10 mg daily) or placebo starting at least 3 days before surgery until discharge. Key exclusion criteria are a history of diabetes mellitus, AF, ketoacidosis, or recurrent urinary tract infections along with severe renal or hepatic impairment, unstable hemodynamics, and patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors for another indication. The primary outcome will be the incidence of POAF. Key secondary endpoints will be the composite rate of life-threatening arrhythmias, postoperative acute kidney injury, hospitalization length, in-hospital mortality, stroke, and systemic embolization. Key safety endpoints will be the rate of life-threatening and/or genitourinary tract infections, hypoglycemia, and ketoacidosis. CONCLUSIONS: EMPOAF will prospectively evaluate whether empagliflozin 10 mg daily can reduce the rate of POAF in patients undergoing elective CABG. Enrolment into this study has started by November 2023 and is expected to be ended before the end of 2025.

Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48]; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508.

Comparative Efficacy of Postoperative Compression Methods After EVLT for Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency.

Introduction: The preference for endovascular techniques in treating varicose veins, particularly in the great saphenous vein (GSV), has increased due to their minimally invasive nature and reduced complications. Post-operative care, especially involving compression therapy, remains crucial to improve outcomes, prevent varicose vein recurrence, and enhance overall recovery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of eccentric compression therapy compared to alternative post-operative care methods following endovenous laser treatment (EVLT) for GSV insufficiency. Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial encompassed 88 EVLT procedures for GSV insufficiency. The participants were divided into two groups, each receiving different postoperative compression methods, and were evaluated over a specified period. The primary outcome was the pain scale after EVLT; meanwhile, the secondary outcome measured in the present study was the rate of GSV occlusion after EVLT. Results: Both groups underwent all EVLT procedures successfully without any complications. At the one-month duplex ultrasound (DUS) follow-up, the sapheno-femoral junction occlusion rates were 97% (43 out of 44) for group A (eccentric compression plus gradual compression stocking) and 95% (42 out of 44) for group B (only gradual compression stocking). Ecchymosis was observed in only 12 patients across both groups, accounting for an overall occurrence of 13.6%. Group A patients reported significantly lower analgesic usage (10%) compared to group B (18%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Analysis of postoperative pain data utilizing the visual analog scale (VAS) showed a median value of 5.5 in group B patients, which decreased to 3.1 with the application of eccentric compression. Moreover, there was less ecchymosis in group A observed by one week. Conclusion: This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the efficacy of postoperative compression in varicose vein treatment. It underscores the necessity for more comprehensive, well-designed studies to yield clearer conclusions and provide better guidance for post-procedure care.

Intermediate-Dose versus Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: 90-Day Results from the INSPIRATION Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown. METHODS: This article reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]: 62 [50, 71] years; 237 [42.2%] women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, p = 0.11). Findings were similar for other efficacy outcomes, and in the landmark analysis from days 31 to 90 (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.45-5.06). There were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24). CONCLUSION: Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up.

Current regulatory and scientific considerations for approving biosimilars in Iran.

With the expiration of patents on the first generation of rDNA biopharmaceuticals, competitors began to introduce biosimilar products. The concept of generics as applied to classical chemical drugs cannot be used for biotechnology products. Physicochemical characterization, bioassays and animal studies do not have the ability to predict reliably the safety and efficacy of biotherapeutics. Clinical studies are always necessary. While regulators all over the world were really in need of a comprehensive guideline in this area, WHO introduced a guideline which is principally a basis for regulating biosimilars and is applicable in Iran, as well as many other countries.

Intermediate versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation and statin therapy versus placebo in critically-ill patients with COVID-19: Rationale and design of the INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S studies.

BACKGROUND: Microvascular and macrovascular thrombotic events are among the hallmarks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, the exuberant immune response is considered an important driver of pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal management strategy to prevent thrombosis in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. METHODS: The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) and INSPIRATION-statin (INSPIRATION-S) studies test two independent hypotheses within a randomized controlled trial with 2 × 2 factorial design. Hospitalized critically-ill patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 will be randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The 600 patients undergoing this randomization will be screened and if meeting the eligibility criteria, will undergo an additional double-blind stratified randomization to atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus matching placebo. The primary endpoint, for both hypotheses will be tested for superiority and includes a composite of adjudicated acute arterial thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (VTE), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all-cause death within 30 days from enrollment. Key secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, adjudicated VTE, and ventilator-free days. Key safety endpoints include major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20,000/fL) for the anticoagulation hypothesis. In a prespecified secondary analysis for non-inferiority, the study will test for the non-inferiority of intermediate intensity versus standard dose anticoagulation for major bleeding, considering a non-inferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio. Key safety endpoints for the statin hypothesis include rise in liver enzymes >3 times upper normal limit and clinically-diagnosed myopathy. The primary analyses will be performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. Results will be tested in exploratory analyses across key subgroups and in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: INSPIRATION and INSPIRATON-S studies will help address clinically-relevant questions for antithrombotic therapy and thromboinflammatory therapy in critically-ill patients with COVID-19.

Role of pharmacist counseling in pharmacotherapy quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitalization and subsequent discharge home often involve discontinuity of care, multiple changes in medication regimens, and inadequate patient education regarding the instruction of drug use, respiratory devices, and disease information and also lack of information about the drug's side effects that can lead to medication nonadherence and low level of treatment satisfaction. Hence, we decided to design a study to determine the effect of patient counseling at discharge and also their follow-up by pharmacist on their treatment satisfaction and medication adherence. METHODS: A total number of 154 patients within the age of 18-65 years old participated in the study from August 2013 to March 2014. Patients in the intervention group received pharmacist counseling and necessary education about their prescribed medications at discharge. We set up two follow-up schedules for this group and one for control group, and then we compared the medication adherence and satisfaction in two groups. The primary outcome of this study was a significant increase in adherence to medication regimen and treatment satisfaction of the case group compare to control group after the intervention of pharmacist at the time of discharge. FINDINGS: There were significant differences in medication adherence and satisfaction between the groups at the time of second follow-up. Medication adherence in the study group is 42.9% more than the control group, also the treatment satisfaction determined to be 33.5% more than patients in control group. Furthermore, we found that, in intervention group, no one is readmitted while among the patients in control group eight people readmitted. CONCLUSION: Counseling patients at the time of discharge and regular follow-up improves patient's medication adherence and treatment satisfaction and consequently improves clinical outcomes.

A 3-armed randomized controlled trial of nurses' continuing education meetings on adverse drug reactions.

INTRODUCTION: Nurses' insufficient knowledge of adverse drug reactions is reported as a barrier to spontaneous reporting. Therefore, CE meetings could be utilized to enhance nurses' competencies. METHODS: In a 3-armed randomized controlled trial, 496 nurses, working in a tertiary medical center, were randomly allocated to a didactic lecture, brainstorming workshop, or the control group (delayed education). Similar instructors (2 clinical pharmacists) prepared and delivered the educational content to all 3 groups. Outcomes were declarative/procedural knowledge (primary outcome), participation rate, and satisfaction. Knowledge was evaluated using a validated researcher-made questionnaire in 3 time points: immediately before, immediately after, and 3 months after each session. Participants' satisfaction was assessed immediately after each meeting via a standard tool. Data were analyzed using appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Rate of participation was 37.7% for the lecture group and 47.5% for the workshop group. The workshop participants were significantly more satisfied in comparison with the lecture group (p < .05). Mean knowledge scores were similar at baseline in the 3 study groups (43-47). Immediately after the meeting, knowledge was significantly higher in the lecture group (79.1 ± 11.9 vs 73.7 ± 11.3; p = .01). At the follow-up, knowledge scores of the lecture and workshop groups were similar, while significantly higher than the control group. However, the reduction of knowledge score was significantly higher in the lecture group (-13.0 ± 15.9% vs -5.7 ± 15.1%, p = .02). DISCUSSION: Educational interventions can improve nurses' knowledge of adverse drug reactions. Short-term learning could be achieved with lecture, but the retention of knowledge will be enhanced by simple interactive techniques.