ABSTRACT
Following the development of the tramadol crisis currently affecting countries in the Middle East, and Africa, there has been increasing international interest in the regulation of tramadol. This study investigates the misuse of tramadol in patients presenting to emergency departments across Europe. Data from 32 emergency departments in 21 countries were extracted from the Euro-DEN Plus database for the 4-year period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2017. Of the reported 24,957 emergency department presentations, tramadol misuse was reported in 105 (0.4% presentations). Tramadol misuse was most common in Bratislava (Slovakia; n = 11, 7.5% of all presentations to this centre), Riga (Latvia; n = 4, 4.9%) and Munich (Germany; n = 17, 2.9%). On arrival, 14 (13.3%) of presentations were in coma/Glasgow coma score ≤ 8 and 9 of these had a respiratory rate <12 breaths/min. These presentations potentially pose a significant burden on emergency departments with a large proportion requiring admission to hospital for ongoing care.
Subject(s)
Pharmaceutical Preparations , Tramadol , Africa , Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects , Emergencies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Europe , Germany , Humans , Tramadol/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces guidelines for the management of hypertension. In 2006, the NICE guidelines introduced an ethnic-age group algorithm based on the 2004 British Hypertension Society guidelines to guide antihypertensive drug prescription. METHODS: A longitudinal retrospective study with 15933 hypertensive patients aged 18 years or over and registered with 28 general practices in Wandsworth, London in 2007 was conducted to assess variations in antihypertensive prescribing. Logistic models were used to measure variations in the odds of being prescribed the 2006 NICE first line recommended monotherapy among NICE patient groups over the period. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2007, the percentage of patients prescribed the recommended monotherapy increased from 54.2% to 61.4% (p < 0.0001 for annual trend). Over the study period, black patients were more likely to be prescribed the recommended monotherapy than younger non-black patients (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12-0.21) and older non-black patients (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.65). After the introduction of the NICE guidelines there was an increase in the NICE recommended monotherapy (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19-1.75) compared with the underlying trend. Compared to black patients, an increase in the use of recommended monotherapy was observed in younger non-black patients (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17-1.91) but not in older non-black patients (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.74). CONCLUSION: The introduction of the 2006 NICE guideline had the greatest impact on prescribing for younger non-black patients. Lower associated increases among black patients may be due to their higher levels of recommended prescribing at baseline. The analysis suggests that guidelines did not impact equally on all patient groups.
Subject(s)
Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Hypertension/ethnology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care/standards , Adrenergic beta-Antagonists/therapeutic use , Adult , Age Factors , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Antihypertensive Agents/standards , Black People/statistics & numerical data , Calcium Channel Blockers/therapeutic use , Diuretics/therapeutic use , England/epidemiology , Female , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Primary Health Care/methods , Racial Groups/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733. FINDINGS: Between May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87). INTERPRETATION: Favipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19. FUNDING: LifeArc and CW+.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Pyrazines/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evaluating the effects of decreasing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels requires large randomized trials. In preparation for such a trial, we assessed the biochemical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adding ezetimibe, 10 mg/d, to simvastatin, 20 mg/d, as initial therapy for such patients. METHODS: Two hundred three patients (152 predialysis patients with creatinine levels > or = 1.7 mg/dL [> or = 150 micromol/L], 18 patients on peritoneal dialysis therapy, and 33 patients on hemodialysis therapy) were randomly assigned to the administration of simvastatin, 20 mg/d, plus ezetimibe, 10 mg/d; or simvastatin, 20 mg, plus placebo ezetimibe daily. RESULTS: After 6 months, allocation to simvastatin monotherapy was associated with a 31-mg/dL (0.8-mmol/L) decrease in nonfasting LDL cholesterol levels compared with baseline. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe produced an additional 18-mg/dL (0.47-mmol/L) decrease in LDL cholesterol level, representing an incremental 21% reduction over that achieved with simvastatin monotherapy (P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant effects of the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin on triglyceride or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Ezetimibe was not associated with an excess risk of abnormal liver function test results or of elevated creatine kinase levels and did not impair absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. There were no serious adverse events caused by study treatment. CONCLUSION: This 6-month study shows that the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin, 20 mg/d, as initial therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease was well tolerated and produced an additional 21% decrease in LDL cholesterol levels. The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy in this population are now being assessed in a large randomized trial.
Subject(s)
Anticholesteremic Agents/administration & dosage , Azetidines/administration & dosage , Kidney Diseases/drug therapy , Simvastatin/administration & dosage , Chronic Disease , Drug Therapy, Combination , Ezetimibe , Female , Humans , Kidney Diseases/complications , Male , Middle AgedSubject(s)
Heroin , Illicit Drugs , Emergencies , Heroin/toxicity , Humans , Pregabalin/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, but the efficacy and safety of simvastatin and aspirin are unknown in this patient group. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2 x 2 factorial design to the administration of: (1) 20 mg of simvastatin daily versus matching placebo, and (2) 100 mg of modified-release aspirin daily versus matching placebo. RESULTS: Overall, 448 patients with chronic kidney disease were randomly assigned (242 predialysis patients with a creatinine level > or = 1.7 mg/dL [> or =150 micromol/L], 73 patients on dialysis therapy, and 133 patients with a functioning transplant). Compliance with study treatments was 80% at 12 months. Allocation to treatment with 100 mg of aspirin daily was not associated with an excess of major bleeds (aspirin, 4 of 225 patients [2%] versus placebo, 6 of 223 patients [3%]; P = not significant [NS]), although there was a 3-fold excess of minor bleeds (34 of 225 [15%] versus 12 of 223 patients [5%]; P = 0.001). Among those with predialysis renal failure or a functioning transplant at baseline, aspirin did not increase the number of patients who progressed to dialysis therapy (7 of 187 [4%] versus 6 of 188 patients [3%]; P = NS) or experienced a greater than 20% increase in creatinine level (63 of 187 patients [34%] versus 56 of 188 patients [30%]; P = NS). After 12 months of follow-up, allocation to 20 mg of simvastatin daily reduced nonfasting total cholesterol levels by 18% (simvastatin, 163 mg/dL [4.22 mmol/L] versus placebo, 196 mg/dL [5.08 mmol/L]; P < 0.0001), directly measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by 24% (89 mg/dL [2.31 mmol/L] versus 114 mg/dL [2.96 mmol/L]; P < 0.0001), and triglyceride levels by 13% (166 mg/dL [1.87 mmol/L] versus 186 mg/dL [2.10 mmol/L]; P < 0.01), but there was no significant effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (2% increase; P = NS). Allocation to simvastatin therapy was not associated with excess risk for abnormal liver function test results or elevated creatine kinase levels. CONCLUSION: During a 1-year treatment period, simvastatin, 20 mg/d, produced a sustained reduction of approximately one quarter in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, with no evidence of toxicity, and aspirin, 100 mg/d, did not substantially increase the risk for a major bleeding episode. Much larger trials are now needed to assess whether these treatments can prevent vascular events.