Appropriateness of anticoagulation level in older adult patients on Warfarin: A multicenter retrospective study.

Warfarin is favored over newer direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for many older adults. However, its use necessitates rigorous monitoring due to the fine line between toxic and therapeutic doses. Few studies have evaluated the anticoagulation quality of warfarin among elderly patients in Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to assess and identify factors affecting the anticoagulation quality of warfarin using the time in the therapeutic range (TTR) among older adults attending two hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, we aimed to evaluate differences in the anticoagulation quality of warfarin when managed by pharmacists or physicians. This cross-sectional study was conducted at King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAAUH) and King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After calculating the TTR of each patient, the anticoagulation control level was determined using these values: a) good control: >70 %; b) intermediate control: 50-70 %; c) poor control: <50 %. A total of 132 patients prescribed warfarin therapy for different indications were included. Most patients (45.5 %) had poor control with TTRs < 50 %, while 18.2 % had intermediate control, and 36.4 % had good control. Our exploratory findings suggest that having three or more comorbidities was a significant factor associated with a poor TTR [odds ratio (OR) = 3.36; (95 % confidence interval 1.28-8.81); P = 0.014]. Thus, the anticoagulation quality of warfarin among older adult patients was poor in two Saudi Arabian tertiary hospitals, and the number of comorbidities was a potentially poor TTR predictor.

Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems are complex and challenging for all stakeholders, but artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various fields, including healthcare, with the potential to improve patient care and quality of life. Rapid AI advancements can revolutionize healthcare by integrating it into clinical practice. Reporting AI's role in clinical practice is crucial for successful implementation by equipping healthcare providers with essential knowledge and tools. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE: This review article provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the current state of AI in clinical practice, including its potential applications in disease diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and patient engagement. It also discusses the associated challenges, covering ethical and legal considerations and the need for human expertise. By doing so, it enhances understanding of AI's significance in healthcare and supports healthcare organizations in effectively adopting AI technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current investigation analyzed the use of AI in the healthcare system with a comprehensive review of relevant indexed literature, such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE, with no time constraints but limited to articles published in English. The focused question explores the impact of applying AI in healthcare settings and the potential outcomes of this application. RESULTS: Integrating AI into healthcare holds excellent potential for improving disease diagnosis, treatment selection, and clinical laboratory testing. AI tools can leverage large datasets and identify patterns to surpass human performance in several healthcare aspects. AI offers increased accuracy, reduced costs, and time savings while minimizing human errors. It can revolutionize personalized medicine, optimize medication dosages, enhance population health management, establish guidelines, provide virtual health assistants, support mental health care, improve patient education, and influence patient-physician trust. CONCLUSION: AI can be used to diagnose diseases, develop personalized treatment plans, and assist clinicians with decision-making. Rather than simply automating tasks, AI is about developing technologies that can enhance patient care across healthcare settings. However, challenges related to data privacy, bias, and the need for human expertise must be addressed for the responsible and effective implementation of AI in healthcare.

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 emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various domains, including education and research. Natural language processing (NLP) techniques and large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 and BARD have significantly advanced our comprehension and application of AI in these fields. This paper provides an in-depth introduction to AI, NLP, and LLMs, discussing their potential impact on education and research. By exploring the advantages, challenges, and innovative applications of these technologies, this review gives educators, researchers, students, and readers a comprehensive view of how AI could shape educational and research practices in the future, ultimately leading to improved outcomes. Key applications discussed in the field of research include text generation, data analysis and interpretation, literature review, formatting and editing, and peer review. AI applications in academics and education include educational support and constructive feedback, assessment, grading, tailored curricula, personalized career guidance, and mental health support. Addressing the challenges associated with these technologies, such as ethical concerns and algorithmic biases, is essential for maximizing their potential to improve education and research outcomes. Ultimately, the paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the role of AI in education and research and highlight its potential to lead to better outcomes for students, educators, and researchers.

Practical Guide for Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Reversal in Clinical Practice.

In recent years, anticoagulant and antiplatelet use have increased over the past years for the prevention and treatment of several cardiovascular conditions. Due to the rising use of antithrombotic medications and the complexity of specific clinical cases requiring such therapies, bleeding remains the primary concern among patients using antithrombotics. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) include rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban. Direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) include argatroban, bivalirudin, and dabigatran. DOACs are associated with lower rates of fatal, life-threatening, and significant bleeding risks compared to those of warfarin. The immediate reversal of these agents can be indicated in an emergency setting. Antithrombotic reversal recommendations are still in development. Vitamin K and prothrombin complex concentrate (PCCs) can be used for warfarin reversal. Andexanet alfa and idarucizumab are specific reversal agents for DOACs and DTIs, respectively. Protamine sulfate is the solely approved reversal agent for unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). However, there are no specific reversal agents for antiplatelets. This article aims to provide a practical guide for clinicians regarding the reversal of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in clinical practice based on the most recent studies.

Real-World Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Apixaban & Rivaroxaban Lead-in Dosing Compared to Parenteral Lead-in Dosing in the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Although parenteral anticoagulation lead-in is not recommended with apixaban and rivaroxaban, parenteral anticoagulation is often used to replace apixaban or rivaroxaban lead-in doses for the initial phase treatment of VTE. Thus, our study compares the safety and effectiveness of lead-in parenteral anticoagulation to lead-in apixaban or rivaroxaban in patients who received apixaban or rivaroxaban for VTE treatment. Methods: A multi-center retrospective cohort study included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to the hospital with acute VTE and treated with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. Patients were grouped depending on the lead-in anticoagulation received for initial VTE treatment into the "Direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) lead-in" group if patients received an appropriate lead-in dose of apixaban and rivaroxaban and patients who received parenteral lead-in the "parenteral lead-in" group. Results: A total of 389 patients were included; the DOAC lead-in group included 296 patients, whereas 93 patients were in the parenteral lead-in group. VTE recurrence (rVTE) during hospitalization and within 30 days was numerically higher in the parenteral lead-in group compared to the DOAC lead-in group (3.3% vs 0.6%; p=0.09 and 1.1% vs 0.7%; p=0.560), with a significantly higher number of patients with rVTE at 90 days (5.4% vs 1.4%; p=0.039). However, none of the patient's characteristics were significantly associated with the incidence of rVTE. In addition, the major bleeding rate during hospitalization was significantly higher among the parenteral lead-in group than in the DOAC lead-in group (14.0% vs 3.7%; p<0.001). Conclusion: Parenteral anticoagulation lead-in before starting maintenance of apixaban and rivaroxaban showed a significantly higher risk of bleeding and a trend toward higher VTE recurrence than the DOAC lead-in. This study adds to the evidence supporting the utilization of the DOAC lead-in regimen in treating patients with VTE. Still, larger studies with robust designs are needed to confirm these findings.

The prescribing pattern of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patient with type two diabetes mellitus: A two-center retrospective cross-sectional study.

Background: The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains limited, especially in those with other compelling indications. Thus, this study aimed to describe the prescribing patterns of GLP-1-RA and SGLT2i in patients with T2DM and to determine the factors that affect the prescribing of these medications. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cross-sectional study reviewed the electronic health records of adult patients diagnosed with T2DM who received care between January and December 2020. The patients were classified according to their compelling indications into "patients who are more likely" to benefit from SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA and "patients who are less likely" to benefit from them. They were then further categorized depending on whether these medications were prescribed. Results: A total of 1,220 patients were included; most were female (56.9%). SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA were preferably prescribed in only 19% of the patients for reasons including BMI ≥ 27 kg/m2 (85.6%), uncontrolled T2DM (68.5%), high risk for ASCVD (23.9%), or established ASCVD (14%). The remaining 81.0% were underprescribed these agents. Patients at an older age or with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack had higher odds of being underprescribed (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01-1.03 and OR 2.86; 95% CI: 1.33-6.15), respectively. Conclusion: The results concur with those of previous studies highlighting the underutilization of GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i in patients with T2DM but also with compelling indications. To optimize the use of GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i for their additional benefits, prescribers need to assess the benefits of using these agents in patients who would likely benefit from them, regardless of DM control.

The use of metformin for type 2 diabetes prevention: Observational multicenter study from Saudi Arabia.

Background: Patients with prediabetes are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. While intensive lifestyle modification is the primary approach to delaying diabetes, metformin has been shown to be effective, especially among patients younger than 60 years and obese (body mass index (BMI) > 35 kg/m2), patients with fasting blood glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol/L or HbA1c ≥ 6%, and women with history of gestational diabetes. Thus, metformin is now recommended as an option for diabetes prevention by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The use of metformin among patients with prediabetes in Saudi Arabia and their adherence to the guideline's recommendation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes is unknown. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of metformin use among prediabetes patients overall and patients who are more likely to benefit from metformin use per the ADA guidelines. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted encompassing data from three tertiary care hospitals between January 2015 and June 2019. All patients aged 20 to 70 years with prediabetes (HbA1c of 5.7-6.4%) were included, while patients with an established diagnosis of diabetes, creatinine clearance <45 ml/min, using antihyperglycemic medications other than metformin, or on metformin for other indications were excluded. Prediabetes patients who are most likely to benefit from metformin for type 2 diabetes prevention are those younger than 60 years with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, patients with fasting blood glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol/L or HbA1c ≥ 6%, and women with history of gestational diabetes. This study examined the prevalence of metformin use among all patients with prediabetes, as well as patients who would be more likely to benefit from metformin use per the ADA guidelines. Results: A total of 251 patients were included in this study; 52.2% were female, with a mean age of 47.0 (11.9) years and BMI of 32.3 (6.5) kg/m2, and the median HbA1c at baseline was 5.8% (5.7-6.0). Among the overall sample, 18 patients (7.2%) received metformin for the prevention of type 2 diabetes, 14 of those were from the groups that are more likely to benefit from metformin use per the ADA guidelines (9.9%). Conclusions: Among individuals with prediabetes in Saudi Arabia, metformin use was very low despite the evidence supporting its safety, convenience, and efficacy. Healthcare providers seemed hesitant to medicalize prediabetes; furthermore, the low use of metformin suggests the existence of several barriers that need to be identified and resolved. Increasing providers' knowledge and awareness regarding screening and management of prediabetes is highly encouraged.

Influencing factors of vision-threatening disease among patients with diabetes in the central region of Saudi Arabia: A case-control study.

Aims: Diabetic retinopathy is called as vision threatening disease. It affects retina very severely. DR is a common public health problem in Worldwide. Our main objective was to identify significant risk factors for diabetic retinopathy among diabetes mellitus patients. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective Case-Control study was conducted with 404 DM patients' records were collected from King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Statistical analysis used: Data were presented as descriptive statistics, multivariate logistic regression, association between variables was using odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results: Among 404 diabetes patients, 192 (47.5%) were Cases and 212 (52.5%) Controls. In multivariate regression analysis showed that male gender also had a higher likelihood in the development of DR, OR: 1. 68 [95% CI: (1.04 - 2.71); p<0.05]. Patients with poor glycaemic control, OR: 4. 86 [95% CI: (2.21-10.66); p<0.001]. Similarly, HbA1C, Low LDL was prominent risk factor in the progression of DR except age, hypocholesterolaemia, nephropathy wasn't significant. Conclusions: From our study findings, male gender, tobacco habit, poor glycaemic control, and Low HDL were appeared independently associated with the development of vision-threatening disease. By regular check-up, reducing risk factors or retain their stages in the same stage or to prolong the DR incidents among DM patients.

Thrombolytic therapy in cardiac arrest caused by cardiac etiologies or presumed pulmonary embolism: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Many cardiac arrest cases are encountered annually worldwide, with poor survival. The use of systemic thrombolysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for the treatment of cardiac arrest remains controversial. Objectives: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of systemic thrombolysis in patients with cardiac arrest due to presumed or confirmed pulmonary embolism or cardiac etiology. Methods: We searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases from inception through April 2021 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were survival to hospital discharge and reported bleeding, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was performed on the basis of study design and etiology of cardiac arrest. Results: Eleven studies were included, with 4696 patients (1178 patients received systemic thrombolysis, and 3518 patients received traditional therapy). There was a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge in patients who received systemic thrombolysis versus no systemic thrombolysis (risk ratio [RR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.91). There were also higher rates of survival at 24 hours (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.97-1.59) and hospital admission (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.24), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05-1.71) with the use of systemic thrombolysis. Impacts on survival to discharge and survival at 24 hours were not statistically significant. Patients receiving systemic thrombolysis had a 65% increase in bleeding events compared with no systemic thrombolysis (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.20-2.27). Conclusion: Systemic thrombolysis in cardiac arrest did not improve survival to hospital discharge and led to more bleeding events. However, it increased the rates of hospital admission and ROSC achievement.

Corrigendum: Parents' Hesitancy to Vaccinate Their 5-11-Year-Old Children Against COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: Predictors From the Health Belief Model.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.842862.].

Economic analysis of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists from the Saudi Arabia payer perspective.

Objectives: To perform a cost of control analysis of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) in Saudi Arabia (SA) and determine the economic impact of adopting GLP1RAs. Methods: A budget impact model that captures the cost of control model was constructed to simulate hypothetical patient on six treatment options: a current mix of 60% liraglutide and 40% dulaglutide, semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. We estimated the relative amounts of SAR spend to achieve HbA1c targets (≤6.5% or < 7.0%). For each treatment option, annual treatment cost, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets, and cost to treat major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were aggregated to estimate the cost of control per patient per year (CCPPPY) over 5-year horizon (2021-2025). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed as a confirmatory analysis. Results: The CCPPPY to achieve HbA1c ≤ 6.5%/<7.0% using current mix, semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide were SAR 17,097/SAR 14,113, SAR 12,889/SAR 11,123, SAR 15,594/SAR 12,892, SAR 19,184/SAR 15,940, SAR 580,211/SAR 380,936, and SAR 246,570/SAR 143,759, respectively. The relative amounts of SAR spend to achieve HbA1c ≤ 6.5%/<7.0% relative to 1 SAR on semaglutide in case of adopting current mix, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide were SAR 1.42/SAR 1.18, SAR 1.30/SAR 1.07, SAR 1.60/SAR 1.33, SAR 48.33/SAR 31.73, and SAR 20.54/SAR 11.97, respectively. These results were confirmed in the PSA. Conclusions: Semaglutide 1 mg once weekly was the most economically favorable GLP1RA; associated with the least CCPPPY, and amount of SAR spent to achieve HbA1c of ≤6.50%/<7.00% versus all other GLP1RAs.

Parents' Hesitancy to Vaccinate Their 5-11-Year-Old Children Against COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: Predictors From the Health Belief Model.

Data exploring parents' hesitancy to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children against COVID-19, and associated factors, is limited. This study aims to investigate parents' beliefs and intentions to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children using the Health Belief Model in Saudi Arabia. A national, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted in November, 2021. The self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of parents. Adult parents with at least one 5-11-year-old child were included. The main outcome was parents' intention to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children. Variability in parents' intention was assessed by demographics, COVID-19-related factors, children's health status, and constructs from the Health Belief Model. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to investigate each factor and adjust for the intervariable effect on parental intention to vaccinate their children. Of the 4,135 participants, 61.9% were hesitant to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children. Parents aged 31 to 40 years (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49) and females (OR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84) had higher odds of being hesitant to vaccinate their children than parents from other groups. Parents who perceived low benefit from the vaccine (OR = 16.3; 95% CI, 12.1-21.9) or who had safety or efficacy concerns (OR = 3.76; 95% CI, 3.10-4.58) were among the most hesitant to vaccinate their children. In conclusion, vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among parents of 5-11-year-old children in Saudi Arabia and those who had beliefs of minimal benefits or lack of safety from the COVID-19 vaccine were more hesitant. Government efforts must be directed toward increasing parents' vaccine awareness and tackling the constructs of the Health Belief Model through a well-designed vaccination campaign.

Antidepressants and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with depression: Analysis of the medical expenditure panel survey from the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the empirical literature demonstrating the efficacy of antidepressant medications for treatment of depression disorder, these medications' effect on patients' overall well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remains controversial. This study investigates the effect of antidepressant medication use on patient-reported HRQoL for patients who have depression. METHODS: A comparative cohort, secondary database analysis was conducted using data from the United States' Medical Expenditures Panel Survey for patients who had depression. HRQoL was measured using the SF-12 and reported as physical and mental component summaries (PCS and MCS). A cohort of patients that used antidepressant medications were compared to a cohort of patients that did not. Univariate and multivariate difference-in-differences (D-I-D) analyses were used to assess the significance of the mean difference of change on the PCS and MCS from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: On average, 17.5 million adults were diagnosed with depression disorder each year during the period 2005-2016. The majority were female (67.9%), a larger proportion of whom received antidepressant medications (60.5% vs. 51.5% of males). Although use of antidepressants was associated with some improvement on the MCS, D-I-D univariate analysis revealed no significant difference between the two cohorts in PCS (-0.35 vs. -0.34, p = 0.9595) or MCS (1.28 vs. 1.13, p = 0.6405). The multivariate D-I-D analyses ensured the robustness of these results. CONCLUSION: The real-world effect of using antidepressant medications does not continue to improve patients' HRQoL over time. Future studies should not only focus on the short-term effect of pharmacotherapy, it should rather investigate the long-term impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on these patients' HRQoL.

Impact of Thromboprophylaxis Intensity on Patients' Mortality Among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Propensity-Score Matched Study.

Purpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a major complication that has been reported in patients with COVID-19, is associated with an increased risk of mortality. The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received high-intensity versus standard-intensity thromboprophylactic anticoagulation. Patients and Methods: A secondary database analysis was conducted using data for adult patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia and received enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis during their hospitalization. While enoxaparin 40 mg daily is considered the standard-intensity, doses higher than the standard but not to reach the therapeutic dose were considered as high-intensity. The primary outcome in the study was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay. Chi-square and t-tests were used to assess the difference between the two independent groups, and propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline characteristics. Results: From 3508 patients who received high- or standard-intensity enoxaparin, 1422 patients, 711 in each group, were included in the analyses after propensity score matching. The mean age of the participants was 57.2 years, and around 30% of them were female. About 72% of the patients were admitted to the ICU. No difference was observed between the two groups in the in-hospital mortality outcome (36% vs 33.5% in the high-intensity and the standard group, respectively; RR=1.06, 95% CI 0.95-1.18). However, patients who received high-intensity thromboprophylaxis had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization (15.6 days vs 13.6 days; p=0.003) and ICU stay (12.3 days vs 10.8 days; p=0.039) compared to patients who received the standard dose. Conclusion: The use of high-intensity thromboprophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in mortality. Therefore, our results do not support the routine use of high-intensity prophylactic anticoagulation in both ICU and non-ICU patients with COVID-19.

Incidence of Diabetic Ketoacidosis Among Pediatrics With Type 1 Diabetes Prior to and During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Background: Previous reports suggest that the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might have affected incidences of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and new diagnoses of type 1 diabetes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the risk of DKA, including severe DKA, during the COVID-19 pandemic versus the prior-to-COVID-19 period among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for observational studies investigating the risk of DKA among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the prior-to-COVID-19 period. A random meta-analysis model was performed to estimate the relative risk of DKA during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type 1 diabetes status, established or newly diagnosed. In addition, sensitivity analysis was conducted for studies that reported results from adjusted analysis for potential confounders using fixed effect model. Results: A total of 20 observational studies reported the risk of DKA, of which 18 reported the risk of severe DKA. The risks of DKA and severe DKA were 35% (RR 1.35, 95%CI 1.2-1.53, I2 = 71%) and 76% (RR 1.76, 95%CI 1.33-2.33, I2 = 44%) higher in the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group, respectively. Among patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes, the risk of DKA was 44% higher for the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group (RR 1.44, 95%CI 1.26-1.65; I2 = 64%). Only two studies reported the risk of DKA among patients with established type 1 diabetes and the cumulative risk was not statistically significant. In the sensitivity analysis, four studies reported an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of the risk of DKA during COVID-19 compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 period. The fixed estimate from the meta-analysis found an increase in the risk of DKA in the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group (aOR 2.04, 95%CI 1.66-2.50). Conclusions: This study showed that DKA risk, especially the risk of severe DKA, has increased significantly during the pandemic. Healthcare systems must be aware and prepared for such an increase in DKA cases and take all necessary measures to prevent future spikes during the pandemic. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=272775, identifier PROSPERO [CRD42021272775].

Comparative Effectiveness of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Lead-in Dosing in VTE Treatment: Observational Multicenter Real-World Study.

Apixaban and rivaroxaban require lead-in dosing for 7 and 21 days, respectively, when treating venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no evidence exists to support subtracting parenteral anticoagulation days from total lead-in dosing. A multicenter study was conducted, including adult patients with acute VTE who received apixaban or rivaroxaban. The patients were grouped as follows. The recommended group received oral lead-in anticoagulant for the full recommended duration. The mixed group received lead-in therapy as parenteral with oral anticoagulant. The incidence of recurrent VTE (rVTE) and major bleeding (MB) within 90 days were the main outcomes. Of the 368 included patients, 47.8% received apixaban, and 52.2% received rivaroxaban. The recommended lead-in was used in 296 patients (80.4%), whereas 72 (19.6%) received the mixed-lead-in regimen. Five patients had rVTE events within 90 days; two occurred during hospitalization in the recommended group versus none in the mixed group (0.7% vs. 0.0%; p = 1.000). After discharge, two events occurred in the recommended group and one in the mixed group (0.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.481). In terms of MB, 24 events occurred in 21 patients within 90 days. During hospitalization, 11 events occurred in the recommended group and seven in the mixed group (3.7% vs. 9.7%; p = 0.060). After discharge, five more events occurred in the recommended group and one in the mixed group (1.4% vs. 1.7%; p = 1.000). The mixed-lead-in regimen is safe and effective in comparison with the recommended-lead-in regimen.

The use of direct oral anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis or treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis and review of the guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is one of the most common causes of increased morbidity and mortality. The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE) has been evaluated in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess efficacy and safety of using DOACs for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of CA-VTE and provide a summary for available guidelines' recommendations. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched to identify studies evaluating the use of DOACs for thromboprophylaxis or treatment in patients with cancer. Search was limited to peer-reviewed studies published in English. Studies were excluded if they were not RCTs or subgroup analyses of data derived from RCTs, if they did not report efficacy and safety data on patients with active cancer, or if they were published as an abstract. New VTE or VTE recurrence, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) were used to assess the efficacy and safety, respectively. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model risk ratios (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the pooled treatment effects of DOACs. RESULTS: Four studies evaluating DOACs use for thromboprophylaxis and four - for treatment of CA-VTE were included. Thromboprophylaxis with DOACs was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR = 0.58; 95%CI 0.37,0.91) but with an incremental risk of major bleeding or CRNMB (RR = 1.57; 95%CI 1.10,2.26). CA-VTE treatment with DOACs was linked with a significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.44,0.87) but with an incremental risk of CRNMB (RR = 1.58; 95%CI 1.11,2.24). CONCLUSIONS: The DOACs are associated with a lower risk of symptomatic VTE and VTE recurrence, but the risk of bleeding remains a considerable concern. Clinical decisions should be made by assessing individual patient's risk of VTE and bleeding.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Acute Venous Thromboembolism: Experience of a Large Tertiary Hospital in Saudi Arabia.

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a "real-world" setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a large tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Patients were included if they were adults (≥18 years), diagnosed with VTE, and treated with either apixaban or warfarin between January 2016 and September 2018. Patients who had received anticoagulation therapy within three months of the date of the index event were excluded. The effectiveness outcomes were incidence of VTE recurrence (ie, deep vein thrombosis DVT or pulmonary embolism [PE]), while the safety outcome was incidence of any major bleeding (MB) event within 90 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 492 patients included for study, 212 (43.1%) received apixaban and 280 (56.1%) received warfarin. The mean age of patients was 53.6±19.1 years and 62% of the cohort was female. Comparable rates of VTE recurrence were observed for apixaban and warfarin treatment groups during follow-up (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) =0.95; 95% CI 0.53-1.68), including DVT (AOR=1.06; 95% CI 0.52-2.17) and PE (AOR=0.78; 95% CI 0.31-1.96). However, apixaban was associated with significantly fewer MB events than warfarin (AOR=0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.83). CONCLUSION: The use of apixaban for the treatment of Saudi patients with acute VTE is associated with a VTE recurrence rate comparable to that of warfarin, with significantly fewer MB events.

Safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis use in hospitalized elderly medical patients at a Saudi tertiary care center.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate prescribing of thromboprophylaxis according to guidelines' recommendations can heighten over- or underutilization risk. The study intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of appropriate/inappropriate thromboprophylaxis use among hospitalized elderly medical patients. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted, including patients who were ≥60 years old, hospitalized for an acute medical illness that required hospitalization in a medical ward for >48 h, and received thromboprophylaxis. Against the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, the thromboprophylaxis use appropriateness was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 370 patients met the inclusion criteria, in 71.9% of whom thromboprophylaxis use was appropriate. The mean age of the included patients was 75 years (±9.1), and 72.4% of them were at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and almost all these patients received appropriate thromboprophylaxis. The occurrence of bleeding was significantly higher in the appropriate use group during hospitalization than the inappropriate use group (11.7% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.009); the majority of these bleeding events were classified as major. There were no differences in VTE events during hospitalization or 90 days all-cause mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates high prescribers' compliance with recommendations in high-risk patients. In patients at low risk for VTE, the overutilization of thromboprophylaxis did not increase their bleeding risk. This study suggests that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis in elderly patients, regardless of their VTE risk, may outweigh the risk of bleeding.