RESUMO
COVID-19 infection is associated with high mortality, and despite extensive studying the scientific society is still working to find a definitive treatment. Some experts postulated a beneficial role of Deferoxamine. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 adult patients admitted to the ICU who received deferoxamine to those who received standard of care. Methods: Prospective observational cohort study, in the ICU of a tertiary referral hospital in Saudi Arabia to compare all-cause hospital mortality between COVID-19 patients who received deferoxamine and standard of care. Results: A total of 205 patients were enrolled, with an average age of 50.1±14.3, 150 patients received standard of care only, and 55 patients received deferoxamine additionally. Hospital mortality was lower in deferoxamine group (25.5 vs. 40.7%, 95% CI=1.3-29.2%; P=0.045). Clinical status score upon discharge was lower in deferoxamine group (3.6±4.3 vs. 6.2±4, 95% CI: 1.4-3.9; P<0.001), as was the difference between discharge score and admission score (indicating clinical improvement). More patients admitted with mechanical ventilation were successfully extubated in the deferoxamine group (61.5 vs. 14.3%, 95% CI: 15-73%; P=0.001), with a higher median ventilator-free days. There were no differences between groups in adverse events. Deferoxamine group was associated with hospital mortality [odds ratio=0.46 (95% CI: 0.22-0.95); P=0.04]. Conclusions: Deferoxamine may have mortality and clinical improvement benefits in COVID-19 adults admitted to ICU. Further powered and controlled studies are required.
RESUMO
Background The acceptance of vaccines among pregnant and breastfeeding women is vital to alleviate the risk of contracting and transmitting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, we aimed to assess the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant and breastfeeding/lactating women and the factors associated with the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in Saudi Arabia. Methodology A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pregnant and breastfeeding women living in Saudi Arabia. A 23-item, self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant or lactating women. Results A total of 160 (53.3%) pregnant women and 140 (46.7%) breastfeeding/lactating mothers participated in the study. When the participants were asked, "Have you been vaccinated or are you planning to take the vaccine during pregnancy or breastfeeding/lactation?" 164 (54.7%) responded with "Yes." When compared with breastfeeding/lactating mothers (54, 38.6%), pregnant women had more concerns about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination (77 (48.1%); p = 0.043). The probability of rejecting COVID-19 vaccination was higher among breastfeeding/lactating women with a lower education level than those with a tertiary education level (odds ratio = 3.42, confidence interval = 1.24, 9.45, p = 0.018). Conclusions This study reported high acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in a sample of breastfeeding/lactating women. Concern about vaccine safety among many pregnant women was the major reason for hesitancy. Factors such as low education, concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of the vaccine, and doctors' (e.g., obstetrician and gynecologist) recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine were associated with vaccine acceptance.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Due to the need for early and effective medications for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), less attention may have been paid to medication safety during this pandemic. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the incidence, nature, and seriousness of medication errors (MEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of MEs and ADRs reported at the King Saud Medical City (KSMC) between April 2020 and September 2020. RESULTS: A total of 343 MEs and 416 ADRs were reported during the study period. The incidence of MEs was 19% (19/100). Seventy-five MEs (21.5%) reached the patient but did not cause any harm. Wrong dose (n=101, 29.4%) was the most common type of MEs. Physicians were the most common source of MEs (87.5%). Antibiotics (32%) and antineoplastics (25%) were the most common drug categories involved in MEs and ADRs, respectively. Thirty-nine percent (n=163) of the ADRs were of serious nature. 24% (n=100) required hospitalization, 5% (n=21) were life-threatening, 16 (3.8%) required intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage, and 6.2% (n=26) resulted in the discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSION: The reporting of MEs appears to be high among COVID-19 patients in a large tertiary care setting in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The majority of MEs were caused by dosing errors and errors in drug frequency, mostly ascribed to physicians, which may be indicative of burnout or stress among them. The reporting of MEs and ADRs can be improved by providing incentives to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and promoting a non-punitive culture. Further studies should explore the clinical consequences of medication misadventures in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the extent of inappropriate utilization of intravenous proton-pump inhibitors (IV-PPIs) and its financial burden in a Middle Eastern tertiary care university hospital. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, cross-sectional study carried out in King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. During a study period of 6 consecutive weeks, all hospitalized adult patients (age ≥18) who received IV-PPI selected and mapped with their indications. The patient indications analyzed in comparison with the appropriate indications developed based on the evidence from published literature and guidelines. FINDINGS: A total of 347 patients were identified, with a mean age of 51.5 years, of which 51.9% were male. Of all the patients who received IV-PPIs, 251 (72.3%), 66 (19%), and 30 (8.7%) received for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), peptic ulcer disease (PUD) or gastroesophageal reflux diseases (GERDs), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, respectively. Overall, only 110 (31.7%) of the 347 patients received IV-PPIs appropriately. The patients with SUP showed the highest percentage of inappropriate use of IV-PPI (80.59%) compared to PUD/GERD (19%). The total cost of inappropriate prescription of IV-PPI was 585,167 Saudi Riyal (SAR) (156,044 USD). CONCLUSION: There is a high tendency of IV-PPI's inappropriate prescription in our hospital setting. This large-scale inappropriate prescription of IV-PPI in the hospital setting not only may lead to increased financial burden but also expose patients to number of undesired effects.
