Objective: We assessed the efficacy of colchicine in COVID-19 patients through a systematic review. Methods: Six databases were searched until March 2022 for studies assessing colchicine versus control in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcome was length of hospitalization. Inverse variance and random effect meta-analyses were performed. The strength of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Nine studies (five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and four non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI); n = 13,478). Colchicine did not reduce mortality in comparison with the standard of care in RCTs (RR 0.99; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.10; p = 0.90); however, it did reduce mortality in NRSI studies (RR 0.45; 95%CI 0.26 to 0.77; p = 0.02). In the analysis of RCTs, colchicine did not reduce the length of hospitalization in comparison with the standard of care (MD: −2.25 days; 95%CI: −9.34 to 4.84; p = 0.15). Most studies were scored as having a high risk of bias. Quality of evidence was very low for primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Colchicine did not reduce the mortality and length of hospitalization in comparison with the standard of care in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The published evidence is insufficient and of very low quality to recommend treatment in patients with COVID-19.

Users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) have a lower intention to receive vaccines. Furthermore, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region are among the most affected areas by the COVID-19 pandemics and present a high proportion of CAM users. Therefore, this study evaluates the association between the consumption of herbal supplements or homeopathic remedies to prevent COVID-19 and the intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 in the LAC region. We conducted a secondary data analysis of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) survey with Facebook to assess COVID-19 beliefs, behaviours, and norms. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using generalized linear models of the Poisson family with the log link function. The prevalence of the use of products to prevent COVID-19 was the following: consumption of herbal supplements (7.2%), use of homeopathic remedies (4.8%), and consumption of garlic, ginger, and lemon (11.8%). An association was found between using herbal supplements (19.0% vs. 12.8%; aPR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.30–1.58), the use of homeopathic remedies (20.3% vs. 12.3%; aPR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.25–1.98), and the consumption of garlic, ginger, and lemon (18.9% vs. 11.9%; aPR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.50–1.61) and non-intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. In the LAC population, there is an association between using herbal supplements, using homeopathic remedies and consuming garlic, ginger, and lemon to prevent infection by COVID-19 and non-intention to vaccinate against this disease. Therefore, it is necessary to design targeted strategies for groups that consume these products as preventive measures against COVID-19 to increase vaccination coverage and expand the information regarding transmission and prevention strategies for SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Inflammation plays a key role in atherosclerotic plaque destabilization and adverse cardiac remodeling. Recent evidence has shown a promising role of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of colchicine in post–acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients.Methods: We searched five electronic databases from inception to January 18, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colchicine in post–acute MI patients. Primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and recurrent MI. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent coronary revascularization, levels of follow-up high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and drug-related adverse events. All meta-analyses used inverse-variance random-effects models.Results: Six RCTs involving 6,005 patients were included. Colchicine did not significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.52–1.61; p = 0.64], recurrent MI (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62–1.22; p = 0.28), all-cause mortality (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61–1.85; p = 0.78), stroke (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.07–1.09; p = 0.05), urgent coronary revascularization (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.02–8.89; p = 0.19), or decreased levels of follow-up hs-CRP (mean difference, −1.95 mg/L; 95% CI, −12.88 to 8.98; p = 0.61) compared to the control group. There was no increase in any adverse events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89–1.07; p = 0.34) or gastrointestinal adverse events (RR, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.48–12.99; p = 0.20). Subgroup analyses by colchicine dose (0.5 vs. 1 mg/day), time of follow-up (<1 vs. ≥1 year), and treatment duration (≤30 vs. >30 days) showed no changes in the overall findings.Conclusion: In post–acute MI patients, colchicine does not reduce cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, or other cardiovascular outcomes. Also, colchicine did not increase drug-related adverse events.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives This study evaluated the association between non-medical switching of prescription medications (NMSPM) with brand-name drugs and out-of-pocket spending (OPS) on drugs among Peruvian adults. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of the National Survey of User Satisfaction Health using an analytical cross-sectional design. We included 3155 adults who went to drugstores and pharmacies with prescriptions. The independent variable was the self-reported NMSPM. The outcomes were brand-name drug purchase and OPS on drugs. We calculated crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the OPS on drugs was analysed using linear regression with crude and adjusted β and their 95% CIs. Key findings The rate of NMSPM was 6.7%, the proportion of brand-name drug purchases was 55.7% and the average spending on drugs was US$1.73. In the adjusted analysis, the proportion of brand-name drug purchases with NMSPM was higher than without (73.3% versus 54.5%; P < 0.001), with a statistically significant association (adjusted PR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.29 to 1.47; P < 0.001), and the association between NMSPM and OPS on drugs was statistically significant (adjusted β = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.30; P < 0.001). Conclusions There is a greater probability of brand-name drug purchases and OPS on drugs when NMSPM exists among adults who go to drugstores and pharmacies in Peru.

Background: We aimed to analyze the ethnic disparities in the out-of-pocket (OOP) payment and estimate the gaps related to observable risk factors in the OOP payment on medicines by ethnic conditions during 2014-2016 in Peru. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analytical secondary data analysis using the National Health User Satisfaction Survey. The outcome was the OOP payment in self-reported medications by participants. The ethnic condition was considered using the language participants habitually spoke at home (Spanish, Quechua/other). We collected confounding variables: sex, age, education, health insurance, medical prescription and region of residence. Crude and adjusted regression models were performed to assess the gaps in OPP payment on medications among ethnic conditions. The association measure was the Beta coefficient (β) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition method assessed the OPP payment differential in the two study groups explained by their individual and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: We analyzed 11,346 surveyed, the mean age was 40.78 years, and 57.67% were women. In the adjusted analysis, there was lower OOP payment in medications in participants speaking Quechua or other languages than those who speak Spanish (β: -0.11; 95%CI: -0.21 to -0.01; p=0.043). In the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analysis, a gap of 0.19 USD in the OOP payment in medicines was found, which disadvantages those minority ethnic conditions (p<0.001), and the explained component represents 41.2% of the gap (p<0.05). Conclusion: There were fewer out-of-pocket payments on medicines for ethnic minorities, and the observable differences explain approximately 40% of these gaps.

Introducción. La hipoglucemia neonatal es el trastorno metabólico más frecuente y precoz del recién nacido, que puede causar desde irritabilidad transitoria hasta estados de convulsión, apnea y muerte. Objetivo: Identificar los factores de riesgo asociados a hipoglucemia en neonatos a término en un hospital público del norte del Perú mediante la creación de un modelo predictivo utilizando regresión logística. Material y métodos: El estudio presentó un diseño de casos y controles pareado por sexo 1:1, con una muestra de 58 casos y 58 controles, según la presencia o no de hipoglucemia neonatal. Se analizaron variables maternas y neonatales: edad gestacional, peso del recién nacido, sexo del recién nacido, tipo de parto, uso de corticoides, inducción del parto, ser hijo de madre diabética, retraso en el crecimiento intrauterino (RCIU), madre con trastorno hidroelectrolítico previo al parto, síndrome de aspiración meconial y estrés perinatal. Resultados: En el análisis multivariado, se observó que el ser hijo de madre diabética es un factor de riesgo para el desarrollo de hipoglucemia neonatal (OR 4,08, IC95% 1,31-14,18, p=0,02). Conclusión: Existe una asociación significativa entre ser hijo de madre diabética y desarrollar hipoglucemia neonatal.