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.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the observed incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in adult patients receiving either piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) and vancomycin or meropenem and vancomycin for at least 48h. In this retrospective cohort study, we included adult patients with no known renal dysfunction who received either the combination of PT-vancomycin or meropenem-vancomycin for at least 48h. The study's primary outcome was the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) in patients with baseline normal renal function as an increase in serum creatinine (Scr) by ≥0.3mg/dl within 48h. A total of 183 patients were evaluated for AKI. The incidence of AKI was higher but not statistically different in the PT-vancomycin group (7.41%) compared with the meropenem-vancomycin group (5.33%). This study was not able to detect a statistically significant difference in AKI between the two treatment groups. A larger prospective study is warranted.

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.

BackgroundPrevious 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.MethodsPubMed 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsThis 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 Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=272775, identifier PROSPERO [CRD42021272775].

Background: The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have shown that glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) have varying degrees of cardiovascular (CV) safety in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM.) The lack of any head-to-head comparative trials among GLP1RAs urged the need for an indirect comparison of these agents. Therefore, this study was conducted to indirectly compare the CV safety and mortality effects among different GLP1RAs in patients with T2DM using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: Medline was searched to identify GLP1RA CVOTs to date. The outcomes of interest were CV death, myocardial infarction (IM), stroke, and death from any cause. An NMA with binomial likelihood logit link model was used for the binary outcomes. We conducted both fixed effects and random effects models for each outcome, and selected the best model based on the deviance information and the average posterior residual deviance. This NMA was reported in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA-NMA). Results: A total of seven GLP1RA CVOTs were included having 56,004 patients. The NMA results showed that oral semaglutide was statistically better than exenatide (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21-0.99), dulaglutide (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-0.97), albiglutide (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19-0.97), lixisenatide (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.92) in reducing CV death events. No significant differences were detected between most of the treatments regarding reducing death from any cause, MI and stroke events. The ranking results showed that oral semaglutide had the highest probability to be ranked first (> 90%) in reducing CV death and death from any cause. Moreover, once weekly semaglutide had the highest probability to be ranked first in reducing MI and stroke events. Conclusion: The GLP1RAs have shown significant benefits in terms of CV safety. The indirect comparison and ranking probability results have shown that one weekly semaglutide and oral semaglutide seems to be the preferred option in patients with T2DM and established or at high risk of CVD. This result can aid health care providers, pharmacy and therapeutics committees in hospitals, and insurance companies when deciding which GLP1RA to start or add to their formulary.

No abstract

The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) or fondaparinux for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), in medically-ill patients. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been evaluated relative to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis though head-to-head comparisons of these agents are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of established treatments and DOACs for VTE prophylaxis in medically-ill patients. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify randomized trials evaluating UFH, LMWHs or DOACS for the prevention of VTE in medically ill patients. Articles were retrieved and cross-referenced for additional trials, evaluated and entered into ADDIS (version 1.16.6) to generate direct and indirect treatment comparisons for VTE, DVT, PE, death from any cause, and bleeding. Ten articles were included and eight anticoagulants were evaluated in a treatment network representing data on 28,382 patients. We found each treatment had similar efficacy in preventing VTE, DVT, PE, death from any cause and each had similar risk of minor and major bleeding. Overall, placebo was associated with more VTE and DVT events compared to LMWHs and DOACs. We found that UFH, LMWHs and DOACs are comparable in preventing VTE, DVT, PE, and death from any cause and in association with minor and major bleeding. Anticoagulant selection for VTE prophylaxis in medically-ill patients should be individualized by patient characteristics, risks and preferences along with specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations.

No abstract