Search

Background Pharmacovigilance reports have suggested that certain commonly used medications may trigger autoimmune diseases (ADs) and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate whether psychiatric medication use is associated with ADs and IMIDs. Methods The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022296524) before the start of the study. We searched Medline Ovid and Scopus up to November 28th, 2021, for comparative studies, with any psychiatric medication as exposure and ADs and IMIDs as outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects modeling. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed in reporting. Study-level risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. Results There were 7,265 citations from which 31 studies were eligible, all from high-income countries, covering 15 distinct immune diseases. The evidence for the association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use and higher risk of microscopic colitis (meta-OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.05–6.39, I2 97.5%, 6 studies) was of low certainty. A subgroup analysis by the histological type of microscopic colitis showed a statistically significant association only with lymphocytic colitis (meta-OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.60–3.18, I2 00.00%, three studies). In two case-control studies, SSRI use had no significant association with psoriasis (meta-OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58–1.10, I2 82.4%). The risk of acute pancreatitis was slightly increased with exposure to SSRIs (meta-OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01–1.26, I2 00.0%), as was the risk of bullous pemphigoid after exposure to antipsychotics (meta-OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.17–2.73, I2 0%). Conclusions We reviewed the literature on whether psychiatric medications associate with the risk of ADs and IMIDs and concluded that, despite several signals, the credibility of evidence remains low at best. Prospective cohort studies would be needed as the next step to confirm the suggestions of increased risk.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients frequently suffer from long-term sequelae, often called “long COVID” or “post COVID-19 condition”. Remdesivir, given in early disease, decreases the risk of hospitalization and potentially mortality. No randomized trials have thus far published long-term follow-up data on any COVID-19 drug treatment. We investigated the effects of remdesivir on a range of patient-important outcomes at one year. Methods Between July 2020 and January 2021, an open-label randomized multicenter trial in Finland recruited 208 adult patients from 11 Finnish hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to standard of care (SoC)with remdesivir (median duration of remdesivir treatment 5 days) or SoC alone. Primary outcomes were self-reported recovery, exertional dyspnea, fatigue, and quality of life at one year. Secondary outcomes were overall mortality and several potential long-COVID symptoms. Results At one year, 5 (4.4%) of 114 patients in the remdesivir and 5 (5.3%) of 94 in the SoC group had died (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.25-2.76; absolute difference: -0.9%, 95% CI -7.9-5.3); 181 (92% of survivors) completed the follow-up. Self-reported recovery (fully or largely) occurred in 85% in remdesivir and in 86% in SoC (RR 0.94, 0.47-1.90; absolute difference: -0.9%, 95% CI -11%-10%). Exertional dyspnea occurred in 5% in remdesivir and 8% in SoC (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.20-1.85; absolute difference -3.3%, 95% CI -12%-4.4%). We found no convincing difference between remdesivir and SoC groups in quality of life or symptom outcomes (p > 0.05 for all). Of the 21 potential long-COVID symptoms, patients often reported moderate or major bother from fatigue (26%), joint pain (22%), persistent respiratory mucus (21%), and problems with memory (19%) and attention/concentration (18%) (Figure). Bother from potential long-COVID symptoms at one year from COVID-19 hospitalization between the standard of care and standard of care plus remdesivir groups. Conclusion After a one-year follow-up of hospitalized patients (with a very high participation rate), approximately one in four reported substantial bother from fatigue, and one in six reported that they had not recovered well from COVID-19. We found no convincing evidence of a remdesivir effect, but confidence intervals were wide and included possible substantial benefit and substantial harm. Disclosures Hanna-Riikka Kreivi, MD, PhD, Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Roche: Advisor/Consultant Tuomas Rosberg, MD, PhD, AstraZeneca: Honoraria|Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria|GSK: Honoraria.

Background Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2