Search

BackgroundBurnout syndrome (BOS) is a job-related stress disorder featured by three main cardinal manifestations: emotional exhaustion (EE), reduced personal accomplishment (PA), and depersonalization (DP).AimWe aimed to report the prevalence of burnout and the impact of leadership and work condition on the burnout among respiratory therapists (RT) are front-line practitioners in many critical settings.MethodsWe surveyed RT in eight intensive care units (ICU) at five tertiary hospitals, under one medical corporation, using three instruments: the Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel, Condition of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (CWEQ), and Leadership behaviours scale. We used a group of other health care practitioners (ie, physicians and nurses) as the control group.ResultsOf a sampling frame of 1222 ICU practitioners, 445 (36.4%) responded with completed surveys. Eighty-four (17.3%) and 361 (82.7%) participants were in the RT and the control group, respectively. The overall burnout score was significantly lower in the RT group (53.6% vs. 67%, p = 0.02). The EE and DP scores were significantly lower in the RT group [(26.2% vs. 37.7, p = 0.048) and (9.5% vs. 19.9%, p = 0.025), respectively], but the PA score did not show significant difference between the groups. A significant negative relationship was found between CWEQ score and both EE and DP scores (rs = −0. 0.557, p s = −0.372, p s = 0.225, p s = −0.414, p ConclusionThe results of this study suggest a high burnout rate among RT. The reported rate was significantly correlated to work conditions and leadership behaviours. Organizational efforts should be directed to combating burnout through the identification and adequate management of the key precipitating factors.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04620005

Introduction: Colchicine acts upstream in the cytokines cascade by inhibiting the nod-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome while interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists, such as tocilizumab, block the end result of the cytokines cascade. Hence, adding colchicine to tocilizumab with the aim of blocking the early and end products of the cytokines cascade, might reduce the risk of developing cytokine storm. Methods and analysis: We aim to conduct an open-label randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding colchicine to tocilizumab among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia to reduce the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. We will include patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who received tocilizumab according to our local guidelines. Enrolled patients will be then randomized in 1:1 to colchicine versus no colchicine. Patients will be followed up for 30 days. The primary outcome is the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and will be determined using Cox proportional hazard model. Discussion: Given colchicine's ease of use, low cost, good safety profile, and having different anti-inflammatory mechanism of action than other IL-6 blockade, colchicine might serve as a potential anti-inflammatory agent among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This study will provide valuable insights on the use of colchicine in severe COVID-19 when added to IL-6 antagonists. Ethics and dissemination: The Medical Research Center and Institutional Review Board at Hamad Medical Corporation in Qatar approved the study protocol (MRC-01-21-299). Results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved. Scopus

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) compared to standard HF therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using real-world data. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for the observational studies published in English exploring the clinical outcomes of S/V use in HFrEF till March 14, 2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. A random-effect model was used to combine data. The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization associated with S/V use in comparison to standard HF therapy. A total of 9 observational studies comparing S/V to Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in HFrEF were included in the systematic review, with more than 32000 patients included in the final analysis. Overall, S/V use was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93, I

Aims: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 high-intensity atorvastatin doses (40 mg vs 80 mg) among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study using real-world data included patients admitted with ACS to the Heart Hospital in Qatar between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular disease-associated death, nonfatal ACS and nonfatal stroke. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine the association between the 2 high-intensity atorvastatin dosing regimens and the primary outcome at 1 month and 12 months postdischarge. Results: Of the 626 patients included in the analyses, 475 (75.9%) received atorvastatin 40 mg, while 151 (24.1%) received atorvastatin 80 mg following ACS. Most of the patients were Asian (73%), male (97%) with a mean age of 50 years and presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (60%). The incidence of the primary effectiveness outcome did not differ between the atorvastatin 40-and 80-mg groups at 1 month (0.8 vs 1.3%; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.04-8.13, P =.690) and at 12 months (3.2 vs 4%; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.18-1.80, P =.340). Similarly, the use of the 2 doses of atorvastatin resulted in comparable safety outcomes, including liver toxicity, myopathy and rhabdomyolysis with an event rate of

Tachycardia in cardiogenic shock (CS) might reduce the cardiac output (CO) by decreasing the ventricular filling time. Nevertheless, heart rate (HR) control with agents that possess negative inotropy might decrease the CO. Therefore, controlling the tachycardia in the setting of CS remains controversial. We herein describe four cases of patients presenting with myocardial infarction complicated with CS that required rescue venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) initiation. Tachycardia was present with HR ∼130-140 beats per minute after VA-ECMO initiation, and hence esmolol was infused continuously at a starting dose of 10-20 mcg/kg/min and titrated according to HR. With the use of esmolol to control the HR in the setting of CS supported with VA-ECMO, lactate cleared, and echocardiographic parameters improved, allowing the four cases to be successfully decannulated from ECMO. Our report indicates that short-acting beta-blocker could be safely used in the complex scenario of severe tachycardia while supported with VA-ECMO.

Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and loop diuretics can cause volume depletion. However, the long-term safety of the concurrent use of both agents has not been widely evaluated. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to evaluate the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors with loop diuretics vs SGLT2 inhibitors alone among diabetic patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of volume-depletion adverse events at 1 month and 12 months. Of the 400 patients included, 98 received SGLT2 inhibitors with a loop diuretic and 302 received SGLT2 inhibitors alone. The concurrent use of SGLT2 inhibitors and loop diuretics was tolerated at 1 month; however, it resulted in a significant increase in volume-depletion events at 12 months (10.2% vs 1.7%; aHR = 7.03, 95% CI (1.80-27.37), P-value = 0.005). In conclusion, the long-term concurrent use of SGLT2 inhibitors and loop diuretics increases the risk of volume depletion, warranting frequent monitoring.

It is not well studied whether a secondary look by angiography (Re-Ang) after fixing the culprit lesion would be beneficial or not in cardiogenic shock (CS) supported by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (VA-ECMO). This study was a retrospective observational one that looked at 5-year data from a single tertiary center. Patients were grouped according to the need of Re-Ang during the VA-ECMO course into 2 groups. The indications to perform Re-Ang were loss of pulse pressure, drop in ejection fraction or velocity time integral, resistant arrhythmia, or new electrocardiographic changes suggestive of ischemia. Out of 150 patients with cardiogenic shock screened, 30 patients were enrolled in our study. Re-Ang was done in 10 patients only. In 80% of them, positive findings were found in terms of new significant stenosis (3 patients), stent restenosis (1 patient), stent thrombosis (3 patients), and patent stent(s) with intervention to the remaining lesions in other vessels (1 patient). Neither successful weaning from VA-ECMO nor mortality was statistically different between both groups. Our set indications for Re-Ang were effective in finding a possible new culprit for a conceivable coronary intervention.

A high-intensity statin is recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). However, real-world evidence of the effectiveness of rosuvastatin following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is scarce. This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with ACS to compare between the 2 high-intensity statin therapies (rosuvastatin vs atorvastatin) in terms of a primary composite outcome of CVD-associated death, non-fatal ACS, and non-fatal stroke at 1 month and 12 months post discharge. The primary effectiveness outcome did not differ between the 2 groups at 1 month (1.3% vs 1%; aHR = 1.64, 95% CI 0.55-4.94, P= 0.379) and at 12 months (4.8% vs 3.5%; aHR = 1.48, 95% CI 0.82-2.67, P= 0.199). Similarly, the 2 groups had comparable safety outcomes. In conclusion, the use of high-intensity rosuvastatin compared to high-intensity atorvastatin therapy in patients with ACS had resulted in comparable cardiovascular effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases the risk of coagulopathy. Although the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) has been proposed as a possible mechanism of COVID-19-induced coagulopathy, its clinical significance remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and clinical significance of aPLs among critically ill patients with COVID-19. This prospective observational study included 60 patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICU). The study outcomes included prevalence of aPLs, and a primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality and arterial or venous thrombosis between antiphospholipid-positive and antiphospholipid-negative patients during their ICU stay. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the influence of aPLs on the primary composite outcome of mortality and thrombosis. A total of 60 critically ill patients were enrolled. Among them, 57 (95%) were men, with a mean age of 52.8 ± 12.2 years, and the majority were from Asia (68%). Twenty-two patients (37%) were found be antiphospholipid-positive; 21 of them were positive for lupus anticoagulant, whereas one patient was positive for anti-β2-glycoprotein IgG/IgM. The composite outcome of mortality and thrombosis during their ICU stay did not differ between antiphospholipid-positive and antiphospholipid-negative patients (4 [18%] vs. 6 [16%], adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.1–6.7; p value = 0.986). The presence of aPLs does not seem to affect the outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in terms of all-cause mortality and thrombosis. Therefore, clinicians may not screen critically ill patients with COVID-19 for aPLs unless deemed clinically appropriate.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE The use of medications for secondary prevention is the cornerstone in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, adherence to these medications is still suboptimal worldwide. This retrospective observational study aimed to assess the adherence to post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) medications, along with predictors of non-adherence. METHODS We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to assess the adherence to post-PCI medications by determining the rate of prescription refills for 12 months after discharge among STEMI patients, as well as predictors of non-adherence. Adherence was assessed by medication availability 80% of the time monitored by the prescription refills rate for 1 year post-discharge. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A total of 1334 patients who presented with STEMI and underwent primary PCI were included in our retrospective analysis. The majority of patients included were male (96%) with a mean age of 51 ± 10.2 years. The overall adherence rate for all medications was only 28.4%, with an individual adherence rate of 50.5% for aspirin, 49.9% for P2 Y12 inhibitors, 48.1% for statins, 39.6% for beta-blockers and 42.9% for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). Factors that increased the likelihood of non-adherence were prolonged hospital length of stay and getting the medications with charge (aOR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.1-3.3; p-value = 0.017, aOR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.1-3.3; p-value = 0.029, respectively), while having a regular follow-up after discharge and attending the first clinic appointment were significantly associated with decreased likelihood of non-adherence (aOR = 0.01, 95% CI 0.004-0.04; p-value

Background Loop diuretics are recommended by clinical practice guidelines to treat volume overload in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). The effectiveness of switching furosemide to torsemide versus optimizing the furosemide dose following ADHF has not yet been evaluated. Methods This retrospective observational study aimed to assess the impact of switching furosemide to torsemide versus optimizing the furosemide dose after ADHF on HF-related hospitalization within 1 month and 6 months of discharge. The study included patients previously on furosemide admitted with ADHF to the Heart Hospital in Qatar between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. The study included 2 groups: (1) patients discharged on torsemide; and (2) patients discharged on an optimized furosemide dose. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine the association between diuretic use and hospitalization. Results Of the 232 patients included, 45 received torsemide and 187 received an optimized furosemide dose upon discharge. The majority of patients included were males (54%) with a mean age of 67 ± 12 years, and presented with HF with reduced ejection fraction (57%) and had a history of coronary artery disease (68%). The 1-month and 6-month HF-related hospitalization did not differ between the torsemide and optimized furosemide groups (aHR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.23–2.3, p = 0.57; aHR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.45–1.8, p = 0.87), respectively. Conclusion Switching furosemide to torsemide after ADHF was not associated with reduced HF-related hospitalization compared to receiving an optimized furosemide dose. Larger prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings of this study.

Background Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside that is recommended by clinical practice guidelines to be used in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who still have persistent symptoms despite optimal medical therapy. However, this recommendation is based on limited and old trial data. Moreover, pharmacoepidemiologic studies are important in determining the prevalence of digoxin use and factors influencing this. Objective This study aimed to determine the prevalence and the predictors of digoxin utilization among patients with HFrEF with or without atrial fibrillation (AF) in Qatar. Setting Heart Hospital, a specialized tertiary care center in Qatar. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted using Cerner electronic medical records. Subjects included 736 patients admitted between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 with the diagnosis of HFrEF with or without AF. Two groups of patients were studied: digoxin users and digoxin non-users at index hospitalization until discharge. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the predictors of digoxin prescription. Data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS® version 23.0. Main outcome measures Prevalence and predictors of digoxin prescriptions among HFrEF patients measured in percentages and odds rations, respectively. Results A total of 736 patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed for digoxin prevalence, including 80 patients (11%) who were newly prescribed digoxin during the index hospitalization. After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, the use of thiazide diuretics (aOR = 10.14, CI 2.31–44.6, p value = 0.002), concurrent AF (aOR = 8.2, CI 3.11–21.7, p < 0.001), and an ejection fraction (EF)

Objective. To assess pharmacy students’ knowledge and perceptions of doping and anti-doping in sports and to explore the curricular needs for undergraduate pharmacy in the field of sports pharmacy. Methods. A cross-sectional, descriptive, web-based survey of pharmacy students was conducted at Qatar University College of Pharmacy from March to May 2014. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results. Eighty respondents completed the online survey (80% response rate). Sixty percent were unaware of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and 85% were unaware of the International Pharmaceutical Federation’s statement on the pharmacist’s role in anti-doping. Students’ knowledge score regarding the prohibited status of drugs that may be used by athletes was around 50%. Fourth-year pharmacy students had significantly higher knowledge scores than the other groups of students. Respondents acknowledged the important role of health care professionals, including pharmacists, as advisors on the safe and effective use of drugs in sports. Ninety percent of the students supported the inclusion of sports pharmacy in the curriculum. Conclusion. Pharmacy students indicated a strong desire to play a role in doping prevention and ensure safe and rational use of drugs among athletes. They suggested requiring an education and training strategy for sports pharmacy in undergraduate pharmacy curricula. Qatar University Undergraduate Student Research Grant.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current knowledge and perceptions of pharmacists in Qatar with regard to the use of drugs in sport and to explore their views on the introduction of education and training in the area of sports pharmacy.A cross-sectional survey was conducted targeting both hospital and community pharmacists in Qatar. A questionnaire consisting of three domains pertaining to participants' knowledge, perceived role of healthcare professionals, and attitudes towards educational needs on the use of drugs in sports was developed and validated. The online survey link and paper-based questionnaires were distributed to the target population. Data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics. Descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized for the analyses, where P0.05 indicates statistical significance.A total of 300 pharmacists responded to the survey. Respondents had a limited awareness of doping and anti-doping and achieved an average knowledge score of 53.2% regarding the prohibited status of drugs that may be used by athletes, particularly with respect to over-the-counter medicines and supplements. The majority (81.7%) of the pharmacists expressed an interest in receiving education and training on sports pharmacy.Specialized training programs are warranted to ensure that pharmacists have the knowledge and skills required to provide athletes with accurate information about anti-doping issues and the safe and effective use of medicines in sport. The development of these programs should be supported by national pharmacy policy makers and designed in collaboration with anti-doping agencies and sports pharmacy experts and educators.