Explore the vast range of titles available.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains a major public health threat in most countries. The causative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome and result in mortality in COVID-19 patients. Vitamin D is an immunomodulator hormone with established effectiveness against various upper respiratory infections. Vitamin D can stall hyper-inflammatory responses and expedite healing process of the affected areas, primarily in the lung tissue. Thus, there are ecological and mechanistic reasons to promote exploration of vitamin D action in COVID-19 patients. As no curative drugs are available currently for COVID-19, we feel that the potential of vitamin D to alter the course of disease severity needs to be investigated. Clinical studies may be undertaken to address the value of vitamin D supplementation in deficient, high-risk COVID-19 patients.

NCDs arise from complex interactions of modifiable factors such as unhealthy lifestyles, poor diet, and psychosocial challenges, along with non-modifiable factors like age and genetics. Notably, medication non-adherence is a widespread and growing concern, significantly contributing to disease progression and poor outcomes globally. This scoping review aims to synthesize evidence on medication adherence scales used for selected non communicable diseases. It examines their development methods, psychometric properties, and assessed domains, while identifying gaps or limitations in their design and application. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework guided this scoping review and the protocol was registered prospectively to ensure methodological transparency and rigor. Electronic databases, the reference list of included articles, and grey literature were searched. Studies published in English from January 1950 to June 2024 were included. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, and a third reviewer settled any conflicts between the reviewers. Critical appraisal of the screened-in articles was done using JBI critical appraisal scales. The data was compiled into tables and a narrative summary that is consistent with the review's goal. Our study included 140 articles, identifying 57 medication adherence scales. These scales, developed using qualitative methods (10.8%), literature review (32.4%), and mixed methods (45.9%), primarily focus on behavior, often neglecting cost-related non-adherence, self-efficacy, and systemic barriers. Psychometric findings varied widely, reflecting heterogeneity in study designs and scale development approaches. Many scales lack validation in diverse settings, underscoring the need for comprehensive, context-sensitive tools. This scoping review highlights gaps in existing medication adherence scales for NCDs, particularly their limited consideration of socioeconomic and cultural factors and incomplete adherence assessment. Future research should focus on developing more holistic, contextually relevant adherence scales that integrate these dimensions. Strengthening adherence measurement methodologies can enhance patient-centered care, inform policy interventions, and improve health outcomes.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major yet preventable cause of poor post-operative clinical outcomes, prolonged ICU/hospital stay, increased antibiotic consumption and added cost of therapy. Low- and Middle-income Countries (LMICs) have disproportionately higher rates of SSIs as compared to high-income countries despite various national and international guidelines in place as multipronged, combined interventions are seldom used. The IMPRESS project aims to respond to this urgent need to identify and evaluate the quality improvement measures contextualized to the logistic constraints of LMIC settings such as India. We adopt a multi-center longitudinal mixed-methods study to be conducted over a period of 2 years in various phases. Phase 1 will be formative research with the objective of identifying knowledge gaps and baseline data collection. Phase II will involve co-development of multipronged interventions addressing identified barriers. Phase III will focus on the deployment of the selected multipronged interventions. Phase IV will be the post-intervention phase to evaluate the impact of the interventions. The study has been prospectively registered with CTRI and is supported by a funding grant from the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi. The Institutional Ethics Committee approval has been obtained from all the sites involved in the study.

Objective: This review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib and those who received tocilizumab independently with placebo or the standard of care (SOC). Methods: Relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effect of baricitinib or tocilizumab as compared to placebo or the SOC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the 28-day mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were compared and pooled for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. A two-staged exploratory network meta-analysis using a multivariate meta-analysis was also performed. All analyses were performed in Stata version 16.0. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the generated evidence (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022323363). Results: Treatment with baricitinib [RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50–0.94), p = 0.02, i 2 = 64.86%] but not with tocilizumab [RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71–1.07), p = 0.19, i 2 = 24.41%] led to a significant improvement in the 28-day mortality as compared to that with the SOC. Treatment with baricitinib or tocilizumab, both independently led to a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization [baricitinib: mean difference, −1.13 days (95% CI, −1.51 to −0.76), p < 0.001, i 2 = 0.00%; tocilizumab: mean difference, −2.80 days (95% CI, −4.17 to −1.43), p < 0.001, i 2 = 55.47%] and a significant improvement in the proportion of patients recovering clinically by day 28 [baricitinib: RR, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03–1.48), p = 0.02, i 2 = 27.20%; tocilizumab: RR, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12–1.78), p < 0.001, i 2 = 34.59%] as compared to those with the SOC. From the safety point of view, both these drugs showed similar results. There were fewer patients who experienced any serious adverse event following treatment with barictinib and tocilizumab as compared to those following treatment with the SOC [baricitinib: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62–0.92), p = 0.01, i 2 = 12.63%; tocilizumab: RR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72–1.01), p = 0.07, i 2 = 0.00%]. Conclusion: As baricitinib and tocilizumab are recommended interchangeably by various guidelines for the management of COVID-19, considering the better 28-day mortality data and other comparable efficacy and safety outcomes, baricitinib may be favored over tocilizumab considering its ease of administration, shorter half-life, and lower cost of treatment.

The response to antipsychotic therapy is highly variable. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) factors play a major role in deciding the effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic drugs. A hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research will be conducted to evaluate the clinical utility (safety and efficacy), cost-effectiveness, and facilitators and barriers in implementing PGx-assisted management compared to standard of care in patients with schizophrenia attending a tertiary care hospital in eastern India. In part 1, a randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Adult patients with schizophrenia will be randomized (2: 1) to receive PGx-assisted treatment (drug and regimen selection depending on the results of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in genes DRD2, HTR1A, HTR2C, ABCB1, CYP2D6, CYP3A5, and CYP1A2) or the standard of care. Serum drug levels will be measured. The patients will be followed up for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint is the difference in the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side-Effect Rating Scale score between the two arms. In part 2, the cost-effectiveness of PGx-assisted treatment will be evaluated. In part 3, the facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted treatment for schizophrenia will be explored using a qualitative design. The study findings will help in understanding whether PGx-assisted management has a clinical utility, whether it is cost-effective, and what are the facilitators and barriers to implementing it in the management of schizophrenia. The study has been registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2023/08/056210).

Background Pharmacogenomic (PGx) factors significantly influence how patients respond to antipsychotic medications This systematic review was performed to synthesize the clinical utility of PGx-assisted treatment versus standard of care in schizophrenia. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception till June 2024 that had compared the clinical utility of PGx-assisted intervention as compared to the standard of care in schizophrenia. The primary outcome was safety, and the secondary outcomes were efficacy and medication adherence. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated (random-effects model) wherever feasible. Results A total of 18,821 studies were screened, and five were included for review. All the RCTs had a high risk of bias. Four studies included the commonly used antipsychotics. Three studies reported negative outcomes (safety, efficacy, and medication adherence) and two reported positive outcomes (safety) using different scales. In the meta-analysis, there were significant differences in the total Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser Side-Effect Rating scale score [SMD 0.95 (95% CI: 0.76–1.13), p  < 0.001); I 2  = 0%] and the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score [SMD 10.65 (95% CI: 2.37–18.93), p  = 0.01); I 2  = 100%] between the PGx-assisted treatment and standard of care arms. However, the results were inconsistent, and the certainty of evidence (GRADE criteria) was very low. Conclusion Current evidence on the clinical utility of PGx-assisted treatment in schizophrenia is limited and inconsistent and further evidence is required in this regard.

IntroductionPoor medication adherence is associated with poor clinical outcomes, an increase in hospitalisations and increased mortality. This is a multicentre randomised study that evaluates the effectiveness of using a manual pill organiser (MPO) and a custom-developed pill reminder app (PRA) on medication adherence, morbidity, as well as health economic outcomes among Indian elderly individuals taking multiple medications.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of MPO and PRA alone or in combination in improving medication adherence among elderly individuals on multiple medications. The secondary objectives include the impact of interventions on the morbidity profile and health-related quality of life. The study also plans to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of improving medication adherence.Methods and analysisThis is a community-based, open-label, factorial-design randomised controlled trial to be conducted across rural and urban populations at two geographically distinct sites in India. The study will enrol 752 elderly individuals aged 60–80 years, receiving three or more medications for at least 6 months and having access to smartphones. The participants will be randomised to receive one of the following interventions for 12 months: control group, PRA, MPO and MPO+PRA. All study groups would receive patient education about the importance of medication adherence. The study outcomes include the proportion of improvement in medication adherence (using Medication Adherence Rating System-5, 7-day point prevalence of medication non-adherence and pill count); adverse clinical outcomes; healthcare utilisation; health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness and cost-utility outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by institutional ethics committees at all three institutes. The study results for primary and secondary outcomes will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberCTRI/2024/01/061975 (Registered on: 29 January 2024).

Older adults are vulnerable to unsafe medication practices. This cross-sectional study estimated the prevalence and factors of polypharmacy and self-medication among 600 older adults from six Indian cities. The updated Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions and Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment criteria (version 3) were used. Knowledge, attitudes, and reported practices regarding self-medication were assessed. Descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression, and multivariable analysis were used. The prevalence of polypharmacy was 33.7% (95% CI 29.9–37.6%), with significant associations to multiple comorbidities [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.5 (95% CI 1.1–4.1)], recent transition of care [aOR 3.3 (95% CI 1.4–5.7)], and recent hospitalization [aOR 4.6 (95% CI 2–7.7)]. The proportions of prescriptions with potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions were 28.8% (95% CI 25.2–32.6%) and 20.3% (95% CI 17.2–23.8%), respectively. The prevalence of self-medication was 19.7% (95% CI 16.6–23.1%), associated with factors, such as staying alone [aOR 4.5 (95% CI 2.4–6.6)], multiple comorbidities [aOR 3 (95% CI 1.4–6.7)], and recent hospitalization [aOR 4.8 (95% CI 1.5–8)]. Among those who self-medicated, 65.3% lacked knowledge of self-medication, 50% did not comprehend the risks, and 40.7% reported unsafe self-medication practices. The findings emphasize interventions’ necessity for promoting safe medication use in older adults.

Background Burn wounds are commonly encountered in clinical settings and the management aims at the prevention of mortality and morbidity due to disability. The platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is blood-derived biomaterial that is enriched with growth factors and cytokines that facilitate wound healing. The PRP has proven its efficacy in various other wounds, but its role in post-burn raw areas and graft take has not been validated. This proposed multicentre randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma as an adjunct therapy to split-thickness skin graft in burn patients with granulating raw wounds. Method/design This trial is an investigator-initiated, double-blind multicentre, randomized controlled parallel arm trial alongside trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Granulating deep second-degree and third-degree burns affecting 3–20% of total body surface area (TBSA) at 10–14th post-burn day will be included in the study. A total of 550 patients (275 in each group) will be randomized to receive either standard skin graft or allogenic PRP with skin graft treatment. The primary endpoint will be the mean percentage of graft-take on the 14th postoperative day. The result will be analyzed by two independent assessors who are blinded to the study. Secondary endpoints include (a) time taken for complete wound healing; (b) frequency of adverse events; (c) follow-up with scar index at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) score; (d) cost-effectiveness analysis of the intervention compared to the comparator; and (e) to estimate in a subset of participants the association between growth factor levels (PDGF BB and TGF ß-1) of activated PRP and clinical response. Discussion The proposed trial will be expected to verify the efficacy and safety of PRP for split-thickness skin graft (STSG) in deep second-degree or third-degree granulating wounds of burn patients based on the outcome of the study.

Background Among the elderly, who are often exposed to polypharmacy, explicit deprescribing tools offer clear, validated guidelines for safely reducing medications. However, the effectiveness of these tools varies across healthcare settings and populations. In India, unique sociocultural and healthcare challenges demand a tailored approach to deprescribing for elderly patients, and the need to adapt existing tools to local contexts. The primary objective of this scoping review is mapping of the contextual relevance and applicability of the existing explicit deprescribing tools for elderly population in Indian healthcare settings. Methodology The scoping review will be carried out in six stages: (1) Identifying the review question. (2) Identifying relevant studies through electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase). (3) Selection of studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria for this scoping review are studies implementing explicit deprescribing tools involving Indian elderly patients, reporting on outcomes, validation methods, or contextual relevance of deprescribing tools, published in English or non-English language with English translation available. Exclusion criteria for this scoping review are studies focused on implicit deprescribing tools, review articles, case reports, commentaries, and editorials. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search and initial screening of studies. Discrepancies will then be solved through discussion with the third reviewer. (4) Charting, categorizing, and thematic analysis of the extracted data. (5) Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. (6) Dissemination of findings. Discussion By reviewing the patient population and study setting of studies of explicit tools in India, vis a vis the healthcare setting and patient population for which the tool was designed, our scoping review highlighted the strengths and weaknesses in the existing literature. These findings could be used to direct future research and assess the need for a deprescribing tool adapted for the Indian elderly patients.