Management of insomnia: current trends

Insomnia is one of the most commonly occurring sleep disorders worldwide.1 With increased prevalence of insomnia the demand of the people seeking pharmacological treatment for this disease is continuously increasing. Numerous options are currently available for its treatment and with our increased understanding of the neurophysiological factors involved in the insomnia continuous research is being conducted to seek newer pharmacological treatments. Recent advancement in treatment of insomnia is the introduction of non-benzodiazepine hypnotic medications such as zaleplon, zolpidem, and eszopiclone. Ramelteon, a melatonin agonist, is also helpful for sleep initiation difficulties. Tri-cyclic antidepressants have long been used for insomnia but use has been limited by unwanted anticholinergic side-effects. A hypocretin/orexin antagonist MK-4035 is presently in clinical trials. Serotonin antagonists and inverse agonists are being investigated for their usefulness in insomnia; newer research examining other mechanisms of action suggest that agents which modulate the histaminergic, serotonergic, melontonergic, and hypocretin/ orexin and perhaps gamma-aminobutyric acid B systems could play a promising role in management of insomnia

CHANGING TRENDS IN MICROBIAL FLORA AND THEIR ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY

Microbial resistance is a burning issue in the medical world from last few decades. Irrationale use of antibiotics in the treatment of infectious diseases has led to emergence of resistant strains of microorganisms; incapacitating the most potent weapon against infections. Thus, the present study was conducted to evaluate the trends in microbial flora and their antibiotic sensitivity. A retrospective study of five hundred twelve patients admitted in various hospitals attached to Dr. S. N Medical College, Jodhpur with various infections was conducted. The blood culture reports were screened to study microbial organisms and their antibiotic sensitivity pattern. The most common organisms isolated were staph aureus accounting for 29.5% of the isolates and followed by Klebsiella (13.87%), Enterococci (7.81%) and Citrobacter (7.42%). At the end of the study, it was observed that there were constant changes in the pattern of organisms and antibiotics in patients. Based on this study, it is suggested that before prescribing antibiotics, clinicians should be aware of recent trends of prevalent organisms and their sensitivity patterns. This would reduce emergence of resistant organisms and favour patient’s wellbeing

Rapid review of suspected adverse drug events due to remdesivir in the WHO database; findings and implications

Objectives: Remdesivir has shown promise in the management of patients with COVID-19 although recent studies have shown concerns with its effectiveness in practice. Despite this there is a need to document potential adverse drug events (ADEs) to guide future decisions as limited ADE data available before the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Interrogation of WHO VigiBase® from 2015 to 2020 coupled with published studies of ADEs in COVID-19 patients. The main outcome measures are the extent of ADEs broken down by factors including age, seriousness, region and organ. Results: A total 1086 ADEs were reported from the 439 individual case reports up to July 19, 2020, in the VigiBase®, reduced to 1004 once duplicates were excluded. Almost all ADEs concerned COVID-19 patients (92.5%), with an appreciable number from the Americas (67.7%). The majority of ADEs were from males > 45 years and were serious (82.5%). An increase in hepatic enzymes (32.1%), renal injury (14.4%), rise in creatinine levels (11.2%), and respiratory failure (6.4%) were the most frequently reported ADEs. Conclusions: Deterioration of liver and kidney function are frequently observed ADEs with remdesivir; consequently, patients should be monitored for these ADEs. The findings are in line with ADEs included in regulatory authority documents

Global estimates on the number of people blind or visually impaired by cataract: a meta-analysis from 2000 to 2020

Background: To estimate global and regional trends from 2000 to 2020 of the number of persons visually impaired by cataract and their proportion of the total number of vision-impaired individuals. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published population studies and gray literature from 2000 to 2020 was carried out to estimate global and regional trends. We developed prevalence estimates based on modeled distance visual impairment and blindness due to cataract, producing location-, year-, age-, and sex-specific estimates of moderate to severe vision impairment (MSVI presenting visual acuity &lt;6/18, ≥3/60) and blindness (presenting visual acuity &lt;3/60). Estimates are age-standardized using the GBD standard population. Results: In 2020, among overall (all ages) 43.3 million blind and 295 million with MSVI, 17.0 million (39.6%) people were blind and 83.5 million (28.3%) had MSVI due to cataract blind 60% female, MSVI 59% female. From 1990 to 2020, the count of persons blind (MSVI) due to cataract increased by 29.7%(93.1%) whereas the age-standardized global prevalence of cataract-related blindness improved by −27.5% and MSVI increased by 7.2%. The contribution of cataract to the age-standardized prevalence of blindness exceeded the global figure only in South Asia (62.9%) and Southeast Asia and Oceania (47.9%). Conclusions: The number of people blind and with MSVI due to cataract has risen over the past 30 years, despite a decrease in the age-standardized prevalence of cataract. This indicates that cataract treatment programs have been beneficial, but population growth and aging have outpaced their impact. Growing numbers of cataract blind indicate that more, better-directed, resources are needed to increase global capacity for cataract surgery.</p

Global estimates on the number of people blind or visually impaired by cataract : a meta-analysis from 2000 to 2020

DATA AVAILABILITY : Data sources for the Global Vision Database are listed at the following weblink http://www.anglia.ac.uk/verigbd. Fully disaggregated data is not available publicly due to data sharing agreements with some principal investigators yet requests for summary data can be made to the corresponding author.CHANGE HISTORY 16 July 2024 : A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03161-7.BACKGROUND : To estimate global and regional trends from 2000 to 2020 of the number of persons visually impaired by cataract and their proportion of the total number of vision-impaired individuals. METHODS : A systematic review and meta-analysis of published population studies and gray literature from 2000 to 2020 was carried out to estimate global and regional trends. We developed prevalence estimates based on modeled distance visual impairment and blindness due to cataract, producing location-, year-, age-, and sex-specific estimates of moderate to severe vision impairment (MSVI presenting visual acuity <6/18, ≥3/60) and blindness (presenting visual acuity <3/60). Estimates are age-standardized using the GBD standard population. RESULTS : In 2020, among overall (all ages) 43.3 million blind and 295 million with MSVI, 17.0 million (39.6%) people were blind and 83.5 million (28.3%) had MSVI due to cataract blind 60% female, MSVI 59% female. From 1990 to 2020, the count of persons blind (MSVI) due to cataract increased by 29.7%(93.1%) whereas the age-standardized global prevalence of cataract-related blindness improved by −27.5% and MSVI increased by 7.2%. The contribution of cataract to the age-standardized prevalence of blindness exceeded the global figure only in South Asia (62.9%) and Southeast Asia and Oceania (47.9%). CONCLUSIONS : The number of people blind and with MSVI due to cataract has risen over the past 30 years, despite a decrease in the age-standardized prevalence of cataract. This indicates that cataract treatment programs have been beneficial, but population growth and aging have outpaced their impact. Growing numbers of cataract blind indicate that more, better-directed, resources are needed to increase global capacity for cataract surgery.Brien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Thea, Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation (LCIF), Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg. Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.https://www.nature.com/eyehj2024School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH)SDG-03:Good heatlh and well-bein

Are paid tools worth the cost? A prospective cross-over study to find the right tool for plagiarism detection

Background: The increasing pressure to publish research has led to a rise in plagiarism incidents, creating a need for effective plagiarism detection software. The importance of this study lies in the high cost variation amongst the available options for plagiarism detection. By uncovering the advantages of these low-cost or free alternatives, researchers could access the appropriate tools for plagiarism detection. This is the first study to compare four plagiarism detection tools and assess factors impacting their effectiveness in identifying plagiarism in AI-generated articles. Methodology: A prospective cross-over study was conducted with the primary objective to compare Overall Similarity Index(OSI) of four plagiarism detection software(iThenticate, Grammarly, Small SEO Tools, and DupliChecker) on AI-generated articles. ChatGPT was used to generate 100 articles, ten from each of ten general domains affecting various aspects of life. These were run through four software, recording the OSI. Flesch Reading Ease Score(FRES), Gunning Fog Index(GFI), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level(FKGL) were used to assess how factors, such as article length and language complexity, impact plagiarism detection. Results: The study found significant variation in OSI(p < 0.001) among the four software, with Grammarly having the highest mean rank(3.56) and Small SEO Tools having the lowest(1.67). Pairwise analyses revealed significant differences(p < 0.001) between all pairs except for Small SEO Tools-DupliChecker. Number of words showed a significant correlation with OSI for iThenticate(p < 0.05) but not for the other three. FRES had a positive correlation, and GFI had a negative correlation with OSI by DupliChecker. FKGL negatively correlated with OSI by Small SEO Tools and DupliChecker. Conclusion: Grammarly is unexpectedly most effective in detecting plagiarism in AI-generated articles compared to the other tools. This could be due to different softwares using diverse data sources. This highlights the potential for lower-cost plagiarism detection tools to be utilized by researchers

Current utilization patterns for long-acting insulin analogues including biosimilars among selected Asian countries and the implications for the future

Introduction: Prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus continue to rise, which, coupled with increasing costs of complications, has appreciably increased expenditure in recent years. Poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia enhances complication rates and associated morbidity, mortality and costs. Consequently, this needs to be addressed. Whilst the majority of patients with diabetes have type-2 diabetes, a considerable number of patients with diabetes require insulin to help control their diabetes. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia associated with insulin and help improve adherence, which can be a concern. However, their considerably higher costs have impacted on their funding and use, especially in countries with affordability issues. Biosimilars can help reduce the costs of long-acting insulin analogues thereby increasing available choices. However, the availability and use of long-acting insulin analogues can be affected by limited price reductions versus originators and limited demand-side initiatives to encourage their use. Consequently, we wanted to assess current utilisation rates for long-acting insulin analogues, especially biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple Asian countries ranging from Japan (high-income) to Pakistan (lower-income) to inform future strategies. Methodology: Multiple approaches including assessing utilization and prices of insulins including biosimilars among six Asian countries and comparing the findings especially with other middle-income countries. Results: Typically, there was increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues among the selected Asian countries. This was especially the case enhanced by biosimilars in Bangladesh, India, and Malaysia reflecting their perceived benefits. However, there was limited use in Pakistan due to issues of affordability similar to a number of African countries. The high use of biosimilars in Bangladesh, India and Malaysia was helped by issues of affordability and local production. The limited use of biosimilars in Japan and Korea reflects limited price reductions and demand-side initiatives similar to a number of European countries. Conclusions: Increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across countries is welcomed, adding to the range of insulins available, which increasingly includes biosimilars. A number of activities are needed to enhance the use of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars in Japan, Korea and Pakistan

The current situation regarding long-acting insulin analogues including biosimilars among african, Asian, European, and South American countries : findings and implications for the future

Background: Diabetes mellitus rates continue to rise, which coupled with increasing costs of associated complications has appreciably increased global expenditure in recent years. The risk of complications are enhanced by poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve adherence. Their considerably higher costs though have impacted their funding and use. Biosimilars can help reduce medicine costs. However, their introduction has been affected by a number of factors. These include the originator company dropping its price as well as promoting patented higher strength 300 IU/ml insulin glargine. There can also be concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. Objective: To assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple countries to inform strategies to enhance future utilisation of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars to benefit all key stakeholders. Our approach: Multiple approaches including assessing the utilisation, expenditure and prices of insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine, across multiple continents and countries. Results: There was considerable variation in the use of long-acting insulin analogues as a percentage of all insulins prescribed and dispensed across countries and continents. This ranged from limited use of long-acting insulin analogues among African countries compared to routine funding and use across Europe in view of their perceived benefits. Increasing use was also seen among Asian countries including Bangladesh and India for similar reasons. However, concerns with costs and value limited their use across Africa, Brazil and Pakistan. There was though limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine 100 IU/ml compared with other recent biosimilars especially among European countries and Korea. This was principally driven by small price differences in reality between the originator and biosimilars coupled with increasing use of the patented 300 IU/ml formulation. A number of activities were identified to enhance future biosimilar use. These included only reimbursing biosimilar long-acting insulin analogues, introducing prescribing targets and increasing competition among manufacturers including stimulating local production. Conclusions: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars despite lower costs. This can be addressed by multiple activities

Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990–2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background: Low back pain is highly prevalent and the main cause of years lived with disability (YLDs). We present the most up-to-date global, regional, and national data on prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2021. Methods: Population-based studies from 1980 to 2019 identified in a systematic review, international surveys, US medical claims data, and dataset contributions by collaborators were used to estimate the prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from 1990 to 2020, for 204 countries and territories. Low back pain was defined as pain between the 12th ribs and the gluteal folds that lasted a day or more; input data using alternative definitions were adjusted in a network meta-regression analysis. Nested Bayesian meta-regression models were used to estimate prevalence and YLDs by age, sex, year, and location. Prevalence was projected to 2050 by running a regression on prevalence rates using Socio-demographic Index as a predictor, then multiplying them by projected population estimates. Findings: In 2020, low back pain affected 619 million (95% uncertainty interval 554–694) people globally, with a projection of 843 million (759–933) prevalent cases by 2050. In 2020, the global age-standardised rate of YLDs was 832 per 100 000 (578–1070). Between 1990 and 2020, age-standardised rates of prevalence and YLDs decreased by 10·4% (10·9–10·0) and 10·5% (11·1–10·0), respectively. A total of 38·8% (28·7–47·0) of YLDs were attributed to occupational factors, smoking, and high BMI. Interpretation: Low back pain remains the leading cause of YLDs globally, and in 2020, there were more than half a billion prevalent cases of low back pain worldwide. While age-standardised rates have decreased modestly over the past three decades, it is projected that globally in 2050, more than 800 million people will have low back pain. Challenges persist in obtaining primary country-level data on low back pain, and there is an urgent need for more high-quality, primary, country-level data on both prevalence and severity distributions to improve accuracy and monitor change. Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Population-level risks of alcohol consumption by amount, geography, age, sex, and year: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020

Background The health risks associated with moderate alcohol consumption continue to be debated. Small amounts of alcohol might lower the risk of some health outcomes but increase the risk of others, suggesting that the overall risk depends, in part, on background disease rates, which vary by region, age, sex, and year. Methods For this analysis, we constructed burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes to estimate the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and non-drinker equivalence (NDE), the consumption level at which the health risk is equivalent to that of a non-drinker, using disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories, by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older from 1990 to 2020. Based on the NDE, we quantified the population consuming harmful amounts of alcohol. Findings The burden-weighted relative risk curves for alcohol use varied by region and age. Among individuals aged 15-39 years in 2020, the TMREL varied between 0 (95% uncertainty interval 0-0) and 0.603 (0.400-1.00) standard drinks per day, and the NDE varied between 0.002 (0-0) and 1.75 (0.698-4.30) standard drinks per day. Among individuals aged 40 years and older, the burden-weighted relative risk curve was J-shaped for all regions, with a 2020 TMREL that ranged from 0.114 (0-0.403) to 1.87 (0.500-3.30) standard drinks per day and an NDE that ranged between 0.193 (0-0.900) and 6.94 (3.40-8.30) standard drinks per day. Among individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol in 2020, 59.1% (54.3-65.4) were aged 15-39 years and 76.9% (73.0-81.3) were male. Interpretation There is strong evidence to support recommendations on alcohol consumption varying by age and location. Stronger interventions, particularly those tailored towards younger individuals, are needed to reduce the substantial global health loss attributable to alcohol