The role of paliperidone extended release for the treatment of bipolar disorder

Jehan Marino1, Clayton English2, Joshua Caballero1, Catherine Harrington11College of Pharmacy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2College of Pharmacy, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Colchester, VT, USABackground: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic, relapsing, episodic mental illness associated with other psychiatric comorbidities. There is a substantial economic burden with BD, which makes it challenging to treat. The aim of this review is to evaluate the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety data related to paliperidone extended release (ER) for the treatment of BD.Methods: A literature search was performed from January 1966 through January 2012 using PreMEDLINE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify articles in English regarding the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety of paliperidone ER in acute mania or mixed episodes or in the maintenance treatment of BD I.Results: There are currently three published studies relating to the use of paliperidone ER for the treatment of BD. Two of these evaluated paliperidone ER as monotherapy for acute mania, while the other assessed its role as adjunct with a mood stabilizer.Conclusion: According to the limited available evidence, paliperidone at higher doses of ER 9–12 mg/day may be a safe and efficacious treatment option for acute episodes of mania in BD. A once-daily dose formulation may improve patient adherence to treatment; however, the cost of paliperidone ER, which is higher than that of generically available second-generation antipsychotics (such as olanzapine and risperidone), and a lack of alternative dosage forms (ie, liquid, intramuscular) compared with other agents may limit its usefulness in the treatment of BD. The role of paliperidone ER as an adjunctive agent or for long-term use requires further investigation.Keywords: paliperidone ER, bipolar disorder, clinical efficacy, safet

Self-reported antibiotic stewardship and infection control measures from 57 intensive care units: An international ID-IRI survey

We explored the self-reported antibiotic stewardship (AS), and infection prevention and control (IPC) activities in intensive care units (ICUs) of different income settings. A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire to collect data about IPC and AS measures in participating ICUs. The study participants were Infectious Diseases-International Research Initiative (IDI-IR) members, committed as per their institutional agreement form. We analyzed responses from 57 ICUs in 24 countries (Lower-middle income (LMI), n = 13; Upper-middle income (UMI), n = 33; High-income (HI), n = 11). This represented (similar to 5%) of centers represented in the ID-IRI. Surveillance programs were implemented in (76.9%-90.9%) of ICUs with fewer contact precaution measures in LMI ones (p = 0.02); (LMI:69.2%, UMI:97%, HI:100%). Participation in regional antimicrobial resistance programs was more significantly applied in HI (p = 0.02) (LMI:38.4%,UMI:81.8%,HI:72.2%). AS programs are implemented in 77.2% of institutions with AS champions in 66.7%. Infectious diseases physicians and microbiologists are members of many AS teams (59%&50%) respectively. Unqualified healthcare professionals(42.1%), and deficient incentives(28.1%) are the main barriers to implementing AS. We underscore the existing differences in IPC and AS programs' implementation, team composition, and faced barriers. Continuous collaboration and sharing best practices on APM is needed. The role of regional and international organizations should be encouraged. Global support for capacity building of healthcare practitioners is warranted. (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences

Profiles of multidrug-resistant organisms among patients with bacteremia in intensive care units: an international ID-IRI survey

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Vaccine hesitancy and refusal among parents: An international ID-IRI survey

Introduction: Although vaccines are the safest and most effective means to prevent and control infectious diseases, the increasing rate of vaccine hesitancy and refusal (VHR) has become a worldwide concern. We aimed to find opinions of parents on vaccinating their children and contribute to available literature in order to support the fight against vaccine refusal by investigating the reasons for VHR on a global scale. Methodology: In this international cross-sectional multicenter study conducted by the Infectious Diseases International Research Initiative (ID-IRI), a questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was used to determine parents' attitudes towards vaccination of their children. Results: Four thousand and twenty-nine (4,029) parents were included in the study and 2,863 (78.1%) were females. The overall VHR rate of the parents was found to be 13.7%. Nineteen-point three percent (19.3%) of the parents did not fully comply with the vaccination programs. The VHR rate was higher in high-income (HI) countries. Our study has shown that parents with disabled children and immunocompromised children, with low education levels, and those who use social media networks as sources of information for childhood immunizations had higher VHR rates (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: Seemingly all factors leading to VHR are related to training of the community and the sources of training. Thus, it is necessary to develop strategies at a global level and provide reliable knowledge to combat VHR

Managing adult patients with infectious diseases in emergency departments: international ID-IRI study

We aimed to explore factors for optimizing antimicrobial treatment in emergency departments. A single-day point prevalence survey was conducted on January 18, 2020, in 53 referral/tertiary hospitals in 22 countries. 1957 (17%) of 11557 patients presenting to EDs had infections. The mean qSOFA score was 0.37 +/- 0.74. Sepsis (qSOFA >= 2) was recorded in 218 (11.1%) patients. The mean qSOFA score was significantly higher in low-middle (1.48 +/- 0.963) compared to upper-middle (0.17 +/- 0.482) and high-income (0.36 +/- 0.714) countries ( P < 0.001). Eight (3.7%) patients with sepsis were treated as outpatients. The most common diagnoses were upper-respiratory (n = 877, 43.3%), lower-respiratory (n = 316, 16.1%), and lower-urinary (n = 201, 10.3%) infections. 1085 (55.4%) patients received antibiotics. The most-commonly used antibiotics were beta-lactam (BL) and BL inhibitors (n = 307, 15.7%), third-generation cephalosporins (n = 251, 12.8%), and quinolones (n = 204, 10.5%). Irrational antibiotic use and inappropriate hospitalization decisions seemed possible. Patients were more septic in countries with limited resources. Hence, a better organizational scheme is required

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic, and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic1,2. This Delphi study convened a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, NGO, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global public health threat. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry, and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of ragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust, and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by organisations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end