Social distancing and the use of PPE by community pharmacy personnel: Does evidence support these measures?

Community pharmacists are one of the most accessible healthcare professionals and are often served as the first point of contact when it comes to minor ailments and health advice. As such, community pharmacists can play a vital role in a country's response to various preventative and public health measures amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the essential nature of community pharmacy as a health service, community pharmacies are unlikely to shut down in any foreseeable lockdown scenario. It is therefore important to assess the preventative measure directives for community pharmacies that are in place to safeguard community pharmacy personnel from SARS-CoV-2 in the various parts of the world. Upon reviewing the recommendations of 15 selected countries across five continents (Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America, and Africa) on social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in community pharmacies, we found inconsistencies in the recommended social distance to be practiced within the community pharmacies. There were also varying recommendations on the use of PPE by the pharmacy personnel. Despite the differences in the recommendations, maintaining recommended social distance and the wearing of appropriate PPE is of utmost importance for healthcare workers, including community pharmacy personnel dealing with day-to-day patient care activities, though full PPE should be worn when dealing with suspected COVID-19 patients

Cardiovascular Disease and Use of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in COVID-19

There is ongoing debate on the safety of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in COVID-19. Recently published studies highlight a potential relationship between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and COVID-19. This article aims to summarize the evidence on the use of RAS inhibitors in CVD patients with COVID-19, focusing on safety issues of the RAS inhibitors and their relationship with COVID-19

Consistency of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients

Background A significant knowledge gap exists for the management of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically investigate the consistency of recommendations from the available clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to those of the WHO on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods We examined CPGs and UpToDate point-of-care resources on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients that had been published as of 30 April 2020 and compared them against the CPG by the WHO. The main outcome was the rate of consistency among CPGs for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence and by excluding single CPGs one at a time. Results Thirteen reference recommendations derived from the CPG of the WHO were generated using discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states. Across CPGs, the rate of consistency in direction with the WHO is 7.7%. When insufficient evidence codings were excluded, the rate of consistency increased substantially to 61.5%. The results of a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested that the UpToDate recommendation source could explain the inconsistency. Consistency in direction rates changed by an absolute 23.1% (from 1/13 (7.7%) to 4/13 (30.8%)) if UpToDate was removed. Conclusions We observed inconsistencies between some recommendations of the CPGs and those of the WHO. These inconsistencies should best be addressed by consensus among the relevant bodies to avoid confusion in clinical practice while awaiting clinical trials to inform us of the best practice