Background: Older people often receive multiple medications for chronic conditions, which often result in polypharmacy (concomitant use of 5‒9 medicines) and hyperpolypharmacy (concomitant use of ≥10 medicines). A limited number of studies have been performed to evaluate the prevalence of polypharmacy, hyperpolypharmacy, and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use in older people of developing countries. The present study aimed to investigate regional variations in the prevalence of polypharmacy, hyperpolypharmacy, and PIM use in older people (60 + years) in India.Methods: Studies were identified using Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases published from inception (2002) to September 31, 2020. Out of the total 1890 articles, 27 were included in the study.Results: Overall, the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy was 49% (95% confidence interval: 42–56; p < 0.01), hyperpolypharmacy was 31% (21–40; p < 0.01), and PIM use was 28% (24–32; p < 0.01) among older Indian adults. Polypharmacy was more prevalent in North-east India (65%, 50–79), whereas hyperpolypharmacy was prevalent in south India (33%, 17–48). Region-wize estimates for the pooled prevalence of PIM use in India were as follows: 23% (21–25) in East, 33% in West (24–42), 17.8% in North (11–23), and 32% (26–38) in South India. The prevalence of PIM use in adults aged ≥70°years was 35% (28–42), in those taking more medications (≥5.5/day) was 27% (22–31), and in adults using a high number of PIMs (≥3) was 29% (22–36). Subgroup analysis showed that cross-sectional studies had a higher pooled prevalence of polypharmacy 55% (44–65) than cohorts 45% (37–54). Hyperpolypharmacy in inpatient care settings was 37% (26–47), whereas PIM use was higher in private hospitals 31% (24–38) than government hospitals 25% (19–31).Conclusion: Polypharmacy and hyperpolypharmacy are widely prevalent in India. About 28% of older Indian adults are affected by PIM use. Thus, appropriate steps are needed to promote rational geriatric prescribing in India.Systematic Review Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier [CRD42019141037].

Tirzepatide is a novel once-a-week dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, currently under trial to assess glycemic efficacy and safety in people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the efficacy of tirzepatide on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, %), fasting serum glucose (mg/dL), and body weight (kg) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c > 7.0%). Mean changes for efficacy and proportions (safety) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to provide pooled estimates. A total of four randomized controlled trials, comprising 2783 patients of whom 69.4% (n = 1934) were treated with 5 mg (n = 646), 10 mg (n = 641), or 15 mg (n = 647) of tirzepatide, were compared to the placebo (n = 192) or the selective GLP-1 receptor agonist (n = 523). The pooled analysis showed that tirzepatide treatment resulted in a greater lowering of the HbA1c (–1.94%, 95% CI: –2.02 to –1.87), fasting serum glucose (–54.72 mg/dL, 95% CI: –62.05 to –47.39), and body weight (–8.47, 95% CI: –9.66 to –7.27). We also found that improvement in the HbA1c levels was still maintained at weeks 26 and 40 from the long-term trials. As for safety, only 3% experienced hypoglycemia, and 4% (95% CI: 2 to 6) experienced serious adverse events, while the discontinuation of therapy percentage was 7% (95% CI: 5 to 8). Tirzepatide significantly improved glycemic control and body weight and had an acceptable safety profile, indicating that it is an effective therapeutic option for glucose-lowering in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Background: Older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at greater risk of receiving potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) during hospitalization which may result in adverse outcomes. Aim: To evaluate the extent of PIM use in the older population with T2DM during hospitalization in a tertiary care hospital in India. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out from August 2019 to January 2020 in a tertiary care teaching hospital among the older population (aged ≥ 65 years) hospitalized with T2DM. Medications prescribed during hospitalization were reviewed following Beers Criteria 2019 to identify the extent of polypharmacy and PIM use. Binary logistic regression was applied to determine the factors associated with PIM use. Results: The mean age of the 150 patients hospitalized with T2DM was 68.85 ± 5.51 years, most of whom were men (54.7%). The participants had at least four comorbidities and were receiving an average of nine medications per day; the median length of hospital stay was 8 days (interquartile range (IQR): 4–19 days). Overall, three quarters (74%) of the participants had at least one PIM prescribed during their hospitalization as per Beers Criteria. Significant factors associated with the use of PIM during hospitalization are patients taking a higher number of medications (odds ratio (OR): 7.85, 95% CI 1.49–41.10), lower creatinine clearance values (OR: 12.90, 95% CI 2.81–59.28) and female patients (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.05–4.97). Conclusions: PIM use is frequently observed in older T2DM patients during hospitalization. Polypharmacy, reduced renal function and female gender are associated with higher PIM use. Engaging clinical pharmacists in evaluating medication appropriateness can improve the outcomes of older patients.

Introduction: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as ‘COVID-19’ OR ‘SARS CoV-2’ AND ‘Remdesivir’. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ( n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40–0.74) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38–0.84) p = 0.005; I2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19–0.54) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59–1.54) p = 0.85; I2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59–1.11) p = 0.19; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86–1.80) p = 0.25; I2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66–1.75) p = 0.77; I2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70–1.68) p = 0.73; I2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80–1.08) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73–2.62) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51–2.18) p = 0.89; I2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18–4.01) p = 0.85; I2 = 78%]. Discussion & Conclusion: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. Plain Language Summary Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo. The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir. There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir. There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.

Recent epidemiological studies have explored the association between organic food consumption and the risk of obesity, but the results remain controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the association between organic food consumption and the risk of obesity. Rigorous methods for a comprehensive search were employed to search for literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase for relevant articles published until 30 November 2021. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were calculated using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model to understand the risk of obesity based on exposure to organic food. Four studies, comprising 104,488 healthy subjects and 39,425 adults who consumed organic food, reported 1625 incident cases of obesity. Compared with the unexposed group, organic food consumption was associated with a lower probability of obesity (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80–0.97, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that this association was higher in the cohort (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63–0.92) than cross-sectional studies (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00), respectively. Overall, organic food consumption had a modest reduction (11%) in the risk of obesity and can be an appropriate strategy to prevent obesity.