Objective The disruption of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) causes more adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, incidence and predictors of DAPT non-compliance are unknown in chronic coronary syndrome patients when compared between planned and ad hoc PCI. Methods This investigation was aimed to assess the incidence, predictors, outcomes, and primary mode of non-compliance of DAPT in patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing their first PCI. We analyzed the patients between planned (group 1) and ad hoc (group 2) PCI. Results There were a total of 628 participants in this investigation (370 were in planned PCI and 270 in the ad hoc PCI group). Out of 628 patients, by one month, 10% left DAPT in planned PCI group and 19.7% in ad hoc PCI group (aOR: 0.451, 95% CI: 0.285–0.713, p = 0.001). At 12 months, DAPT non-compliance was significantly more in ad hoc PCI group (52.7% vs. 47.8%; aOR: 0.647 95% CI: 0.470–0.891, p = 0.008). Age > 65 years (p < 0.001), low education status (p = 0.012), residents of rural areas (p < 0.001), ad hoc PCI group (p = 0.036), and angina class II (p = 0.038) were predictors for DAPT non-compliance in this cohort. Conclusion Approximately 5 out of 10 patients disrupt DAPT due to non-compliance. This investigation provides an insight on additional predictors of non-compliance to DAPT, helping us to identify and address specific patient-related factors for disruption.

Introduction Colchicine has the potential in reducing patient morbidity and mortality in COVID‐19 infection owing to its anti‐inflammatory properties. This study aims to determine the efficacy of colchicine in optimizing inflammatory hematological biomarker levels among COVID‐19 patients. Methods In accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement guidelines, a systematic search was conducted using the following keywords: Colchicine, covid*, SARS‐CoV‐2, anti‐inflammatory, trials, clinical, hematological, laboratory. Databases were searched from December 2019 until August 26, 2021: MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and EMBASE. Other sources were located through ClinicalTrials.Gov, manually searching SAGE, Science Direct, Elsevier, and Google Scholar. The meta‐analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Results In total, six studies were included, of which four reported c‐reactive protein (CRP) standardized mean reductions in the colchicine group (N = 165) as opposed to the control (N = 252; SMD = −0.49, p < 0.001). On noting lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) values post treatment, the colchicine group (N = 204) showed significant reductions at the end of treatment compared to control (N = 290; SMD = −0.85, p < 0.001). Finally, the D‐dimer values in colchicine groups (N = 129) compared to control (N = 216) also documented a negative effect size (SMD = −0.9, p < 0.001). Conclusion Colchicine has efficacy in reducing inflammatory biomarkers observed in moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19 patients. It may be worthwhile to consider monitoring the clinical and laboratory parameters of patients in further trials to consider colchicine as a strong candidate for an adjunct to COVID‐19 treatment.

Objectives We intend to investigate the feasibility of using repaglinide as initial therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus naive to the oral anti-hyperglycemic agents by validating the effects of repaglinide on glycemic control (HbA1c) in comparison with metformin monotherapy. Methodology This parallel-controlled, randomized study was carried at the outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital. Two-hundred patients of both genders with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. After taking relevant history and physical examination, we drew venous blood samples of each patient and sent them to the institutional laboratory for analysis of fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels, HbA1c, and lipid profile. We divided the patients into two subgroups based on the lottery method. Group A was prescribed metformin, and group B was prescribed repaglinide, while the dosages were adjusted according to the blood sugar levels. All data were analyzed using SPSS Software 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). We reported the data as means along with the standard error. Results All patients completed the study. There was a decline in fasting blood glucose levels after three months of therapy, both in the metformin (135 mg/dl ± 6 mg/dl versus 115 mg/dl ± 7 mg/dl, p < 0.01) and repaglinide groups (145 ± 6 mg/dl versus 122 ± 6 mg/dl, p < 0.01). Similarly, significant reductions in HbA1c were seen in both metformin (7.12 ± 0.15% versus 6.67 ± 0.06%, p < 0.01) and repaglinide treatment groups (7.83 ± 0.67% versus 6.81 ± 0.07%, p < 0.01). After three months of treatment, body mass index (BMI) was significantly decreased in the metformin group (26.87±1.1 kg/m 2 versus 25.11 ± 0.44 kg/m 2 , p < 0.05). However, the patients in repaglinide group demonstrated a very slight decrease in BMI (27.11 ± 1.6 kg/m 2 versus 26.47 ± 0.40 kg/m 2 ). On follow-up, we found a significant decrease in triglyceride levels in both groups (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05. respectively). We also found that only the patients in metformin group showed some improvements in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels (p < 0.05). Conclusion Our study concluded that both metformin and repaglinide have similar anti-hyperglycemic effects. Repaglinide can be prescribed as an alternative drug to metformin in patients with new-onset diabetes mellitus.

No abstract