Search

Objectives: To assess the impact of prior chronic treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/ angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), both as a group and by active ingredient, on severity (risk of hospitalization and mortality), progression of and susceptibility to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a multiple population-based case–control study in Galicia (north-west Spain). The study data were sourced from medical, administrative and clinical databases. We assessed: (1) risk of hospitalization, by selecting all patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 with PCR + as cases, and a random sample of subjects without a PCR + as controls; (2) COVID-19 mortality risk; (3) risk of disease progression; and (4) susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, considering all patients with PCR + as cases, and the same subjects used in the previous model as controls. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated. Results: ACEIs and ARBs were shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.78 [95%CI 0.69–0.89] and aOR = 0.80 [95%CI 0.72–0.90] respectively), risk of mortality (aOR = 0.71 [95%CI 0.52–0.98] and aOR = 0.69 [95%CI 0.52–0.91] respectively), and susceptibility to the virus (aOR = 0.88 [95%CI 0.82–0.94] and aOR = 0.92 [95%CI 0.86–0.97] respectively). By active ingredient: use of enalapril was associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.61–0.85]), mortality (aOR = 0.59 [95%CI 0.38–0.92]) and susceptibility to COVID-19 (aOR = 0.86 [95%CI 0.79–0.94]); and use of candesartan was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.76 [95%CI 0.60–0.95]), mortality (aOR = 0.36 [95%CI 0.17–0.75]) and disease progression (aOR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.56–0.95]). Conclusion: This large-scale real-world data study suggest that enalapril and candesartan are associated with a considerable reduction in risk of severe COVID19 outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colchicine is one of the most widely studied and best‐known anti‐inflammatory treatments. This study aimed to assess the effect of colchicine on risk of hospitalization due to COVID‐19; and its effect on susceptibility to and severity of the virus in patients with COVID‐19. We carried out a population‐based case‐control study. The following groups were applied: (1) to assess risk of hospitalization, cases were patients with a positive PCR who were hospitalized due to COVID‐19, and controls without a positive PCR; (2) to assess susceptibility to COVID‐19, cases were patients with a positive PCR (hospitalized and non‐hospitalized), and the same controls; (3) to determine potential severity, cases were subjects with COVID‐19 hospitalized, and controls patients with COVID‐19 nonhospitalised. Different electronic, linked, administrative health and clinical databases were used to extract data on sociodemographic variables, comorbidities, and medications dispensed. The study covered 3060 subjects with a positive PCR who were hospitalized, 26 757 with a positive PCR who were not hospitalized, and 56 785 healthy controls. After adjustment for sociodemographic variables, comorbidities and other treatments, colchicine did not modify risk of hospitalization due to COVID‐19 (adjusted odd ratio [OR] 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76−1.53]), patients' susceptibility to contracting the disease (adjusted OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.91−1.37)) or the severity of the infection (adjusted OR 1.03 [95% CI 0.67−1.59]). Our results would neither support the prophylactic use of colchicine for prevention of the infection or hospitalization in any type of patient, nor justify the withdrawal of colchicine treatment due to a higher risk of contracting COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have read with interest the comments made by Chang and Gau[1] concerning the complicated interaction between colchicine and COVID-19, and potential biases due to the severity of gout and the comorbidity status of neurological diseases. However, since our data were sourced from electronic medical records, information on the indication for colchicine treatment, gout status and severity, and uric acid levels was not available. We agree with Chang and Gau on the interest attaching to the possible influence of gout severity on COVID-19 severity and progression. [Extracted from the article]

Background and Objective: Resistance to antibiotics is a public health threat. A number of studies confirm the relationship between antibiotic use and the resistance rate. As a whole, physicians represent a large proportion of the health professionals involved in the use of this therapeutic group. Our study therefore sought to ascertain the opinions and attitudes of GPs in Spain with respect to antibiotics and resistance.Methods: We used the focus group (FG) method, with each group comprising 4-12 primary care physicians and a moderator. Based on a previous systematic review, we drew up an agenda to be followed during the holding of the sessions. Group proceedings were recorded and the transcriptions then analysed separately by two researchers.Results: Five FGs were formed, including a total of 33 physicians. The factors/attitudes that influenced the prescribing of antibiotics by GPs were fear, complacency, insufficient knowledge and external responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry, patients and over-the-counter antibiotics. The groups felt that antibiotic resistance was not a problem at a community level.Conclusions: Identification of attitudes/knowledge related with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing will enable specific interventions to be designed, with the aim of targeting these shortcomings to improve antibiotic use and help reduce resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective. Resistance to antibiotics is a public health threat. A number of studies confirm the relationship between antibiotic use and the resistance rate. As a whole, physicians represent a large proportion of the health professionals involved in the use of this therapeutic group. Our study therefore sought to ascertain the opinions and attitudes of GPs in Spain with respect to antibiotics and resistance. Methods. We used the focus group (FG) method, with each group comprising 4–12 primary care physicians and a moderator. Based on a previous systematic review, we drew up an agenda to be followed during the holding of the sessions. Group proceedings were recorded and the transcriptions then analysed separately by two researchers. Results. Five FGs were formed, including a total of 33 physicians. The factors/attitudes that influenced the prescribing of antibiotics by GPs were fear, complacency, insufficient knowledge and external responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry, patients and over-the-counter antibiotics. The groups felt that antibiotic resistance was not a problem at a community level. Conclusions. Identification of attitudes/knowledge related with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing will enable specific interventions to be designed, with the aim of targeting these shortcomings to improve antibiotic use and help reduce resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The misuse of antibiotics in humans, animals, and plants is related to the spread of resistant antibiotic strains among humans and animals. In this paper, we carry out a bibliographic search of Medline, Web of Knowledge, and Cab Abstracts with the main objective of ascertaining the available evidence on non-clinical factors and attitudes that could influence the prescription of antibiotics by veterinarians. A total of 34 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Whereas, veterinary health professionals' prescribing habits did not appear to be influenced by their socio-demographic characteristics, they were influenced by different attitudes, such as fear (identified in 19 out of 34 studies), self-confidence (19/34), business factors (19/34), and by complacency (16/34). Certain owner-related factors, such as lack of awareness (16/34) and demand for antibiotics (12/34), were also important, as were concurrent factors, ranging from a lack of appropriate regulations (10/34) to the expense and delays involved in performing culture and sensitivity tests (10/34) and inadequate farm hygiene (8/34). Our results appear to indicate that the non-clinical factors are potentially modifiable. This may be useful for designing interventions targeted at improving antibiotic use in animals, as part of an overall strategy to reduce the global spread of multi-resistant strains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]