Search

Evidence of the effect of statins on patients with coronavirus disease (2019) COVID‐19 is inconsistent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between chronic use of statins—both overall and by active ingredient—and severe outcomes of COVID‐19 (risk of hospitalization and mortality), progression to severe outcomes, and susceptibility to the virus. We conducted a population‐based case–control study with data from electronic records to assess the risk of (1) hospitalization: cases were patients admitted due to COVID‐19 and controls were subjects without COVID‐19; (2) mortality: cases were hospitalized patients who died due to COVID‐19 and controls were subjects without COVID‐19; (3) progression: cases were hospitalized COVID‐19 subjects and controls were nonhospitalized COVID‐19 patients; and (4) susceptibility: cases were patients with COVID‐19 (both hospitalized and nonhospitalized) and controls were subjects without COVID‐19. We collected data on 2821 hospitalized cases, 26 996 nonhospitalized cases, and 52 318 controls. Chronic use of atorvastatin was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74–0.92) and mortality (aOR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53–0.93), attributable in part to a lower risk of susceptibility to the virus (aOR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86–0.96). Simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (aOR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.40–0.87). The wide degree of heterogeneity observed in the estimated odds ratios (ORs) of the different statins suggests that there is no class effect. The results of this real‐world study suggest that chronic use of atorvastatin (and to a lesser degree, of simvastatin) is associated with a decrease in risk of severe COVID‐19 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]

Pharmacovigilance systems are important to monitor the safety of on-market drugs after approval. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of rosiglitazone safety alerts on trends in the sale of rosiglitazone and other oral antidiabetic drugs. An ecological study was conducted, using temporally aggregated data and linking safety alerts to countrywide sales of all oral antidiabetic drugs in Portugal from January 2002 to December 2012. Sales figures for oral antidiabetic drugs marketed in Portugal were supplied by IMS Health Portugal with a breakdown by active substance and fixed combinations. The number of defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DIDs) of each oral antidiabetic drug sold to the estimated diabetic population using oral antidiabetic drugs in Portugal was calculated. Particular attention was paid to the case of rosiglitazone, with the results being adjusted for changes in rosiglitazone reimbursement policies. A total of four safety alerts were issued about rosiglitazone. Rosiglitazone sales registered an increase of 32.9% (0.202 DIDs; P < 0.001) after the first alert (risk of macular oedema or worsening of pre-existent macular oedema) in January 2006. After subsequent alerts about cardiovascular risks, this trend was not, however, repeated and sales fell. Following the January 2006 and January 2008 safety alerts, rosiglitazone sales described a long-term downward trend, with decreases of 3.75% (−0023 DIDs; P > 0.05) and 0.24% (−0.001 DIDs; P > 0.05), respectively. It is important to promote the dissemination and publication of drug safety alerts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]