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

Introduction Obesity increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Weight loss (≥5 %) reduces the risk of CVD. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RA) have shown clinically weight loss. Objectives: 1) To assess differences in the efficacy of weight loss and HbA1c; 2) to evaluate the safety and adherence during the titration phase. Methods It is a multicenter, prospective, and observational study on GLP1 RA naïve patients. The primary end point was the weight loss (≥5 %). Changes in weight, BMI and HbA1c were also calculated as co-primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were safety, adherence, and tolerance. Results Among 94 subjects, 42.4 % received dulaglutide, 29,3 % subcutaneous semaglutide, 22,8 % oral semaglutide. 45 % female and the mean age was 62. Baseline characteristics were body weight 99.3 kg, BMI 36.7 kg/m2 and Hba1c 8.2 %. Oral semaglutide achieved the highest reduction: 61.1 % of patients achieving ≥ 5 %, subcutaneous semaglutide 45.8 % and dulaglutide 40.6 %. GLP1 RA significantly reduced body weight (−4.95 kg, p < 0.001) and BMI (−1.86 kg/m2, p < 0.001), without significant differences between groups. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported events (74.5 %). 62 % of patients on dulaglutide, 25 % on oral semaglutide and 22 % on subcutaneous semaglutide. Conclusions Oral semaglutide achieved the highest proportion of patients that lost ≥ 5 %. GLP1 RA significantly reduced BMI and HbA1c. Most of the reported adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and they were reported in a major frequency in the dulaglutide group. Oral semaglutide would be a reasonable switch in case of future shortages

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

The World Health Organization has proposed that a search be made for alternatives to vaccines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, with one such alternative being selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). This study thus sought to assess: the impact of previous treatment with SSRI antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19 (risk of hospitalisation, admission to an intensive care unit [ICU], and mortality), its influence on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 and progression to severe COVID-19. We conducted a population-based multiple case-control study in a region in the north-west of Spain. Data were sourced from electronic health records. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95%CIs were calculated using multilevel logistic regression. We collected data from a total of 86,602 subjects: 3060 cases PCR+, 26,757 non-hospitalised cases PCR+ and 56,785 controls (without PCR+). Citalopram displayed a statistically significant decrease in the risk of hospitalisation (aOR=0.70; 95% CI 0.49–0.99, p = 0.049) and progression to severe COVID-19 (aOR=0.64; 95% CI 0.43–0.96, p = 0.032). Paroxetine was associated with a statistically significant decrease in risk of mortality (aOR=0.34; 95% CI 0.12 – 0.94, p = 0.039). No class effect was observed for SSRIs overall, nor was any other effect found for the remaining SSRIs. The results of this large-scale, real-world data study indicate that, citalopram, could be a candidate drug for being repurposed as preventive treatment aimed at reducing COVID-19 patients’ risk of progressing to severe stages of the disease.

Introduction: Little is known about the role played by anticoagulants in COVID-19. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of previous anticoagulant treatment on risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19, progression to severe COVID-19 and susceptibility to COVID-19 infection. Methods: We conducted a multiple population-based case–control study in northwest Spain, in 2020, to assess (1) risk of hospitalization: cases were all patients admitted due to COVID-19 with PCR confirmation, and controls were a random matched sample of subjects without a positive PCR; (2) progression: cases were hospitalized COVID-19 subjects, and controls were all non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and (3) susceptibility: cases were patients with a positive PCR (hospitalized and non-hospitalized), and the controls were the same as for the hospitalization model. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a generalized linear mixed model

[EN]Bleeding in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users limited their prescription. This first multicenter full case-control study (325 cases and 744 controls), explored the association of e-NOS intron 4 variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphism with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) in NSAID exposed and unexposed populations and assessed any interaction between this polymorphism and NSAIDs. NSAID users carrying e-NOS intron 4 wild type genotype or VNTR polymorphism have higher odds of UGIH than those unexposed to NSAIDs [Odds Ratio (OR): 6.62 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 4.24, 10.36) and OR: 5.41 (95% CI 2.62, 11.51), respectively], with no effect modification from VNTR polymorphism-NSAIDs interaction [Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction (RERI): -1.35 (95% CI -5.73, 3.03); Synergism Index (S): 0.77 (95% CI 0.31, 1.94)]. Similar findings were obtained for aspirin exposure. Non-aspirin NSAID users who carry e-NOS intron 4 VNTR polymorphism have lower odds of UGIH [OR: 4.02 (95% CI 1.85, 8.75) than those users with wild type genotype [OR: 6.52 (95% CI 4.09, 10.38)]; though the interaction estimates are not statistically significant [RERI: -2.68 (95% CI -6.67, 1.31); S: 0.53 (95% CI 0.18, 1.55)]. This exploratory study suggests that the odds of UGIH in NSAID or aspirin users does not modify according to patient ' s e-NOS intron 4 genotype.