ABSTRACT
We evaluated in this randomised, double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Healthcare workers fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in five hospitals in Spain and were randomised 1:1 to receive melatonin 2 mg administered orally for 12 weeks or placebo. The main outcome was the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 344 volunteers were screened, and 314 were randomised: 151 to placebo and 163 to melatonin; 308 received the study treatment (148 placebo; 160 melatonin). We detected 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2.6% in the placebo arm and 5.5% in the melatonin arm (p = 0.200). A total of 294 adverse events were detected in 127 participants (139 in placebo; 155 in melatonin). We found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events related to treatment: 43 in the placebo arm and 67 in the melatonin arm (p = 0.040), and in the number of participants suffering from somnolence related to treatment: 8.8% (n = 14) in the melatonin versus 1.4% (n = 2) in the placebo arm (p = 0.008). No severe adverse events related to treatment were reported. We cannot confirm our hypothesis that administration of melatonin prevents the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.
ABSTRACT
Data from several cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest that the most common comorbidities for severe COVID-19 disease are the elderly, high blood pressure, and diabetes; however, it is not currently known whether the previous use of certain drugs help or hinder recovery. This study aims to explore the association of previous hospitalisation use of medication on the mortality of COVID-19 disease. A retrospective case-control from two hospitals in Madrid, Spain, included all patients aged 18 years or above hospitalised with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A Propensity Score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Confounding variables were considered to be age, sex, and the number of comorbidities. Finally, 3712 patients were included. Of these, 687 (18.5%) patients died (cases). The 22,446 medicine trademarks used previous to admission were classified according to the ATC, obtaining 689 final drugs; all of them were included in PSM analysis. Eleven drugs displayed a reduction in mortality: azithromycin, bemiparine, budesonide-formoterol fumarate, cefuroxime, colchicine, enoxaparin, ipratropium bromide, loratadine, mepyramine theophylline acetate, oral rehydration salts, and salbutamol sulphate. Eight final drugs displayed an increase in mortality: acetylsalicylic acid, digoxin, folic acid, mirtazapine, linagliptin, enalapril, atorvastatin, and allopurinol. Medication associated with survival (anticoagulants, antihistamines, azithromycin, bronchodilators, cefuroxime, colchicine, and inhaled corticosteroids) may be candidates for future clinical trials. Drugs associated with mortality show an interaction with the underlying conditions.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.