Statins Use in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases and COVID-19 Outcomes: An Italian Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The role of statins among patients with established cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) who are hospitalized with COVID-19 is still debated. This study aimed at assessing whether the prior use of statins was associated with a less severe COVID-19 prognosis. METHODS: Subjects with CVDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalized between 20 February 2020 and 31 December 2020 were selected. These were classified into two mutually exclusive groups: statins-users and non-users of lipid-lowering therapies (non-LLT users). The relationship between statins exposure and the risk of Mechanical Ventilation (MV), Intensive Care Unit (ICU) access and death were evaluated by using logistic and Cox regressions models. RESULTS: Of 1127 selected patients, 571 were statins-users whereas 556 were non-LLT users. The previous use of statins was not associated with a variation in the risk of need of MV (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.00; 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 0.38-2.67), ICU access (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.22-1.32) and mortality at 14 days (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.16-1.10). However, a decreased risk of mortality at 30 days (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.85) was observed in statins-users compared with non-LLT users. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the clinical advice for patients CVDs to continue their treatment with statins during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Azithromycin use and outcomes in patients with COVID-19: an observational real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies ruled out the benefits of azithromycin for treatment of patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized. However, the effects of azithromycin for treatment of patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results in the community remains a matter of debate. This study aimed to assess whether azithromycin, when used in subjects with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, is associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization, in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes, and death. METHODS: Two study cohorts were selected. Cohort A included subjects with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 between February 20, 2020 and December 10, 2020; cohort B included subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalized between February 20, 2020 and December 31, 2020. We compared the risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit access, need for mechanical ventilation, and death in azithromycin users versus nonusers. A clustered Fine-Gray analysis was employed to assess the risk of hospitalization; logistic and Cox regressions were performed to assess the risk of intensive care unit access, mechanical ventilation, and death. RESULTS: In cohort A, among 4861 azithromycin users and 4861 propensity-matched nonusers, azithromycin use was associated with higher risk of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-1.75) compared with nonuse. In cohort B, among 997 subjects selected in both groups, azithromycin use was not significantly associated with intensive care unit access (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% CI 0.93-1.56), mechanical ventilation (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.70), 14-day mortality (HR0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.05), or 30-day mortality (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03). CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the lack of benefits of azithromycin treatment among community patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, raising concern on potential risks associated with its inappropriate use.

Antidepressants Drug Use during COVID-19 Waves in the Tuscan General Population: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

In Italy, during the COVID-19 waves two lockdowns were implemented to prevent virus diffusion in the general population. Data on antidepressant (AD) use in these periods are still scarce. This study aimed at exploring the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on prevalence and incidence of antidepressant drug use in the general population. A population-based study using the healthcare administrative database of Tuscany was performed. We selected a dynamic cohort of subjects with at least one ADs dispensing from 1 January 2018 to 27 December 2020. The weekly prevalence and incidence of drug use were estimated across different segments: pre-lockdown (1 January 2018-8 March 2020), first lockdown (9 March 2020-15 June 2020), post-first lockdown (16 June 2020-15 November 2020) and second lockdown (16 November 2020-27 December 2020). An interrupted time-series analysis was used to assess the effect of lockdowns on the observed outcomes. Compared to the pre-lockdown we observed an abrupt reduction of ADs incidence (Incidence-Ratio: 0.82; 95% Confidence-Intervals: 0.74-0.91) and a slight weekly decrease of prevalence (Prevalence-Ratio: 0.997; 0.996-0.999). During the post-first lockdown AD use increased, with higher incidence- and similar prevalence values compared with those expected in the absence of the outbreak. This pandemic has impacted AD drug use in the general population with potential rebound effects during the period between waves. This calls for future studies aimed at exploring the mid-long term effects of this phenomenon.

Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown, during the Two Waves, on Drug Use and Emergency Department Access in People with Epilepsy: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy implemented two national lockdowns aimed at reducing virus transmission. We assessed whether these lockdowns affected anti-seizure medication (ASM) use and epilepsy-related access to emergency departments (ED) in the general population. METHODS: We performed a population-based study using the healthcare administrative database of Tuscany. We defined the weekly time series of prevalence and incidence of ASM, along with the incidence of epilepsy-related ED access from 1 January 2018 to 27 December 2020 in the general population. An interrupted time-series analysis was used to assess the effect of lockdowns on the observed outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to pre-lockdown, we observed a relevant reduction of ASM incidence (0.65; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.59-0.72) and ED access (0.72; 0.64-0.82), and a slight decrease of ASM prevalence (0.95; 0.94-0.96). During the post-lockdown the ASM incidence reported higher values compared to pre-lockdown, whereas ASM prevalence and ED access remained lower. Results also indicate a lower impact of the second lockdown for both ASM prevalence (0.97; 0.96-0.98) and incidence (0.89; 0.80-0.99). CONCLUSION: The lockdowns implemented during the COVID-19 outbreaks significantly affected ASM use and epilepsy-related ED access. The potential consequences of these phenomenon are still unknown, although an increased incidence of epilepsy-related symptoms after the first lockdown has been observed. These findings emphasize the need of ensuring continuous care of epileptic patients in stressful conditions such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Magnitude and time-course of excess mortality during COVID-19 outbreak: population-based empirical evidence from highly impacted provinces in northern Italy.

BACKGROUND: The real impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on overall mortality remains uncertain as surveillance reports have attributed a limited number of deaths to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the outbreak. The aim of this study was to assess the excess mortality during the COVID-19 outbreak in highly impacted areas of northern Italy. METHODS: We analysed data on deaths that occurred in the first 4 months of 2020 provided by the health protection agencies (HPAs) of Bergamo and Brescia (Lombardy), building a time-series of daily number of deaths and predicting the daily standardised mortality ratio (SMR) and cumulative number of excess deaths through a Poisson generalised additive model of the observed counts in 2020, using 2019 data as a reference. RESULTS: We estimated that there were 5740 (95% credible set (CS) 5552-5936) excess deaths in the HPA of Bergamo and 3703 (95% CS 3535-3877) in Brescia, corresponding to a 2.55-fold (95% CS 2.50-2.61) and 1.93 (95% CS 1.89-1.98) increase in the number of deaths. The excess death wave started a few days later in Brescia, but the daily estimated SMR peaked at the end of March in both HPAs, roughly 2 weeks after the introduction of lockdown measures, with significantly higher estimates in Bergamo (9.4, 95% CI 9.1-9.7). CONCLUSION: Excess mortality was significantly higher than that officially attributed to COVID-19, disclosing its hidden burden likely due to indirect effects on the health system. Time-series analyses highlighted the impact of lockdown restrictions, with a lower excess mortality in the HPA where there was a smaller delay between the epidemic outbreak and their enforcement.

Estimates of the initial impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on overall mortality: evidence from Italy.

This study provides evidence of the enormous death toll attributable to COVID-19 https://bit.ly/2X4C6a8.