Primary health care research in COVID-19: analysis of the protocols reviewed by the ethics committee of IDIAPJGol, Catalonia.

BACKGROUND: Since March of 2020, the scientific community has been engaged a marathon to answer the different questions that COVID-19 pandemic has brought. During this time, Ethics Committees played an important role in reviewing the research protocols, COVID-19 or not, ensuring that the quality of scientific research is not relaxed by the hasty need for answers. METHODS: Descriptive study from January 2019 to December 2021, comparing COVID-19 protocols to those not COVID-19 related protocols and comparing the work overload. Variables related to the characteristics of the research protocols (i.e. study design, funding…), the principal investigators (gender, PhD degree, professional role…) and outcomes of the Ethics Committee process (requirements of modifications and time until approval) were analyze. RESULTS: The number of sessions increased during COVID-19 pandemics (12 in 2019, 25 in 2020 and 18 in 2021). In total 751 protocols were evaluated during the study period; 513 (68.3%) had an observational design and 434 (57.8%) had no funding. The principal investigator was a woman in 491 (65.4%) studies and a General Practitioner in 330 (43.9%). The mean of the days until the protocol approval was 42.09 days (SD 60.2) with a decrease of 20.1 days from 2019 to 2021. A total of 614 (81.7%) protocols were approved, 336 (54.7%) within the first month after their initial evaluation. Less than half of the protocols were COVID-19 related (208, 44.3%). The COVID-19 protocols main topics were impact on the population (71, 34.1%); and COVID-19 pharmacological treatments (including vaccines) showed a higher increase in 2021 (37, 30.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the work overload during the pandemic due to the increase in the number of meetings and protocols, the IDIAPJGol EC reviewed all of them (COVID-19 or not) adapting to the new situation but according to its criteria of good practices to provide a quick response in the EC opinion. In Primary Health Care the most study designs have been observational studies, many of them with no funding and led by GPs. In 2021 there was an increase in the number of protocols focused on drugs, most likely related to COVID-19 vaccines studies.

Effectiveness of antitussives, anticholinergics, and honey versus usual care in adults with uncomplicated acute bronchitis: a multiarm randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequent use of symptomatic therapies in cough, evidence of their benefits is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness of 3 symptomatic therapies and usual care in acute bronchitis. METHODS: Multicenter, pragmatic, multiarm parallel group, open randomized trial in primary care (ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03738917) was conducted in Catalonia. Patients ≥18 with uncomplicated acute bronchitis, with cough<3 weeks as the main symptom, scoring ≥4 in either daytime or nocturnal cough (7-point Likert scale), were randomized to usual care, dextromethorphan 15 mg t.i.d., ipratropium bromide inhaler 20 µg 2 puffs t.i.d, or 30 mg of honey t.i.d., all taken for up to 14 days. The main outcome measure was the number of days with moderate-to-severe cough. A symptom diary was given. A second visit was scheduled at days 2-3 for assessing evolution, with 2 more visits at days 15 and 29 for clinical assessment, evaluation of adverse effects, re-attendance, and complications. RESULTS: We failed to achieve the sample size scheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We finally recruited 194 patients. The median number of days with moderate-to-severe cough (score ≥ 3) in the usual care arm was 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 4, 8.75), 5 in the ipratropium bromide arm (IQR, 3, 8), 5 in the dextromethorphan arm (IQR, 4, 9.75), and 6 in the honey arm (IQR, 3.5, 7). The same results were obtained in the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the median survival time of each arm with the usual care as the reference group. CONCLUSION: The symptomatic treatment evaluated has shown to be ineffective against cough.

Cough is the most frequent symptom reported by patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Despite being a defense mechanism, cough is unpleasant and negatively affects sleep and overall well-being. Accordingly, many patients with acute cough seek medical help to mitigate symptoms and reduce their duration despite the typically self-limiting nature of the condition. In this randomized clinical trial, we explored the benefit of 3 common symptomatic treatments recommended in some guidelines for relieving this symptom during the course of uncomplicated acute bronchitis, a cough suppressant, an inhaler, and honey intake. Although the total number of patients initially expected could not be achieved due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the results of our study demonstrate a lack of efficacy of these products as the number of days of severe-to-moderate cough was similar in the 3 arms and comparable to the group of patients allocated to usual care.

Drug-drug interaction between dexamethasone and direct-acting oral anticoagulants: a nested case-control study in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C).

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this work is to evaluate if there is an increase in the risk of thromboembolic events (TEEs) due to concomitant exposure to dexamethasone and apixaban or rivaroxaban. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as well as corticosteroid dexamethasone, are commonly used to treat individuals hospitalised with COVID-19. Dexamethasone induces cytochrome P450-3A4 enzyme that also metabolises DOACs apixaban and rivaroxaban. This raises a concern about possible interaction between dexamethasone and DOACs that may reduce the efficacy of the DOACs and result in an increased risk of TEE. DESIGN: We used nested case-control study design. SETTING: This study was conducted in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), the largest electronic health records repository for COVID-19 in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants were adults over 18 years who were exposed to a DOAC for 10 or more consecutive days. Exposure to dexamethasone was at least 5 or more consecutive days. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary exposure variable was concomitant exposure to dexamethasone for 5 or more days after exposure to either rivaroxaban or apixaban for 5 or more consecutive days. We used McNemar's Χ2 test and adjusted logistic regression to evaluate association between concomitant use of dexamethasone with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. RESULTS: McNemar's Χ2 test did not find a discernible association of TEE in patients concomitantly exposed to dexamethasone and a DOAC (χ2=0.5, df=1, p=0.48). In addition, a conditional logistic regression model did not find an increase in the risk of TEE (adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.18). CONCLUSION: This nested case-control study did not find evidence of an association between concomitant exposure to dexamethasone and a DOAC with an increase in risk of TEE. Due to small sample size, an association cannot be completely ruled out.

Risk of thrombotic events and other complications in anticoagulant users infected with SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study in primary health care in SIDIAP (Catalonia, Spain).

BACKGROUND: The risk of thromboembolic events and COVID-19 complications in anticoagulated patients once hospitalized has been widely analyzed. We aim to assess these outcomes in primary health care (PHC) patients chronically treated with oral anticoagulants (OAC) in comparison with non-treated. METHODS: Cohort study including adults with COVID-19 diagnosis in the PHC records in Catalonia, Spain; from March to June 2020. Patients were matched between exposed and non-exposed to OAC based on age and gender in a 1:2 design. Data source is the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP). RESULTS: We included 311,542 individuals with COVID-19. After propensity score matching, we obtained a cohort of 20,360 people, 10,180 exposed and 10,180 non-exposed to OAC. Their mean age was 79.9 and 52.1% were women. Patients exposed to OAC had a higher frequency of comorbidities than non-exposed. Anticoagulated patients had a higher risk of hospital admission (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.29), and of stroke and pulmonary embolism than non-anticoagulated (IRR 1,80, 95% CI 1.06-3.06). The risk of pneumonia was not different between groups (IRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.30). We found a lower risk of death in patients exposed to OAC (IRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.55-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: OAC users in our study had more comorbidities and were older than non-users, well known risks for hospitalization being confirmed with our results. We also found in our study that OAC exposure was not associated to an increased risk in the mortality rate, and it was associated with higher risks of hospital admission and thromboembolic events, although we cannot assess the effect of the interventions applied during hospital admission on the outcomes studied, as our database is a PHC database. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUPAS register: EUPAS37205 .