Repurposing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for severity of COVID-19: A population-based study.

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.

Effect of Previous Anticoagulant Treatment on Risk of COVID-19.

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. RESULTS: The consumption of antivitamin K and direct-acting anticoagulants apparently was not associated with the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 (OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.74-1.17] and OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.79-1.36], respectively). Antivitamin K anticoagulants were associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64-0.93]), which, in part, can be explained by a decreased risk of susceptibility to infection (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.74-0.92]). The use of direct-acting anticoagulants was not associated with the risk of hospitalization, although it also seems to decrease susceptibility (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.74-0.98]). It has also been observed that low-molecular-weight heparins were associated with an increased risk of progression to severe COVID-19 (OR 1.25 [95% CI 1.01-1.55]). CONCLUSION: The results of this study have shown that antivitamin K anticoagulants and direct-acting anticoagulants do not increase the risk of progression to more severe stages. Antivitamin K consumption was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization and susceptibility to infection.

Colchicine and risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19: A population-based study.

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.

Validity of Lung Ultrasound: Is an Image Worth More Than a Thousand Sounds?

INTRODUCTION: There is debate as to whether lung-ultrasound (LUS) can replace lung-auscultation (LA) in the assessment of respiratory diseases. METHODOLOGY: The diagnostic validity, safety, and reliability of LA and LUS were analyzed in patients admitted in a pulmonary ward due to decompensated obstructive airway diseases, decompensated interstitial diseases, and pulmonary infections, in a prospective study. Standard formulas were used to calculate the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The interobserver agreement with respect to the LA and LUS findings was evaluated based on the Kappa coefficient (ᴋ). RESULTS: A total of 115 patients were studied. LUS was more sensitive than the LA in evaluating pulmonary infections (93.59% vs. 77.02%; p = 0.001) and more specifically in the case of decompensated obstructive airway diseases (95.6% vs. 19.10%; p = 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of LUS was also greater in the case of pulmonary infections (75.65% vs. 60.90%; p = 0.02). The sensitivity and specificity of the combination of LA and LUS was 95.95%, 50% in pulmonary infections, 76.19%, 100% in case of decompensated obstructive airway diseases, and (100%, 88.54%) in case of interstitial diseases. (ᴋ) was 0.71 for an A-pattern, 0.73 for pathological B-lines, 0.94 for condensations, 0.89 for pleural-effusion, 0.63 for wheezes, 0.38 for rhonchi, 0.68 for fine crackles, 0.18 for coarse crackles, and 0.29 for a normal LA. CONCLUSIONS: There is a greater interobserver agreement in the interpretation of LUS-findings compared to that of LA-noises, their combined use improves diagnostic performance in all diseases examined.

Efectividad del plan de contingencia de la unidad de enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal ante la infección de COVID-19

OBJETIVO: La toma de decisiones en los hospitales y en sus propios servicios asistenciales apenas está referenciada en la literatura. Durante el período de pandemia por Covid-19, los servicios asistenciales han puesto en marcha planes de contingencia para minimizar las consecuencias del coronavirus en los profesionales y pacientes. Sin embargo, apenas se comparte el despliegue de esos planes de contingencia, ni sus resultados, privando de referencias para refutar, comparar o emular los citados planes a otros servicios asistenciales u hospitales. El objetivo del trabajo fue la descripción de la puesta en marcha de dichos planes ante la pandemia de Covid-19 en la Unidad de Enfermedad Inflamatoria Intestinal de un Servicio de Digestivo en el Área Sanitaria de Pontevedra e O Salnés (Galicia). MÉTODOS: Un equipo de directivos y profesionales adaptaron al entorno sanitario las 10 medidas recomendadas por Deloitte para afrontar una pandemia. A continuación, se formularon las medidas como listado de comprobación. A partir del ciclo de mejora Plan-Do-Check-Act, se agruparon las 10 medidas en las siguientes categorías: gestión del riesgo, gestión organizacional y toma de decisiones. Por último, un equipo externo realizó una evaluación cualitativa de la puesta en marcha del plan de contingencia realizado. RESULTADOS: La Unidad de Enfermedad Inflamatoria Intestinal del Servicio de Digestivo realizó un plan de contingencia que presenta un cumplimiento de las 10 medidas recomendadas para hacer frente a la pandemia de Covid-19 con garantías. CONCLUSIONES: Compartir el despliegue del plan de contingencia y sus resultados es útil para identificar buenas prácticas. Este trabajo ofrece un método para evaluar las tomas de decisiones en los plantes de contingencia en situaciones de pandemia. Los resultados sitúan a la Unidad de Enfermedad Inflamatoria Intestinal en el rango de la excelencia OBJECTIVE: Decision making in hospitals, and especially in their own healthcare services, is hardly referenced in the literature. During the pandemic period, healthcare services have put in place contingency plans to minimize the consequences of the coronavirus on professionals and patients. However, the deployment of contingency plans and results are hardly shared, depriving other services of references to refute, compare or emulate the aforementioned plans. The objective of this work was the description of the implementation and evaluation of Contingency Plans in the Covid-19 pandemic in a unit of inflammatory bowel disease of a Digestive Service in the Sanitary Area of Pontevedra and O Salnés. METHODS: A team of managers and professionals adapted the 10 measures recommended by Deloitte to face a pandemic to the healthcare environment. The measures were then formulated as a checklist. From the Plan-Do-Check-Act improvement cycle, they were grouped into categories: risk management, organizational management and decision-making. Finally, an external team carried out a qualitative evaluation of the implementation of the contingency plan carried out. RESULTS: The Intestinal Inflammatory Disease Unit of the Digestive Service has obtained an assessment of compliance with the 10 recommended measures to confidently face a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing the deployment of the contingency plan and its results is useful to identify good practices. This article shows a method to evaluate decision-making in pandemic situations. The outcomes faces the The Intestinal Inflammatory Disease Unit in an excelent position