Sars-Cov-2 Infection in Patients on Long-Term Treatment with Macrolides in Spain: A National Cross-Sectional Study.

The aim of this study was to know the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with long-term macrolides and to describe the factors associated with worse outcomes. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Primary Care setting. Patients with macrolides dispensed continuously from 1 October 2019 to 31 March 2020, were considered. Main outcome: diagnosis of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Secondary outcomes: symptoms, severity, characteristics of patients, comorbidities, concomitant treatments. A total of 3057 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age: 73 (64-81) years; 55% were men; 62% smokers/ex-smokers; 56% obese/overweight. Overall, 95% of patients had chronic respiratory diseases and four comorbidities as a median. Prevalence of COVID-19: 4.8%. This was in accordance with official data during the first wave of the pandemic. The most common symptoms were respiratory: shortness of breath, cough, and pneumonia. Additionally, 53% percent of patients had mild/moderate symptoms, 28% required hospital admission, and 19% died with COVID-19. The percentage of patients hospitalized and deaths were 2.6 and 5.8 times higher, respectively, in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of long-term courses of macrolides in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or the progression to worse outcomes in old patients with underlying chronic respiratory diseases and a high burden of comorbidity.

Patients receiving a high burden of antibiotics in the community in Spain: a cross-sectional study.

Some patients in the community receive a high burden of antibiotics. We aimed at describing the characteristics of these patients, antibiotics used, and conditions for which they received antibiotics. We carried out a cross-sectional study. Setting: Thirty Health Primary Care Areas from 12 regions in Spain, covering 5,960,191 inhabitants. Patients having at least 30 packages of antibacterials for systemic use dispensed in 2017 were considered. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of antibiotic use, conditions for which antibiotics were prescribed, clinical characteristics of patients, comorbidities, concomitant treatments, and microbiological isolates. Patient's average age was 70 years; 52% were men; 60% smokers/ex-smokers; 54% obese. Overall, 93% of patients had, at least, one chronic condition, and four comorbidities on average. Most common comorbidities were cardiovascular and/or hypertension (67%), respiratory diseases (62%), neurological/mental conditions (32%), diabetes (23%), and urological diseases (21%); 29% were immunosuppressed, 10% were dead at the time of data collection. Patients received three antibiotic treatments per year, mainly fluoroquinolones (28%), macrolides (21%), penicillins (19%), or cephalosporins (12%). Most frequently treated conditions were lower respiratory tract (infections or prophylaxis) (48%), urinary (27%), and skin/soft tissue infections (11%). Thirty-five percent have been guided by a microbiological diagnosis, being Pseudomonas aeruginosa (30%) and Escherichia coli (16%) the most frequent isolates. In conclusion, high antibiotic consumers in the community were basically elder, with multimorbidity and polymedication. They frequently received broad-spectrum antibiotics for long periods of time. The approach to infections in high consumers should be differentiated from healthy patients receiving antibiotics occasionally.

Antidiabetic medications use trends in an Andalusian region from 2001 to 2014.

PURPOSE: There is a widening range of antidiabetic medications available; however changes in consumption patterns remain poorly documented. The aim of this study is to analyze the evolution of consumption of antidiabetic medications during the period 2001-2014 in an Andalusian region. METHODS: All antidiabetic medicines on the market were selected for analysis. Consumption data were obtained for the 15-year period and were expressed in defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day (DHD). RESULTS: During the study period consumption of insulins grew only a 2.2%, from 17.9 DHD to 18.3 DHD, while oral agents increased a 27.6%, from 41.3 DHD to 52.7 DHD. Consumption of sulfonylureas was gradually reduced from 30.1 DHD to 16.4 DHD but metformin (alone) usage increased from 4.3 DHD to 23.7 DHD, and was the most consumed agent in 2014. A rise in consumption of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and "other hypoglycemic agents" was also noticed. Overall expenditure in antidiabetic medications increased notably from 4.5 in 2001 to 14.4 million euros in 2014. CONCLUSION: We highlight the market uptake of antidiabetic drugs commercialized during the last decade; despite further exploration is needed to clarify the cost-benefit ratio of these new antidiabetic medicines.

Effects of a primary care intervention to improve the quality of zolpidem prescriptions in elderly patients.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to measure the impact of an intervention on the prescription habits of general practitioners (GPs) in order to improve the quality of zolpidem prescriptions in patients aged 75 or older. METHODS: A prospective multicentric non-randomized trial was performed in the Metropolitan Granada Primary Healthcare Area (Andalusian Public Healthcare Service, Spain), which serves a total population of approximately 675,000 inhabitants. All health centers volunteering to participate in the trial were included. The intervention consisted of training sessions, individualized feedback, clinical information, and financial incentives. A daily dose over 5 mg was considered non-safe. Reduction in non-safe prescriptions of zolpidem in the elderly population became a quality prescribing indicator in a pay-for-performance scheme. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences versus baseline were found between the intervention and control groups in mean zolpidem prescription prevalence (28.5 vs. 37.5‰, respectively; p = 0.008) and mean non-safe zolpidem prescription prevalence (16.5 vs. 34.2‰, respectively; p < 0.001). At the end of the study period, the total number of non-safe prescriptions was 1309, 35% lower versus baseline, with a significant difference of p < 0.001; the number in the intervention (510 vs. 1118; p < 0.001) and control (799 vs. 893; p = 0.0064) groups was also significantly lower, with a significantly greater percentage reduction in the intervention group (54.4 vs. 10.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The quality prescribing indicator in our area was improved by the intervention developed. Further studies that include an intervention group of GPs who receive no financial incentive are required to evaluate the relative importance of an economic reward in achieving this improvement.