RESUMO
Several medications commonly used for a number of medical conditions share a property of functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase (ASM), or FIASMA. Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest that the (ASM)/ceramide system may be central to SARS-CoV-2 infection. We examined the potential usefulness of FIASMA use among patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 in an observational multicenter retrospective study conducted at Greater Paris University hospitals. Of 2,846 adult patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19, 277 (9.7%) were taking a FIASMA medication at the time of their hospital admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of intubation and/or death. We compared this endpoint between patients taking vs. not taking a FIASMA medication in time-to-event analyses adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and medical comorbidities. The primary analysis was a Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting (IPW). Over a mean follow-up of 9.2 days (SD=12.5), the primary endpoint occurred in 104 patients (37.5%) who were taking a FIASMA medication, and 1,060 patients (41.4%) who were not. Taking a FIASMA medication was associated with reduced likelihood of intubation or death in both crude (HR=0.71; 95%CI=0.58-0.87; p<0.001) and the primary IPW (HR=0.58; 95%CI=0.46-0.72; p<0.001) analyses. This association remained significant in multiple sensitivity analyses and was not specific to one FIASMA class or medication. These results show the potential importance of the ASM/ceramide system as a treatment target in COVID-19. Double-blind controlled randomized clinical trials of these medications for COVID-19 are needed.
RESUMO
Prior preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that the acid sphingomyelinase (ASM)/ceramide system may provide a useful framework for better understanding SARS-CoV-2 infection and the repurposing of psychotropic medications with functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase, called FIASMA psychotropic medications, against COVID-19. We examined the potential usefulness of FIASMA psychotropic medication use among patients with mental disorder hospitalized for severe COVID-19, in an observational multicenter retrospective study conducted at AP-HP Greater Paris University hospitals. Of 545 adult patients with mental disorder hospitalized for severe COVID-19, 164 (30.1%) received a psychotropic FIASMA medication at study baseline, which was defined as the date of hospital admission for COVID-19. The primary endpoint was a composite of intubation or death. We compared this endpoint between patients who received a psychotropic FIASMA medication at baseline and those who did not in time-to-event analyses adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, psychiatric and other medical comorbidity, and psychotropic and other medications. The primary analysis was a Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting (IPW). There was a significant association between FIASMA psychotropic medication use at baseline and reduced risk of intubation or death both in the crude analysis (HR=0.42; 95%CI=0.31-0.57; p<0.01) and in the primary IPW analysis (HR=0.50; 95%CI=0.37-0.67; p<0.01). This association remained significant in multiple sensitivity analyses. Exploratory analyses suggested that this association was not specific to one FIASMA psychotropic class or medication. These results suggest the usefulness of the ASM/ceramide system framework in COVID-19. Double-blind controlled randomized clinical trials of these medications for COVID-19 are needed.
RESUMO
ObjectiveTo examine the association between benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) use and mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. MethodsWe conducted an observational multicenter retrospective cohort study at AP-HP Greater Paris University hospitals. The sample involved 14,381 adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. 686 (4.8%) inpatients received a BZRA within at the time of hospital admission at a mean daily diazepam-equivalent dose of 19.7 mg (SD=25.4). The study baseline was the date of hospital admission and the primary endpoint was death. We compared this endpoint between patients who received BZRAs and those who did not in time-to-event analyses adjusted for patient characteristics (such as age, sex, obesity and comorbidity) and other medications. The primary analysis was a Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting (IPW). ResultsOver a mean follow-up of 14.5 days (SD=18.1), the primary endpoint occurred in 186 patients (27.1%) who received a BZRA and in 1,134 patients (8.3%) who did not. There was a significant association between BZRA use and increased mortality both in the crude analysis (HR=3.20; 95% CI=2.74-3.74; p<0.01) and in the primary IPW analysis (HR=1.61; 95% CI=1.31-1.98, p<0.01), with a significant dose-dependent relationship (HR=1.55; 95% CI=1.08-2.22; p=0.02). This association remained significant in multiple sensitivity analyses. ConclusionsBZRA use was associated with increased mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with a dose-dependent relationship, suggesting a potential benefit of decreasing dose or tapering off these medications when possible in these patients.
RESUMO
Reliable test scores are essential to interpret the results obtained in statistical analyses correctly. In this study, we used the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) as an example of a widely applied assessment instrument to analyze its metric quality in what is known as reliability generalization (RG). In addition, we conducted a meta-analysis of the correlations between character strengths and life satisfaction to examine the potential relationship between the reliability of test scores and the intensity of these correlations. The overall variability of alpha coefficients supports the argument that reliability is sample dependent. Indeed, there were statistically significant mean reliability differences for scores across the 24 scales, with the highest level of reliability observed for Creativity and the lowest for scores on Self-regulation. Significant moderators such as the standard deviation of the scores and the sample type contribute to understand the high variability observed in the reliability estimation. The second meta-analysis showed that Zest, Hope, Gratitude, Curiosity, and Love were the character strengths that were highly related to life satisfaction, while Modesty and Prudence were less related to life satisfaction. Furthermore, the high heterogeneity between samples might be an indicator of the relationship between the variability of reliability of character strengths' scores and the intensity of their correlations with life satisfaction. Those character strengths with high-potential RG are related or unrelated to life satisfaction, whereas character strengths with less-potential RG showed unstable correlation patterns. The results of both studies point out the role of the relationship between the reliability of test scores and substantive studies, such as Pearson's correlations meta-analysis.
