Impact of pre-admission antithrombotic therapy on disease severity and mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Anticoagulant therapy is a cornerstone treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the high rates of thromboembolic complications associated with this disease. We hypothesized that chronic antithrombotic therapy could play a protective role in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Retrospective, observational study of all patients admitted to our hospital for ≥ 24 h from March 1 to May 31, 2020 with SARS-CoV-2. The objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients receiving chronic anticoagulation (AC) or antiplatelet therapy (AP) prior to hospital admission. A total of 1612 patients were evaluated. The mean (standard deviation; SD) age was 66.5 (17.1) years. Patients were divided into three groups according to the use of antithrombotic therapy prior to admission (AP, AC, or no-antithrombotic treatment). At admission, 9.6% of the patients were taking anticoagulants and 19.1% antiplatelet therapy. The overall mortality rate was 19.3%. On the multivariate analysis there were no significant differences in mortality between the antithrombotic groups (AC or AP) and the no-antithrombotic group (control group). Patients on AC had lower ICU admission rates than the control group (OR: 0.41, 95% CI, 0.18-0.93). Anticoagulation therapy prior to hospitalization for COVID-19 was associated with lower ICU admission rates. However, there were no significant differences in mortality between the patients receiving chronic antithrombotic therapy and patients not taking antithrombotic medications. These findings suggest that chronic anticoagulation therapy at the time of COVID-19 infection may reduce disease severity and thus the need for ICU admission.

Chondroitin Sulphate and Glucosamine Use Depend on Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use to Modify the Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A safe and effective colorectal cancer chemoprevention agent remains to be discovered. There is little evidence regarding the protective effect of chondroitin sulphate and glucosamine on colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the association between colorectal cancer risk and the use of chondroitin sulphate and glucosamine using a large cohort with dispensed data. METHODS: We performed a population-based case-control study in Catalonia using primary care reimbursed medication records (SIDIAP database). The study included 25,811 cases with an incident diagnosis of colorectal cancer and 129,117 matched controls between 2010 and 2015. RESULTS: The prevalence of ever use was 9.0% (n = 13,878) for chondroitin sulphate, 7.3% (n = 11,374) for glucosamine, and 35% for regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; n = 45,774). A decreased risk of colorectal cancer was observed among chondroitin sulphate use [OR: 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-1.01], glucosamine use (OR: 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97), and concurrent use of chondroitin sulphate and glucosamine (OR: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98). Especially for glucosamine, there was a dose-response association regarding duration and cumulative dose. The analysis stratified by simultaneous use with other NSAIDs showed that these drugs used without other NSAIDs do not reduce risk (OR: 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74-1.51). However, they may have a synergistic protective effect when used with other NSAIDs (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not provide strong support for an independent protective association of chondroitin sulphate or glucosamine on colorectal cancer risk in our population. However, these drugs may have a synergistic beneficial effect among NSAID users. IMPACT: Chondroitin sulphate or glucosamine may contribute to the protective effect of NSAID use in colorectal cancer.

Use of α2-Adrenergic Agonists to Improve Surgical Field Visibility in Endoscopy Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: We assessed the evidence for the use of α2-adrenergic agonists (A2AAs) in bleeding control and field quality in endoscopic sinus surgery. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing A2AAs in endoscopic sinus surgery. Abstracts were reviewed by 2 investigators for eligibility, and selected articles were fully reviewed. Data on study design, population, A2AA drug and control groups, bleeding and surgical field quality outcomes, and adverse effects were extracted and synthesized. FINDINGS: A total of 13 RCTs that included 896 individuals (7 double-blind trials, 5 single-blind trials, and 1 open-label trial) were selected that assessed the efficacy of clonidine (6 RCTs, 407 patients), dexmedetomidine (6 RCT, 423 patients), or both (1 RCT, 66 patients). Clonidine was compared with placebo (3 RCTs), midazolam (1 RCT), and remifentanil (2 RCTs). Dexmedetomidine was compared with esmolol (2 RCTs), remifentanil (2 RCTs), nitroglycerin and esmolol (1 RCT), and magnesium sulfate (1 RCT). Clonidine and dexmedetomidine were compared in 1 RCT. Clonidine reduced the proportion of individuals with an impaired surgical field by 23% vs placebo (number needed to treat = 4). Clonidine was better than midazolam and remifentanil in 2 trials, and dexmedetomidine was better than magnesium sulfate and esmolol in 2 trials but was not superior to esmolol, remifentanil, or nitroglycerin in 4 trials. Dexmedetomidine produced significantly better differences in bleeding outcomes versus clonidine. Adverse events were infrequent and mainly caused by hypotension or bradycardia. IMPLICATIONS: RCTs consistently report that A2AAs reduce bleeding and improve surgical field quality during endoscopic sinus surgery. Adverse event reporting was often omitted in RCTs. Well-designed RCTs with appropriate sample sizes are desirable to identify the best A2AAs and confirm their potential effects on clinical outcomes.

Anticoncepción hormonal y tromboembolia venosa / Hormonal contraception and venous thromboembolism

No disponible