The role of traditional NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors on COVID-19 outcomes: a real-world data study.

The relation between use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and severity of COVID-19 has been the subject to debate since the outbreak of the pandemic. Despite speculations about the possible harmful or protective effects, the position currently most supported by the scientific community is that there is no association between use of NSAIDs and COVID-19 outcomes. With the aim of contributing to increase the body of evidence on this issue, we conducted a case-control study using real-world data to investigate the association between prior use of NSAIDs, by active ingredient and type (traditional NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors), and important COVID-19-related outcomes, including susceptibility, PCR + patient progression, and hospitalisation. Our findings suggest that, in general, the use of traditional NSAIDs is not associated with any adverse COVID-19 outcome. However, we observed a possible association between diclofenac and a higher risk of PCR + patient progression. Our results also suggest that selective COX-2 inhibitors might be related with a reduction in the risk of PCR + patient progression. These results suggest that, with the possible exception of diclofenac, the use of NSAIDs should not be advised against for relief of symptoms in patients with COVID-19. In addition, they support the importance of continue to investigate the treatment potential of selective COX-2 inhibitors in the management of COVID-19, something that could have significant implications for the treatment of this disease and other viral infections.

Outpatient glucocorticoid use and COVID-19 outcomes: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Owing to controversy information surrounds effect of glucocorticoids on the evolution of COVID-19, we evaluate the effects of outpatient glucocorticoid use on the severity and progression of COVID-19 and risk of infection and analyse the effect of window of exposure and dose. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case - control study, involving 4 substudies: (i) Hospitalisation; (ii) Mortality, using subjects hospitalised with a PCR + as cases and subjects without a PCR + as controls; (iii) Progression, including subjects with a PCR + (hospitalised versus non-hospitalised); and (iv) Susceptibility, with all subjects with a PCR + and subjects without a PCR + . Adjusted odds ratios (ORa) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The outpatient glucocorticoid use was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation (aOR 1.79; 95% CI 1.56-2.05), mortality (aOR 2.30; 95% CI 1.68-3.15), progression (aOR 1.69; 95% CI 1.43-2.00) and susceptibility (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.19-1.41). Furthermore, the effects was observed to be greater at higher doses and the closer that drug use approached the outcome date, with an almost fourfold increase in mortality among users in the previous month (aOR 3.85; 95% CI 2.63-5.62). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this real-world data study, outpatient glucocorticoid use should be considered in making decisions about intrahospital treatment.

Outpatient Antipsychotic Use and Severe COVID-19: Avoiding the Impact of Age in a Real-World Data Study.

BACKGROUND: The association between use of antipsychotics and COVID-19 outcomes is inconsistent, which may be linked to use of these drugs in age-related diseases. Furthermore, there is little evidence regarding their effect in the nongeriatric population. We aim to assess the association between antipsychotic use and risk of disease progression and hospitalization due to COVID-19 among the general population, stratifying by age. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, multiple case-control study to assess risk of hospitalization, with cases being patients with a PCR(+) test who required hospitalization and controls being individuals without a PCR(+) test; and risk of progression to hospitalization, with cases being the same as those used in the hospitalization substudy and controls being nonhospitalized PCR(+) patients. We calculated adjusted odds-ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), both overall and stratified by age. RESULTS: Antipsychotic treatment in patients younger than 65 years was not associated with a higher risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 (aOR 0.94 [95%CI = 0.69-1.27]) and disease progression among PCR(+) patients (aOR 0.96 [95%CI = 0.70-1.33]). For patients aged 65 years or older, however, there was a significant, increased risk of hospitalization (aOR 1.58 [95% CI = 1.38-1.80]) and disease progression (aOR 1.31 [95% CI = 1.12-1.55]). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our large-scale real-world data study suggest that antipsychotic use is not associated with a greater risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 and progression to hospitalization among patients younger than 65 years. The effect found in the group aged 65 years or older might be associated with off-label use of antipsychotics.

Impact of prior antihypertensive treatment on COVID-19 outcomes, by active ingredient.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of prior chronic treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/ angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), both as a group and by active ingredient, on severity (risk of hospitalization and mortality), progression of and susceptibility to COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multiple population-based case-control study in Galicia (north-west Spain). The study data were sourced from medical, administrative and clinical databases. We assessed: (1) risk of hospitalization, by selecting all patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 with PCR + as cases, and a random sample of subjects without a PCR + as controls; (2) COVID-19 mortality risk; (3) risk of disease progression; and (4) susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, considering all patients with PCR + as cases, and the same subjects used in the previous model as controls. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated. RESULTS: ACEIs and ARBs were shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.78 [95%CI 0.69-0.89] and aOR = 0.80 [95%CI 0.72-0.90] respectively), risk of mortality (aOR = 0.71 [95%CI 0.52-0.98] and aOR = 0.69 [95%CI 0.52-0.91] respectively), and susceptibility to the virus (aOR = 0.88 [95%CI 0.82-0.94] and aOR = 0.92 [95%CI 0.86-0.97] respectively). By active ingredient: use of enalapril was associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.61-0.85]), mortality (aOR = 0.59 [95%CI 0.38-0.92]) and susceptibility to COVID-19 (aOR = 0.86 [95%CI 0.79-0.94]); and use of candesartan was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.76 [95%CI 0.60-0.95]), mortality (aOR = 0.36 [95%CI 0.17-0.75]) and disease progression (aOR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.56-0.95]). CONCLUSION: This large-scale real-world data study suggest that enalapril and candesartan are associated with a considerable reduction in risk of severe COVID19 outcomes.

Impact of prior use of antiplatelets on COVID-19 susceptibility, progression, and severity: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Hypercoagulability and thromboembolism are processes that arise from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and are responsible for a high degree of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related morbidity and mortality. This study sought to assess the effect of antiplatelet drugs on COVID-19 severity (risk of hospitalization and mortality), susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, and progression to severe COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-control study in a northwestern region of Spain in 2020. The study involved 3060 participants with a positive polymerase chain reaction test who were hospitalized, 26 757 participants with a positive polymerase chain reaction test who were not hospitalized, and 56 785 healthy controls. RESULTS: Triflusal seemed to be associated with a significant increase in risk of hospitalization (aOR, 1.97; 95%CI, 1.27-3.04) and susceptibility to infection (OR, 1.45; 95%CI, 1.07-1.96). It also appeared to lead to a nonsignificant increase in the risk of mortality (OR, 2.23; 95%CI, 0.89-5.55) and/or progression to more severe disease stages (OR, 1.42; 95%CI, 0.8-2.51). Aspirin seemed to be associated with a statistically significant decrease in susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.86-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Triflusal use appears to increase the risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and an even higher risk of hospitalization, whereas the other antiplatelets could be associated with a reduction in the risk of the various outcomes or have no effect on risk. These findings could support reconsideration of triflusal prescription in COVID-19 pandemic situations.

Effect of dapagliflozin on COVID-19 infection and risk of hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Dapagliflozin has been proposed as a potential treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by reducing cytokine production and inflammation. However, there are limited data on its effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the impact of dapagliflozin on COVID-19 severity (including hospitalization risk, ICU admission, in-hospital death and progression to severe COVID-19) and its potential on susceptibility to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-control study. For aim 1, we assessed COVID-19 severity in cases (positive PCR patients requiring hospitalization) and matched controls (negative PCR patients or positive PCR patients not requiring hospitalization). For aim 2, we compared positive PCR cases (hospitalized and non-hospitalized) with controls. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated using a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: We analysed 86 602 subjects: 3060 were hospitalized cases, 26 757 were non-hospitalized cases and 56 785 were controls. Among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 228 were admitted to the ICU and 413 died. Dapagliflozin had no effect on the risk of hospitalization (aOR 0.98; 95% CI 0.65-1.48; P = 0.915), ICU admissions (aOR 1.21; 95% CI 0.34-4.25; P = 0.767) or in-hospital death (aOR 1.33; 95% CI 0.53-3.30; P = 0.543). Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 by 35%, but this was not statistically significant (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.40-1.06; P = 0.086). Dapagliflozin was associated with a 30% increased risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 1.05-1.62; P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Use of dapagliflozin prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mortality or progression to severe COVID-19. However, it was associated with an increased risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection.

Outpatient atorvastatin use and severe COVID-19 outcomes: A population-based study.

Evidence of the effect of statins on patients with coronavirus disease (2019) COVID-19 is inconsistent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between chronic use of statins-both overall and by active ingredient-and severe outcomes of COVID-19 (risk of hospitalization and mortality), progression to severe outcomes, and susceptibility to the virus. We conducted a population-based case-control study with data from electronic records to assess the risk of (1) hospitalization: cases were patients admitted due to COVID-19 and controls were subjects without COVID-19; (2) mortality: cases were hospitalized patients who died due to COVID-19 and controls were subjects without COVID-19; (3) progression: cases were hospitalized COVID-19 subjects and controls were nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients; and (4) susceptibility: cases were patients with COVID-19 (both hospitalized and nonhospitalized) and controls were subjects without COVID-19. We collected data on 2821 hospitalized cases, 26 996 nonhospitalized cases, and 52 318 controls. Chronic use of atorvastatin was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.92) and mortality (aOR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53-0.93), attributable in part to a lower risk of susceptibility to the virus (aOR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86-0.96). Simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (aOR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.40-0.87). The wide degree of heterogeneity observed in the estimated odds ratios (ORs) of the different statins suggests that there is no class effect. The results of this real-world study suggest that chronic use of atorvastatin (and to a lesser degree, of simvastatin) is associated with a decrease in risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

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.

Occupation as a risk factor of small cell lung cancer.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) comprises approximately 10% of all lung cancer cases. Tobacco is its main risk factor; however, occupation might play a role in this specific lung cancer subtype. The effect of occupation on SCLC risk has been hardly studied and therefore we aim to assess the role of occupation on the risk of SCLC. To do this, we designed a multicentric, hospital-based, case-control study. Cases consisted exclusively in SCLC patients and controls were recruited from patients having minor surgery at the participating hospitals. Face to face interviews emphasizing occupation and tobacco consumption were held and residential radon was also measured. Logistic regression models were adjusted with odds ratios with 95%CI as estimations of the effect. 423 cases and 905 controls were included. Smoking prevalence was higher in cases compared to controls. Those who worked in known-risk occupations for lung cancer showed an OR of 2.17 (95%CI 1.33; 3.52), with a similar risk when men were analysed separately. The results were adjusted by age, sex, smoking and indoor radon exposure. Those who worked in known-risk occupations and were moderate or heavy smokers had a SCLC risk of 12.19 (95%CI 5.68-26.38) compared with never or moderate smokers who had not worked in such occupations. Occupation is a relevant risk factor of SCLC, and it seems that its effect is boosted when tobacco smoking is present.

Magnitude and determinants of inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics in dentistry: a nation-wide study.

BACKGROUND: Dentist play an important role in misuse of antibiotics. Identification of the dental activities linked to the misuse of antibiotics is important for improving dentists' prescribing quality. The aim of the study was to quantify the magnitude of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing by dentists in Spain and identify the characteristics, knowledge and attitudes that influence prescribing quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study on dentists in Spain, assessing prescribing quality (dependent variable) on the basis of their responses about the prescription of antibiotics in 14 clinical situations. As the independent variables, we assessed professional characteristics and attitudes (lack of knowledge, fear, complacency, scheduling problems, and economic benefit) measured on a Likert scale. Odds Ratios (OR) (95%CI) were calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 878 participants were included in the analysis. Half of all dentists displayed inappropriate antibiotic prescribing habits in more than 28.6% (10/14) of the clinical situations posed (interquartile range 57-79%). Prescribing quality increased when resistance was perceived as a public health problem (OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.97), and decreased in response to fear (OR 1.12, 95% CI:1.07-1.18) or the pursuit of economic benefit (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14). Having over 30 years' experience (OR 4.58, 95% CI:1.80-12.48) and/or practising in the field of prosthodontics as opposed to endodontics (OR 2.65, 95% CI:1.26-5.71) were associated with worse prescribing quality. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics are the most commonly prescribed drugs in dentistry, and in many cases this prescription is inappropriate. Our findings shows that modifiable factors influence prescribing quality among dentists in Spain. These may be use for designing educational and training programmes for dentists.

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.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antibiotic Prescribing by Dentists in Galicia, Spain: A Quasi-Experimental Approach.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is one of the most pressing public health problems. Health authorities, patients, and health professionals, including dentists, are all involved in its development. COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on dental care may have had repercussions on antibiotic prescribing by dentists. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antibiotic prescribing by dentists, and to review antibiotic consumption according to the WHO Access, Watch, Reserve classification. We conducted a natural, before-and-after, quasi-experimental study, using antibiotic prescription data covering the period from January 2017 to May 2021. A segmented regression analysis with interrupted time series data was used to analyse the differences between the numbers of defined daily doses (DDD) of antibiotics prescribed monthly. The outcomes showed an immediate significant decrease in overall antibiotic prescribing by primary-care dentists during lockdown, followed by a non-significant upward trend for the next year. This same pattern was, likewise, observed for Access and Watch antibiotics. COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on dental care influenced the prescription of antibiotics. During confinement, an initial decrease was observed, this trend changed when in person consultations were recovered. It might be beneficial to analyse the prescription of antibiotics using the WHO AWaRe classification, in order to monitor their appropriate use.

Assessment of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Using the EU (7)-PIM List, in a Sample of Portuguese Older Adults' Residents in Nursing Homes.

Abstract: Prescription of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in older adults is associated with poor clinical outcomes. The EU (7)-PIM list was created for the European market to improve pharmacotherapy in older adults. Purpose: This work aims to characterize the medication profile and assess the presence of PIM, using the EU (7)-PIM list in older adults' residents at nursing homes. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from the anonymized nursing home records. After PIM identification, a descriptive analysis was performed, and a generalized linear model for dependent negative binomial-type variables was constructed to assess the risk of PIM. Results: Of the 210 participants (mean age 85.10), 82.40% were polymedicated. PIM was observed in 86.4% participants (mean per patient = 2.30± 0.10). The most common PIM were proton pump inhibitors (n = 121, 57.62%), followed by anxiolytics (n = 96, 45.71%). 64.30% of all patients take 2-4 PIM and 5.80% take five or more PIM. The occurrence of PIM is influenced by the number of prescribed medicines (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.1.-1.17) and the presence of digestive system diseases (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.0-1.09). Conclusion: The high prevalence of PIM observations highlights the necessity of the implementation of guidelines to prevent PIM.

Residential Radon and Small Cell Lung Cancer. Final Results of the Small Cell Study.

INTRODUCTION: Residential radon is considered the second cause of lung cancer and the first in never smokers. Nevertheless, there is little information regarding the association between elevated radon levels and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the effect of residential radon exposure on the risk of SCLC in general population through a multicentric case-control study. METHODS: A multicentric hospital-based case-control study was designed including 9 hospitals from Spain and Portugal, mostly including radon-prone areas. Indoor radon was measured using Solid State Nuclear Track Detectors at the Galician Radon Laboratory. RESULTS: A total of 375 cases and 902 controls were included, with 24.5% of cases being women. The median number of years living in the measured dwelling was higher than 25 years for both cases and controls. There was a statistically significant association for those exposed to concentrations higher than the EPA action level of 148Bq/m3, with an Odds Ratio of 2.08 (95%CI: 1.03-4.39) compared to those exposed to concentrations lower than 50Bq/m3. When using a dose-response model with 100Bq/m3 as a reference, it can be observed a linear effect for small cell lung cancer risk. Smokers exposed to higher radon concentrations pose a much higher risk of SCLC compared to smokers exposed to lower indoor radon concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Radon exposure seems to increase the risk of small cell lung cancer with a linear dose-response pattern. Tobacco consumption may also produce an important effect modification for radon exposure.

Radon, Tobacco Exposure and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Risk Related to BER and NER Genetic Polymorphisms.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco consumption and radon exposure are considered the first and second most common causes of lung cancer, respectively. The aim of this study was to analyze both whether selected genetic polymorphisms in loci that are in DNA repair pathways, are related to non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and whether they may modulate the association between residential radon exposure and lung cancer in both smokers and never smokers. METHODS: A multicentre, hospital-based, case-control study with 826 cases and 1201 controls was designed in a radon-prone area. Genotyping was determined in whole blood and residential radon exposure was measured in participants' dwellings. RESULTS: Attending to tobacco exposure, the variant in the gene NBN (rs1805794) was associated with lung cancer in never smokers (OR 2.72; 95%1.44-5.2) and heavy smokers (OR 3.04; 95%CI 1.21-7.69). The polymorphism with the highest lung cancer association was OGG1 (rs125701), showing an OR of 8.04 (95%CI 1.64-58.29) for its homozygous variant genotype in heavy smokers. Attending to indoor radon exposure (>200Bq/m3), rs1452584, for its homozygous variant genotype, showed the highest association (OR 3.04 (95%CI 1.15-8.48). CONCLUSION: The genes analyzed seem to have no association with the fully adjusted model, but they might modulate lung cancer association when different categories of tobacco consumption are considered (i.e. heavy smokers). This association may similarly be elevated for those individuals having high indoor radon exposures, though at a minor extent.

Synergism interaction between genetic polymorphisms in drug metabolizing enzymes and NSAIDs on upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: a multicenter case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Interindividual genetic variations contribute to differences in patients' response to drugs as well as to the development of certain disorders. Patients who use non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may develop serious gastrointestinal disorders, mainly upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). Studies about the interaction between NSAIDs and genetic variations on the risk of UGIH are scarce. Therefore, we investigated the effect of 16 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) involved in drug metabolism on the risk of NSAIDs-induced UGIH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter case-control study of 326 cases and 748 controls. Participants were sub-grouped into four categories according to NSAID exposure and genetic profile. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using generalized linear mixed models for dependent binomial variables and then calculated the measures of interaction, synergism index (S), and relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). We undertook stratified analyses by the type of NSAID (aspirin, non-aspirin). RESULTS: We observed an excess risk of UGIH due to an interaction between any NSAID, non-aspirin NSAIDs or aspirin and carrying certain SNPs. The greatest excess risk was observed for carriers of: rs2180314:C>G [any NSAID: S = 3.30 (95%CI: 1.24-8.80), RERI = 4.39 (95%CI: 0.70-8.07); non-aspirin NSAIDs: S = 3.42 (95%CI: 1.12-10.47), RERI = 3.97 (95%CI: 0.44-7.50)], and rs4809957:A>G [any NSAID: S = 2.11 (95%CI: 0.90-4.97), RERI = 3.46 (95%CI: -0.40-7.31)]. Aspirin use by carriers of rs6664:C>T is also associated with increased risk of UGIH [ORaspirin(+),wild-type: 2.22 (95%CI: 0.69-7.17) vs. ORaspirin(+),genetic-variation: 7.72 (95%CI: 2.75-21.68)], yet larger sample size is needed to confirm this observation. CONCLUSIONS: The joint effect of the SNPs s2180314:C>G and rs4809957:A>G and NSAIDs are more than three times higher than the sum of their individual effects. Personalized prescriptions based on genotyping would permit a better weighing of risks and benefits from NSAID consumption.KEY MESSAGESMulticenter case-control study of the effect of genetic variations involved in drug metabolism on upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH) induced by NSAIDs (aspirin and non-aspirin).There is a statistically significant additive synergism interaction between certain genetic polymorphisms and NSAIDs on UGIH: rs2180314:C>G and rs4809957:A>G. The joint effect of each of these single nucleotide polymorphisms and NSAIDs on UGIH is more than three times higher than the sum of their individual effects.Genetic profiling and personalized prescriptions would be useful in managing the risks and benefits associated with NSAIDs.

Impact on In- and Out-of-Hospital Drug Prescriptions of Including a More Expensive Me-Too Antidepressant in a Hospital Drug Formulary: a Controlled Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the inclusion of a more expensive me-too medicine in a hospital drug formulary (HDF) on both in- and out-of-hospital utilization, and the contextual factors which influence this type of induction is rarely studied. Accordingly, this work aimed to quantify the effect of the decision of a hospital of including a more expensive me-too antidepressant in its HDF. METHODS: A controlled longitudinal study was carried out in a Regional Health Service of Spain. We performed a segmented regression analysis with control group. We used the following dependent variables: defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day, DDD per 100 bed days, and cost per DDD. RESULTS: At a hospital level, the modification in the formulary led to utilization changes: (1) an increase in immediate consumption of the newly included me-too drug; and, (2) an annual 25.96% [95% CI: 2.96%-48.95%] decrease in the adjusted trend of the already existing parent antidepressant. The adjusted trend of the cost per DDD of the sum of all medications in the therapeutic group increased by 20.03% annually [95% CI: 3.24%-36.82%]. In the out-of-hospital setting utilization changes were: (1) the adjusted trend of the newly included me-too drug rose by 12.14% annually [95% CI: 4.97%-19.30%]; and, (2) that of the parent drug underwent a negative change in trend of 4.18% annually [95% CI: 0.00%-8.36%]. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a more expensive me-too drug in the HDF led to increased consumption of this more expensive me-too drug both in- and out-of-hospital.