Statins Use in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases and COVID-19 Outcomes: An Italian Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The role of statins among patients with established cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) who are hospitalized with COVID-19 is still debated. This study aimed at assessing whether the prior use of statins was associated with a less severe COVID-19 prognosis. METHODS: Subjects with CVDs infected with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalized between 20 February 2020 and 31 December 2020 were selected. These were classified into two mutually exclusive groups: statins-users and non-users of lipid-lowering therapies (non-LLT users). The relationship between statins exposure and the risk of Mechanical Ventilation (MV), Intensive Care Unit (ICU) access and death were evaluated by using logistic and Cox regressions models. RESULTS: Of 1127 selected patients, 571 were statins-users whereas 556 were non-LLT users. The previous use of statins was not associated with a variation in the risk of need of MV (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.00; 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 0.38-2.67), ICU access (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.22-1.32) and mortality at 14 days (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.16-1.10). However, a decreased risk of mortality at 30 days (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.85) was observed in statins-users compared with non-LLT users. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the clinical advice for patients CVDs to continue their treatment with statins during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Azithromycin use and outcomes in patients with COVID-19: an observational real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies ruled out the benefits of azithromycin for treatment of patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized. However, the effects of azithromycin for treatment of patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results in the community remains a matter of debate. This study aimed to assess whether azithromycin, when used in subjects with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, is associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization, in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes, and death. METHODS: Two study cohorts were selected. Cohort A included subjects with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 between February 20, 2020 and December 10, 2020; cohort B included subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalized between February 20, 2020 and December 31, 2020. We compared the risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit access, need for mechanical ventilation, and death in azithromycin users versus nonusers. A clustered Fine-Gray analysis was employed to assess the risk of hospitalization; logistic and Cox regressions were performed to assess the risk of intensive care unit access, mechanical ventilation, and death. RESULTS: In cohort A, among 4861 azithromycin users and 4861 propensity-matched nonusers, azithromycin use was associated with higher risk of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-1.75) compared with nonuse. In cohort B, among 997 subjects selected in both groups, azithromycin use was not significantly associated with intensive care unit access (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% CI 0.93-1.56), mechanical ventilation (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.70), 14-day mortality (HR0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.05), or 30-day mortality (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03). CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the lack of benefits of azithromycin treatment among community patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, raising concern on potential risks associated with its inappropriate use.

Comparison of intravenous ketorolac with or without paracetamol in postoperative pain control following ambulatory surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, patient-blinded study was to compare efficacy and safety of oral paracetamol plus intra-venous (i.v.) ketorolac with i.v. ketorolac alone after ambulatory uterine evacuation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Women were randomly assigned to receive either oral paracetamol (1 g), in a melt-in-the mouth, without-water formulation plus ketorolac (30 mg i.v. once daily (o.d.)) or ketorolac (30 mg i.v. o.d.) as monotherapy. The mean duration of uterine evacuation was 11 minutes in the paracetamol + ketorolac group and 13 minutes in the ketorolac-only group. Paracetamol was administered 15 minutes before surgery, on discharge from hospital (mean 6 hours after surgery) and in the morning the day after surgery, while ketorolac was administered at the end of the surgical intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The numeric rating scale (NRS) was used by patients to rate their pain on an 11 point scale. RESULTS: Overall, 60 women received paracetamol plus ketorolac (group 1) and 60 ketorolac alone (group 2). There were significant differences in pain levels (NRS 0.92 and 2.08; p < 0.01) at T0 (when patients left the operating room 30 minutes after the end of surgery). At T1 (before discharge from hospital but before the next administration of paracetamol) there were no significant differences between NRS scores in the two groups (3.7 vs. 3.5, respectively, p = 0.3453). At T2 (in the morning after surgery; data collected by phone interview), following administration of the next dose of paracetamol, significant differences in pain scores were recorded (1.58 vs. 1.98; p = 0.01). Only a case of dizziness was reported in the paracetamol + ketorolac group, and no other unexpected adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSION: Despite the small sample size and the monocentric nature of the study being taken into account, this study suggests, for the first time to our knowledge, that oral paracetamol t.i.d. in combination with i.v. ketorolac o.d. is effective and well tolerated in the control of postoperative pain after ambulatory uterine evacuation.