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.

Population-based disease-group analysis of Spanish excess mortality in the early COVID-19 pandemic period.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Increased mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic is not explained exclusively by COVID-19 infection and its complications. We analysed non-COVID-19 causes of mortality in a population analysis based on data from the Spanish National Institute of Statistics. METHODS: Using monthly mortality data in Spain (January 2010-December 2020), we analysed deaths associated with cancer, blood, endocrine, mental, nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory and digestive diseases and explored the COVID-19 impact using a difference-in-difference strategy. We calculated monthly interannual variations in mortality and computed percentage change in terms of the log of deaths in month h of year t minus the log of deaths in month h in the previous year t-1. RESULTS: In 2020 in Spain, mortality increased 17.9% compared with 2019. COVID-19 was the leading cause of death (n=60 358), followed by ischaemic heart disease (n=29 654). Throughout 2020, monthly interannual variations in cardiovascular mortality showed an average upward trend of 1.7%, while digestive, cancer and blood diseases showed a downward trend. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain in 2020, excess mortality was primarily related to cardiovascular mortality while mortality associated with digestive, cancer and blood diseases was reduced.

Understanding Primary Care Physician Vaccination Behaviour: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy decreases adult vaccination coverage and has been recognized by WHO as a major health threat. Primary care physicians (PCP) play a key role in vaccination by giving vaccine counselling to their patients. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and barriers (KBAB) associated with own vaccination and patient recommendation in primary care physicians. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were used to search and identify relevant studies based on their title and abstract. In the next step, the full text of each previously selected article was read for eligibility. Articles were selected by two independent reviewers and data extraction was performed using tables. The following information was extracted: methodological characteristics, demographic factors, professional characteristics, and intrinsic or extrinsic factors influencing vaccination or recommendation. RESULTS: Our search yielded 41 eligible papers, data-sources, previous practices, belief in the effectiveness or safety of the vaccine, perceived risk, and trust in health authorities were all shown to be related to own vaccination and patient recommendation. CONCLUSION: Internet is the main source of information for PCP related to vaccine hesitancy. It is therefore essential to increase the presence and access to pro-vaccination content in this area. In addition, involving PCP in the establishment of vaccination recommendations could improve their credibility in the institutions. On the other hand, training in communication skills and establishing reminder systems could reflect higher vaccination coverage among their patients.