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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lung cancer risk and residential radon exposure: A pooling of case-control studies in northwestern Spain.

BACKGROUND: Through a pooled case-control study design, we have assessed the relationship between residential radon exposure and lung cancer risk. Other objectives of the study were to evaluate the different risk estimates for the non-small cell lung cancer histological types and to assess the effect modification of the radon exposure on lung cancer risk by tobacco consumption. METHODS: We collected individual data from various case-control studies performed in northwest Spain that investigated residential radon and lung cancer. Cases had a confirmed anatomopathological diagnosis of primary lung cancer and controls were selected because they were undergoing ambulatory evaluation or surgical procedures that were unrelated to tobacco use. Residential radon was measured using alpha track detectors. Results were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: 3704 participants were enrrolled, 1842 cases and 1862 controls. Data show that lung cancer risk increases with radon exposure, finding a significant association of radon exposure with lung cancer at radon exposures above 50 Bq/m3. The estimated adjusted OR for individuals exposed to concentrations >200 Bq/m3 was 2.06 (95% CI: 1.61-2.64) compared with those exposed to ≤50 Bq/m3. Within a smoking category, lung cancer risk increases markedly as radon concentration increases, reaching an OR of 29.3 (95% CI: 15.4-55.7) for heavy smokers exposed to more than 200 Bq/m.3 CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that residential radon exposure is a risk factor for lung cancer well below action levels established by international organizations. As expected, there is also an effect modification between radon exposure and tobacco consumption.

Effectiveness of an intervention to improve antibiotic-prescribing behaviour in primary care: a controlled, interrupted time-series study.

BACKGROUND: High rates of antibiotic misprescribing in primary care, with alarming clinical and economic consequences, highlight the urgent need for interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness on antibiotic prescribing quality indicators of a multifaceted intervention targeting health professionals' and patients' behaviour regarding antibiotic use. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial in the catchment area covered by Portugal's Central Regional Health Administration. The intervention consisted of a multidisciplinary, multifaceted programme involving physicians, pharmacists and patients, and comprising outreach visits for physicians and pharmacists, and educational materials for health professionals and patients. The following were assessed: relative ratios of prescription of penicillins sensitive to ß-lactamase, penicillin combinations including ß-lactamase inhibitors, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones; and the ratio of broad- to narrow-spectrum antibiotics. An interrupted time-series analysis for multiple-group comparisons was performed. The study protocol was registered on Clinical.trials.gov (NCT02173509). RESULTS: The participation rate in the educational intervention was 64% (197/309 GPs) in a total of 25 counties. Statistically significant improvements were obtained, not only in the relative prescription of penicillins sensitive to ß-lactamase (overall relative change of +896%) and penicillin combinations including ß-lactamase inhibitors (-161%), but also in the ratio of broad- to narrow-spectrum antibiotics (-200%). Statistically significant results were also obtained for third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, though only in the immediate term. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that quality indicators of antibiotic prescribing can be improved by tackling influences on behaviour including knowledge and attitudes surrounding physicians' clinical practice. Accordingly, these determinants must be considered when implementing interventions aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing.

Magnitude and determinants of antibiotic dispensing without prescription in Spain: a simulated patient study.

Objectives: Excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics increases antimicrobial resistance. The aim of this study was to determine the magnitude and determinants of antibiotic dispensing without prescription in Spain by the simulated patient technique. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with all the pharmacies in a region of north-west Spain (n = 977), between December 2016 and January 2017. Four actors visited the pharmacies simulating a respiratory infection. Four incremental levels of pressure were used to obtain an antibiotic. The education and sex of the person who was dispensing and the area where the pharmacy was located were recorded. The effect of these independent variables on the dispensing of an antibiotic without prescription (1 = yes, 0 = no) was modelled by logistic regression. Results: An antibiotic was obtained in 18.83% (95% CI = 16.5%-21.41%) of the visits. The area influenced the dispensing of antibiotics without a medical prescription, with a greater likelihood of dispensing in rural (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.20-2.68) or semi-rural (OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.13-2.44) areas than in urban areas. No association was found with the sex or the training of the person who dispensed the antibiotic. In the pharmacies in urban areas, a lower level of pressure was needed to obtain the antibiotic. Conclusions: This study shows that one-fifth of the pharmacies still dispense antibiotics without prescription, especially under patient pressure. A rural setting has been identified as a risk factor for dispensing without prescription, so it must be taken into account for future interventions.

Lung cancer and residential radon in never-smokers: A pooling study in the Northwest of Spain.

BACKGROUND: Using a pooled case-control study design, including only never-smokers, we have assessed the association of residential radon exposure with the subsequent occurrence of lung cancer. We also investigated whether residential radon poses a different risk specifically for adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We pooled individual data from different case-control studies conducted in recent years in Northwestern Spain which investigated residential radon and lung cancer. All participants were never-smokers. Cases had a confirmed biopsy of primary lung cancer. Hospital controls were selected at pre-surgery units, presenting for non-complex surgical procedures. They were interviewed using a standardized instrument. Residential radon was measured using alpha track detectors at the Galician Radon Laboratory at the University of Santiago de Compostela. RESULTS: A total of 1415 individuals, 523 cases and 892 controls were included. We observed an odds ratio of 1.73 (95%CI: 1.27-2.35) for individuals exposed to ≥ 200 Bq/m3 compared with those exposed to ≤100 Bq/m3. Lung cancer risk for adenocarcinoma was 1.52 (95%CI: 1.14-2.02) using the same categories for radon exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Residential radon is a clear risk factor for lung cancer in never-smokers. Our data suggest that radon exposure is associated with all histological types of lung cancer and also with adenocarcinoma, which is currently the most frequent histological type for this disease.

Trends in stroke outcomes in the last ten years in a European tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Studying the impact of demographic changes and progress in the management of stroke patients is necessary in order to organize care structures for the coming years. Consequently, we analyzed the prognostic trends of patients admitted to the Stroke Unit of a tertiary hospital in the last ten years. METHODS: The University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela is the referral hospital for stroke in a catchment area that accounts for 16.5% of the population of Galicia. Data from patients admitted to the Stroke Unit were registered prospectively. A multinomial logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of new trends in demographic factors and in the management of patients with acute stroke. For the expected trend of progression, a 2008-2011 and 2012-2017 time series model was made by selecting the most appropriate model. RESULTS: In the last 10 years, the age of stroke onset has only increased in women (from 74.4 ± 2.2 years in 2008 to 78.8 ± 2.1 years in 2017; p = 0.037), and the same happens with the severity of neurological symptoms (ischemic stroke (IS), p < 0.0001; from 14 [10, 19] in 2008 to 19 [15, 26] in 2017), with a higher percentage of cardioembolic strokes (40.7% vs. 32.2% of cardioembolic strokes in women vs. men, p < 0.0001). In a multiple linear regression model, hospital improvement was mainly associated with the use of reperfusion treatment (B 53.11, CI 95% 49.87, 56.36, p < 0.0001). A differentiated multinomial logistic regression analysis conducted for the whole sample with ischemic strokes in the two time periods (2008-2011 and 2012-2017) showed no differences in the influence of factors associated with higher morbidity and mortality. The modeling of time series showed a distinct falling trend in mortality, with a slight increase in good outcome as well as morbidity in both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that mortality decreased in the entire sample; however, although outcome at discharge improved in ischemic stroke, severe disability also increased in these patients. Importantly, this tendency towards increased morbidity seems to be confirmed for the coming years.

Development and validation of the knowledge and attitudes regarding antibiotics and resistance (KAAR-11) questionnaire for primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop a novel, self-administered questionnaire to identify primary-care physicians' knowledge and attitudes regarding antibiotics and resistance (KAAR). METHODS: The study population comprised primary care physicians. The study was conducted in five phases. Phase I consisted of a systematic review and qualitative focus-group study (n = 33 physicians), in which items were formulated so as to be measured on a continuous, visual analogue scale (VAS); in Phase II, content validation and face validity were evaluated by a panel of experts, which reformulated, added and deleted items; Phase III consisted of a pilot study on a population possessing similar characteristics (n = 15); in Phase IV, we analysed reliability by means of a test-retest study (n = 91) and calculated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs); and in Phase V, we assessed construct validity by applying the known-groups technique, measuring the differences between contrasting groups of physicians formed according to antibiotic prescription quality indicators (group 1, n = 156 versus group 2, n = 191). RESULTS: Following Phases I and II, the questionnaire contained 16 knowledge and attitude items. Participants in the pilot study (Phase III) reported no difficulty. The test-retest study (Phase IV) showed that 11 of the 16 initial knowledge and attitude items yielded an ICC > 0.5, while analysis of known-groups validity (Phase V) showed that 13 of the 16 initial items which assessed knowledge and attitudes discriminated between physicians with good and bad indicators of antibiotics prescription. CONCLUSION: The final 11 item KAAR questionnaire appears to be valid, reliable and responsive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.