Identifying biomarkers of treatment response to ciclosporin in atopic dermatitis through multiomic predictive modelling: DERMATOMICS study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need to optimise the management of atopic dermatitis (AD), improving the efficacy of treatments and reducing the toxicity associated with them. Although the efficacy of ciclosporine (CsA) in the treatment of AD has been thoroughly documented in the literature, the optimal dose has not been yet established. The use of multiomic predictive models of treatment response could optimise CsA therapy in AD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a low-intervention phase 4 trial to optimise the treatment of patients with moderate-severe AD requiring systemic treatment. The primary objectives are to identify biomarkers that could allow for the selection of responders and non-responders to first-line treatment with CsA and to develop a response prediction model to optimise the CsA dose and treatment regimen in responding patients based on these biomarkers. The study is divided into two cohorts: the first comprised of patients starting treatment with CsA (cohort 1), and the second, of patients already receiving or who have received CsA therapy (cohort 2). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study activities began following authorisation by the Spanish Regulatory Agency (AEMPS) and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of La Paz University Hospital approval. Trial results will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed medical speciality-specific publication.Trial registration of this study can be located at the EU Clinical Trials Register, available from https://euclinicaltrials.eu/search-for-clinical-trials/?lang=en. Our clinical trial was registered in the website before the enrolment of the first patient complying with European regulations. EU Clinical Trials Register is a primary registry according the WHO. Once our trial was included in a primary and official registry, in order to extend the accessibility to our research, we also registered it retrospectively in clinicaltrials.gov; however, this is not mandatory as per our regulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05692843.

Acute Poisoning Readmissions to an Emergency Department of a Tertiary Hospital: Evaluation through an Active Toxicovigilance Program.

The aim of this study is to investigate hospital readmissions during 1 year after acute poisoning cases (APC), analyze the temporal behavior of early readmissions (ER) (in the month after the index episode) and predict possible ER. A descriptive analysis of the patients with APC assisted between 2011 and 2016 in the Emergency Department of Hospital La Paz is presented, and various methods of inferential statistics were applied and confirmed by Bayesian analysis in order to evaluate factors associated with total and early readmissions. Out of the 4693 cases of APC included, 968 (20.6%) presented, at least one readmission and 476 (10.1%) of them were ER. The mean age of APC with readmission was 41 years (12.7 SD), 78.9% had previous psychiatric pathology and 44.7% had a clinical history of alcohol addiction. Accidental poisoning has been a protective factor for readmission (OR 0.50; 0.26-0.96). Type of toxin ("drug of abuse" OR 8.88; 1.17-67.25), history of addiction (OR 1.93; 1.18-3.10) and psychiatric history (OR 3.30; 2.53-4.30) are risk factors for readmissions during the first year. Women showed three or more readmissions in a year. The results of the study allow for identification of the predictors for the different numbers of readmissions in the year after the index APC, as well as for ERs.

Melatonin in the Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers (MeCOVID): A Randomised Clinical Trial.

We evaluated in this randomised, double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Healthcare workers fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in five hospitals in Spain and were randomised 1:1 to receive melatonin 2 mg administered orally for 12 weeks or placebo. The main outcome was the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 344 volunteers were screened, and 314 were randomised: 151 to placebo and 163 to melatonin; 308 received the study treatment (148 placebo; 160 melatonin). We detected 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2.6% in the placebo arm and 5.5% in the melatonin arm (p = 0.200). A total of 294 adverse events were detected in 127 participants (139 in placebo; 155 in melatonin). We found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events related to treatment: 43 in the placebo arm and 67 in the melatonin arm (p = 0.040), and in the number of participants suffering from somnolence related to treatment: 8.8% (n = 14) in the melatonin versus 1.4% (n = 2) in the placebo arm (p = 0.008). No severe adverse events related to treatment were reported. We cannot confirm our hypothesis that administration of melatonin prevents the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

A Case-Control of Patients with COVID-19 to Explore the Association of Previous Hospitalisation Use of Medication on the Mortality of COVID-19 Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Data from several cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest that the most common comorbidities for severe COVID-19 disease are the elderly, high blood pressure, and diabetes; however, it is not currently known whether the previous use of certain drugs help or hinder recovery. This study aims to explore the association of previous hospitalisation use of medication on the mortality of COVID-19 disease. A retrospective case-control from two hospitals in Madrid, Spain, included all patients aged 18 years or above hospitalised with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A Propensity Score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Confounding variables were considered to be age, sex, and the number of comorbidities. Finally, 3712 patients were included. Of these, 687 (18.5%) patients died (cases). The 22,446 medicine trademarks used previous to admission were classified according to the ATC, obtaining 689 final drugs; all of them were included in PSM analysis. Eleven drugs displayed a reduction in mortality: azithromycin, bemiparine, budesonide-formoterol fumarate, cefuroxime, colchicine, enoxaparin, ipratropium bromide, loratadine, mepyramine theophylline acetate, oral rehydration salts, and salbutamol sulphate. Eight final drugs displayed an increase in mortality: acetylsalicylic acid, digoxin, folic acid, mirtazapine, linagliptin, enalapril, atorvastatin, and allopurinol. Medication associated with survival (anticoagulants, antihistamines, azithromycin, bronchodilators, cefuroxime, colchicine, and inhaled corticosteroids) may be candidates for future clinical trials. Drugs associated with mortality show an interaction with the underlying conditions.

Health Care Workers' Reasons for Choosing Between Two Different COVID-19 Prophylaxis Trials in an Acute Pandemic Context: Single-Center Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.