Remdesivir in Very Old Patients (≥80 Years) Hospitalized with COVID-19: Real World Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

(1) Background: Large cohort studies of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir have reported improved clinical outcomes, but data on older patients are scarce. Objective: This work aims to assess the potential benefit of remdesivir in unvaccinated very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (2) Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized in Spain between 15 July and 31 December 2020 (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Differences in 30-day all-cause mortality were adjusted using a multivariable regression analysis. (3) Results: Of the 4331 patients admitted, 1312 (30.3%) were ≥80 years. Very old patients treated with remdesivir (n: 140, 10.7%) had a lower mortality rate than those not treated with remdesivir (OR (95% CI): 0.45 (0.29−0.69)). After multivariable adjustment by age, sex, and variables associated with lower mortality (place of COVID-19 acquisition; degree of dependence; comorbidities; dementia; duration of symptoms; admission qSOFA; chest X-ray; D-dimer; and treatment with corticosteroids, tocilizumab, beta-lactams, macrolides, and high-flow nasal canula oxygen), the use of remdesivir remained associated with a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate (adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.40 (0.22−0.61) (p < 0.001)). (4) Conclusions: Remdesivir may reduce mortality in very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Inadequate use of antibiotics in the covid-19 era: effectiveness of antibiotic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the concept of medicine. This work aims to analyze the use of antibiotics in patients admitted to the hospital due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This work analyzes the use and effectiveness of antibiotics in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on data from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry, an initiative to generate knowledge about this disease using data from electronic medical records. Our primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to antibiotic use. The secondary endpoint was the effect of macrolides on mortality. RESULTS: Of 13,932 patients, antibiotics were used in 12,238. The overall death rate was 20.7% and higher among those taking antibiotics (87.8%). Higher mortality was observed with use of all antibiotics (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.62; p < .001) except macrolides, which had a higher survival rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64-0.76; p < .001). The decision to start antibiotics was influenced by presence of increased inflammatory markers and any kind of infiltrate on an x-ray. Patients receiving antibiotics required respiratory support and were transferred to intensive care units more often. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial co-infection was uncommon among COVID-19 patients, yet use of antibiotics was high. There is insufficient evidence to support widespread use of empiric antibiotics in these patients. Most may not require empiric treatment and if they do, there is promising evidence regarding azithromycin as a potential COVID-19 treatment.

Inappropriate antibiotic use in the COVID-19 era: Factors associated with inappropriate prescribing and secondary complications. Analysis of the registry SEMI-COVID.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics despite the fact that bacterial co-infections are rare. This can lead to increased complications, including antibacterial resistance. We aim to analyze risk factors for inappropriate antibiotic prescription in these patients and describe possible complications arising from their use. METHODS: The SEMI-COVID-19 Registry is a multicenter, retrospective patient cohort. Patients with antibiotic were divided into two groups according to appropriate or inappropriate prescription, depending on whether the patient fulfill any criteria for its use. Comparison was made by means of multilevel logistic regression analysis. Possible complications of antibiotic use were also identified. RESULTS: Out of 13,932 patients, 3047 (21.6%) were prescribed no antibiotics, 6116 (43.9%) were appropriately prescribed antibiotics, and 4769 (34.2%) were inappropriately prescribed antibiotics. The following were independent factors of inappropriate prescription: February-March 2020 admission (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.18-2.00), age (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-0.99), absence of comorbidity (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.05-1.94), dry cough (OR 2.51, 95%CI 1.94-3.26), fever (OR 1.33, 95%CI 1.13-1.56), dyspnea (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.69), flu-like symptoms (OR 2.70, 95%CI 1.75-4.17), and elevated C-reactive protein levels (OR 1.01 for each mg/L increase, 95% CI 1.00-1.01). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients who received ANTIBIOTIC (4.9% vs 2.7%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The inappropriate use of antibiotics was very frequent in COVID-19 patients and entailed an increased risk of adverse reactions. It is crucial to define criteria for their use in these patients. Knowledge of the factors associated with inappropriate prescribing can be helpful.

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. KEY RESULTS: We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. CONCLUSIONS: PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.

Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of COPD Patients Hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2.

Objective: To describe the characteristics and prognosis of patients with COPD admitted to the hospital due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: The SEMI-COVID registry is an ongoing retrospective cohort comprising consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Spain since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory tests, radiology, treatment, and progress are collected. Patients with COPD were selected and compared to patients without COPD. Factors associated with a poor prognosis were analyzed. Results: Of the 10,420 patients included in the SEMI-COVID registry as of May 21, 2020, 746 (7.16%) had a diagnosis of COPD. Patients with COPD are older than those without COPD (77 years vs 68 years) and more frequently male. They have more comorbidities (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, kidney failure) and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (2 vs 1, p<0.001). The mortality rate in COPD patients was 38.3% compared to 19.2% in patients without COPD (p<0.001). Male sex, a history of hypertension, heart failure, moderate-severe chronic kidney disease, presence of cerebrovascular disease with sequelae, degenerative neurological disease, dementia, functional dependence, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index have been associated with increased mortality due to COVID-19 in COPD patients. Survival was higher among patients with COPD who were treated with hydroxychloroquine (87.1% vs 74.9%, p<0.001) and with macrolides (57.9% vs 50%, p<0.037). Neither prone positioning nor non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, or invasive mechanical ventilation were associated with a better prognosis. Conclusion: COPD patients admitted to the hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection have more severe disease and a worse prognosis than non-COPD patients.

[Errors of prescription, transcription and administration according to pharmacological group at hospital]. / Errores de prescripción, trascripción y administración según grupo farmacológico en el ámbito hospitalario.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies of medication errors are focused only on finding global prevalence by patients, by phases or according to a certain group of medication. It's just a partial view of the problem. To analyze and compare the prevalence of errors in prescription, transcription and administration, and their clinical repercussions in different pharmacological groups in a third-level hospital. METHODS: Prospective inclusion study with direct observation disguised as medication administration and comparison with prescriptions and transcriptions at history clinical. The ME and its clinical effects were classified by expert consensus. We calculated the different error rates and their repercussions with their confidence intervals at 95%. Then we compared using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: We studied 5,578 prescribed drugs and we observed the administration of 1,879 doses. A total of 117 different pharmacological groups were found, although 50.1% of the prescriptions belonged to only 9 types. We found heparins had a lower prevalence of errors in prescription and transcription and aspirin also had a lower prevalence of prescription errors. On the opposite side, a greater number of errors were obtained in transcription of Paracetamol, Metamizole and Laxatives and a prevalence of errors in the administration phase superior to rest in Paracetamol and in Proton Pump Inhibitors. The impact of medication error increased as medication process progressed, being similar between groups in prescription. In transcription, Heparins and Corticosteroids presented more serious errors. In administration, medication error are more serious for Diuretics and Statins (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Drugs considered potentially dangerous present fewer errors (Heparins, Corticoids), but more serious. Drugs with the highest prevalence of errors were Paracetamol and Inhibitors of proton pump but had a lower impact.

OBJETIVO: La mayoría de los estudios sobre errores de medicación se centran sólo en hallar prevalencias globales por pacientes, por fases del proceso o según un determinado grupo de fármacos, por lo que se da una visión parcial. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar y comparar la prevalencia de errores en prescripción, trascripción y administración y sus repercusiones clínicas en los principales grupos farmacológicos en un hospital de tercer nivel. METODOS: Estudio de inclusión prospectiva con observación directa disfrazada de la administración de medicamentos y comparación con prescripciones médicas y trascripciones presentes en la historia clínica. Los errores de medicación y sus efectos fueron clasificados por consenso de expertos. Se calcularon las diferentes tasas de errores y sus repercusiones con sus intervalos de confianza al 95% y se compararon utilizando la prueba de Chi cuadrado. RESULTADOS: Se estudiaron 5578 fármacos prescritos, aunque se observó sólo la administración de 1879 dosis. Se encontraron un total de 117 grupos farmacológicos, donde el 50,1% (2795) de las prescripciones pertenecían sólo a 9 tipos. La prevalencia de errores de prescripción global fue de 4,79%, de trascripción de 14,61% y de administración 9,32%. Por grupos, las Heparinas tuvieron una menor prevalencia de errores en la fase de prescripción y en la de trascripción. Se obtuvo mayor número de errores en trascripción de los Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y el Metamizol y de los Laxantes, y una prevalencia de errores en administración superior al resto en Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y en los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones. Las repercusiones clínicas de los errores de medicación en la fase de prescripción fueron parecidas entre grupos farmacológicos. En trascripción Heparinas y Corticoides presentaron errores más graves, mientras que en la administración fueron los IECAS y las Estatinas (p<0,05). CONCLUSIONES: Los fármacos considerados clásicamente como de alto riesgo presentaron menos errores (Heparinas, Corticoides), pero más graves. Los fármacos con mayor prevalencia de errores fueron los Analgésicos (Paracetamol) y los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones, pero tuvieron una menor repercusión clínica.

Errores de prescripción, trascripción y administración según grupo farmacológico en el ámbito hospitalario / Errors of prescription, transcription and administration according to pharmacological group at hospital

OBJETIVO: La mayoría de los estudios sobre errores de medicación se centran sólo en hallar prevalencias globales por pacientes, por fases del proceso o según un determinado grupo de fármacos, por lo que se da una visión parcial. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar y comparar la prevalencia de errores en prescripción, trascripción y administración y sus repercusiones clínicas en los principales grupos farmacológicos en un hospital de tercer nivel. MÉTODOS: Estudio de inclusión prospectiva con observación directa disfrazada de la administración de medicamentos y comparación con prescripciones médicas y trascripciones presentes en la historia clínica. Los errores de medicación y sus efectos fueron clasificados por consenso de expertos. Se calcularon las diferentes tasas de errores y sus repercusiones con sus intervalos de confianza al 95% y se compararon utilizando la prueba de Chi cuadrado. RESULTADOS: Se estudiaron 5578 fármacos prescritos, aunque se observó sólo la administración de 1879 dosis. Se encontraron un total de 117 grupos farmacológicos, donde el 50,1% (2795) de las prescripciones pertenecían sólo a 9 tipos. La prevalencia de errores de prescripción global fue de 4,79%, de trascripción de 14,61% y de administración 9,32%. Por grupos, las Heparinas tuvieron una menor prevalencia de errores en la fase de prescripción y en la de trascripción. Se obtuvo mayor número de errores en trascripción de los Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y el Metamizol y de los Laxantes, y una prevalencia de errores en administración superior al resto en Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y en los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones. Las repercusiones clínicas de los errores de medicación en la fase de prescripción fueron parecidas entre grupos farmacológicos. En trascripción Heparinas y Corticoides presentaron errores más graves, mientras que en la administración fueron los IECAS y las Estatinas (p<0,05). CONCLUSIONES: Los fármacos considerados clásicamente como de alto riesgo presentaron menos errores (Heparinas, Corticoides), pero más graves. Los fármacos con mayor prevalencia de errores fueron los Analgésicos (Paracetamol) y los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones, pero tuvieron una menor repercusión clínica

OBJECTIVE: Most studies of medication errors are focused only on finding global prevalence by patients, by phases or according to a certain group of medication. It's just a partial view of the problem. To analyze and compare the prevalence of errors in prescription, transcription and administration, and their clinical repercussions in different pharmacological groups in a third-level hospital. METHODS: Prospective inclusion study with direct observation disguised as medication administration and comparison with prescriptions and transcriptions at history clinical. The ME and its clinical effects were classified by expert consensus. We calculated the different error rates and their repercussions with their confidence intervals at 95%. Then we compared using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: We studied 5,578 prescribed drugs and we observed the administration of 1,879 doses. A total of 117 different pharmacological groups were found, although 50.1% of the prescriptions belonged to only 9 types. We found heparins had a lower prevalence of errors in prescription and transcription and aspirin also had a lower prevalence of prescription errors. On the opposite side, a greater number of errors were obtained in transcription of Paracetamol, Metamizole and Laxatives and a prevalence of errors in the administration phase superior to rest in Paracetamol and in Proton Pump Inhibitors. The impact of medication error increased as medication process progressed, being similar between groups in prescription. In transcription, Heparins and Corticosteroids presented more serious errors. In administration, medication error are more serious for Diuretics and Statins (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Drugs considered potentially dangerous present fewer errors (Heparins, Corticoids), but more serious. Drugs with the highest prevalence of errors were Paracetamol and Inhibitors of proton pump but had a lower impact

Acyclovir and hyponatremia: a case report.

A 61-year-old man attended the emergency department with decreased level of consciousness, repetitive language, and memory loss. Clinical history included type II diabetes and hypertension. Domiciliary treatment included oral metformin 850 mg every 24 hours and oral indapamide 2.5 mg every 24 hours. Laboratory tests disclosed high glycemia (198 mg/dL), increased C-reactive protein (7.4 mg/dL), and normal renal function. Intravenous acyclovir of 800 mg every 8 hours was started on admission due to suspicion of viral encephalitis. Blood analysis on 10th day displayed hyponatremia (123 mmol/L) that was at first explained by the high water intake in the 3 preceding days; therefore, water restriction was decided. Nuclear magnetic resonance on day 14 identified an ictus and treatment with acyclovir was withdrawn. Three days after the withdrawal, plasmatic sodium levels began to increase (128 mmol/L) and returned to normal after 6 days (133 mmol/L). Although hyponatremia is not mentioned in the acyclovir summary of product characteristics, 2 reports in literature suggest that this drug could be a causative agent of hyponatremia. We believe that there is a relationship between acyclovir and hyponatremia. Application of the Karch and Lasagna algorithm to assess the causality of the reaction induced by acyclovir revealed the relationship to be possible.

Comparison of medication error rates and clinical effects in three medication prescription-dispensation systems.

PURPOSE: Medication errors (MEs) are important in terms of their magnitude and severity, and there are numerous systems in place to reduce their occurrence. However, the ideal system has not yet been identified. The authors' institution uses three different medication prescription-dispensation systems which operate simultaneously. ME rates were compared, overall and by phase (prescription, transcription and administration) and their overall and specific clinical impact. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The administration of medicinal products was observed directly and compared with medical and nursing prescriptions. Errors and adverse events were classified by a consensus of experts. FINDINGS: In the traditional system the error prevalence rate was 13.59 per cent, (99 per cent CI, 12.15-14.61 per cent), in the single dose system it was 6.43 per cent (99 per cent CI, 5.53-7.32) and in the electronic prescription system it was 8.86 per cent (99 per cent CI, 7.33-10.17). The highest error rates in all phases were found in the traditional system. The phase affected by most errors in all three models was transcription, and the least affected was administration, except for the single dose system, in which prescription was the worst. The effects of errors in the administration phase are greater, although less so than with the automated system. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The dispensation phase was not analyzed. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A study of errors will enable us to reduce their occurrence if we know the most frequent types and in which phase they are produced, we will be able to prioritise the areas in which to work and select the necessary preventive measures. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: It is possible that automated medication dispensation systems reduce error rates and the severity of their effects.

Medication error prevalence.

PURPOSE: Healthcare risk epidemiology identifies medication error as the commonest cause of adverse effects on patients. Medication error can occur at any phase of the complex medication process so prevalence rates need to be estimated at each drug treatment phase: prescription, transcription and administration along with their clinical repercussions. This paper aims to investigate this issue. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Medication errors were recorded on an ad hoc sheet and staff were observed handling medications. Recorded errors were later classified and their clinical repercussions determined by experts. FINDINGS: In total 757 inpatients and 5466 drug prescriptions were studied. The prescription error rate was 4.79 percent (95 percent CI 4.21-5.36). The most frequent error in this phase was failing to observe international prescribing standards. The highest error rate was found in transcription (14.61 percent, 95 percent CI 13.67-15.54). Almost 1900 dose administrations were observed. There was a 9.32 percent error rate (95 percent CI 7.98-10.67). The commonest error in this phase was omission. Most were transcription errors, which were detected before harm wasdone. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The dispensation phase is absent. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Errors can be reduced if they are understood. Education and training based on the study's findings can reduce medication errors. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper highlights ways to reduce errors in the medication process.

[Medical-surgical emergency department]. / Departamento de urgencias médico-quirúrgicas.

We describe and analyze the response of the emergency department (ED) to the events of 11 March, 2004. The ED played a major role in the care of victims who survived the initial explosions. Of the 976 victims transferred to hospital that day, 325 (32%) were attended in the ED of the Gregorio Maranon University Hospital. Nine percent were critically ill and only 5 died. The first step was to evaluate and transfer the 123 patients who were already in the ED when the explosions took place, thus freeing the emergency area. Victim triage was organized in three stages: external triage, triage in the ED, and a third triage in the critical care unit. The emergency areas were reclassified into resuscitation, major trauma and minor trauma. There were no staff shortages as personnel spontaneously volunteered. Finally, the main factors related to the success of the interventions, as well as the deficiencies found, are discussed.

Departamento de Urgencias Médico-Quirúrgicas / Medical-Surgical Emergency Department

Describimos y analizamos la respuesta del Departamento de Urgencias a los acontecimientos del 11 de marzo de 2004. Dicho departamento desempeñó un papel fundamental en la asistencia a las víctimas que sobrevivieron a las explosiones iniciales. De las 976 víctimas trasladadas a los hospitales ese día, en el Departamento de Urgencias del Hospital Gregrorio Marañón se atendió a 325 (32%). El 9% eran pacientes críticos y sólo 5 fallecieron. La primera acción fue evaluar y reubicar a los 123 pacientes ordinarios que permanecían en el Departamento de Urgencias al inicio de las explosiones y así liberar el área de urgencias. El triage de las víctimas se organizó a 3 niveles: uno externo y otro interno en urgencias, y un tercer triage posterior en las Unidades de Cuidados Críticos. Las áreas de urgencias se reclasificaron en resucitación, traumatismo mayor y traumatismo menor. La espontaneidad y el voluntarismo de los trabajadores hicieron que no faltara personal. Finalmente, se discuten los principales factores relacionados con el éxito en la asistencia, así como las debilidades y fallos encontrados (AU)

We describe and analyze the response of the emergency department (ED) to the events of 11 March, 2004. The ED played a major role in the care of victims who survived the initial explosions. Of the 976 victims transferred to hospital that day, 325 (32%) were attended in the ED of the Gregorio Marañón University Hospital. Nine percent were critically ill and only 5 died. The first step was to evaluate and transfer the 123 patients who were already in the ED when the explosions took place, thus freeing the emergency area. Victim triage was organized in three stages: external triage, triage in the ED, and a third triage in the critical care unit. The emergency areas were reclassified into resuscitation, major trauma and minor trauma. There were no staff shortages as personnel spontaneously volunteered. Finally, the main factors related to the success of the interventions, as well as the deficiencies found, are discussed (AU)