Infection Rates and Impact of Glucose Lowering Medications on the Clinical Course of COVID-19 in People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Purpose: Diabetes is a risk factor for COVID-19 severity, but the role played by glucose lowering medications (GLM) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess infection rates and outcomes of COVID-19 (hospitalization and mortality) in adults with diabetes assisted by the Local Health Unit of Padua (North-East Italy) according to the ongoing GLM. Patients and Methods: People with diabetes were identified using administrative claims, while those with SARS-CoV-2 infection were detected by cross referencing with the local COVID-19 surveillance registry. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to verify the association between GLM classes and the outcome. Results: SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were marginally but significantly higher in individuals with diabetes as compared to those without diabetes (RR 1.04, p = 0.043), though such relative 4% increase may be irrelevant from a clinical and epidemiological perspective. 1923 individuals with GLM-treated diabetes were diagnosed with COVID-19; 456 patients were hospitalized and 167 died. Those treated with insulin had a significantly higher risk of hospitalizations for COVID-19 (OR 1.48 p < 0.01) as were those treated with sulphonylureas/glinides (OR 1.34, p = 0.02). Insulin use was also significantly associated with higher mortality (OR 1.90, p < 0.01). Use of metformin was significantly associated with lower death rates (OR 0.62, p = 0.02). The association of other GLM classes with the outcome was not significant. Conclusion: Diabetes does not appear to modify the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a clinically meaningful way, but strongly increases the rates of hospitalization and death. Insulin use was associated with worse outcomes, whereas metformin use was associated with lower mortality.

Difference in mortality after hip fracture is associated with postdischarge prescription of antithrombotic prophylaxis: a case-control study.

This study was undertaken to determine whether a prolongation of pharmaceutical antithrombotic prophylaxis beyond hospitalization for hip fracture is associated with a reduced mortality rate. One hundred seventy-nine cases with hip fracture (patients older than 50 years of age) admitted to local general hospitals in 1999 who received postdischarge prescription of any antithrombotic agent (heparin, oral anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs) and 179 age- and sex-matched patients with hip fracture who did not were included. Postdischarge mortality was assessed at 90 days. Compared with patients who did not receive postdischarge prescription of antithrombotic agents, those who did had an odds ratio of 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.08-0.59) for all causes of mortality. This result did not change after excluding nonvascular mortality (odds ratio, 0.17; confidence interval, 0.03-0.73; p=0.011). Patients admitted to the hospital for hip fracture are at high risk of death after discharge if they are not given antithrombotic treatment. To substantiate these data, ad hoc prospective randomized trials are needed.

Effect of implementation of a dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori eradication guideline in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Many international guidelines address appropriateness, prescribing variability and drug-related expenditure in primary dyspepsia management. AIMS: To evaluate the impact on general practitioner (GP) practice and healthcare costs of a participatory intervention to modify primary dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection management, by standardised implementation of an international guideline in the local setting, through a prospective, controlled before-and-after study. METHODS: Primary dyspepsia management was monitored in the Local Health District of Padua; 63 of all 354 local GPs (total patient population: 82,284) took part in a primary-care improvement programme. Measured variables were: mean prescribed gastroscopies/1,000 registered patients, mean expenditure/1,000 registered patients for antisecretories (H(2) blockers) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), inter-GP prescribing variability and adherence to guidelines, analysed through prospectively filled-out reports on GP consultations for dyspepsia. A 3-month pre-survey period was compared with a 6-month intervention period following implementation of an agreed guideline. RESULTS: Compared to non-participating GPs, intervention yielded a 30 and 26.4% reduction in H(2)-blocker and PPI expenditure, respectively. Application of the guideline led to an upward trend in endoscopy prescriptions, coupled with a 7% increase in appropriate referrals. Intra-group variability marginally decreased; guideline compliance rose slightly. CONCLUSIONS: Participatory intervention can reduce prescribing variability among GPs and inappropriate esophagogastroduodenoscopies, lowering related costs. Results may not have been spectacular, but in view of the number of patients involved, they may have an important impact on Local Health District expenditure.

Pautas para reducir el número de prescripciones inadecuadas en pacientes con dispepsia / Guidelines to cut the number of inappropriate prescriptions in dyspepsia patients

Se considera demostrado que diferentes métodos de implementación dan como resultado un mayor o menor grado de aceptación de las pautas en atención primaria. Este estudio analiza el efecto sobre los gastos estimados en medicamentos a partir de tres métodos distintos de implementar las mismas pautas, utilizados en tres grupos diferentes de médicos generalistas. La investigación estuvo basada en: un método de implementación negociado, de nueve meses de duración (con incentivos económicos para completar el programa) (proyecto A); una sesión de un día de entrenamiento basado en la evidencia llevada adelante por colegas en pequeños grupos de trabajo (proyecto B); una reunión de aplicación conducida por un experto (proyecto C). Para cada proyecto comparamos los gastos estimados mensuales en inhibidores de la bomba de protones (IBP) y antagonistas de los receptores de histamina (ARH2) por cada mil pacientes registrados de los médicos generalistas (MG) que participaron con los de un grupo de MG de control, antes y después de implementar las pautas. Los 58 MG involucrados en el proyecto A redujeron las prescripciones en IBP alrededor del 26% (4 564 euros vs. 6 201 euros para 222 controles, p = 0.057) y de ARH2 alrededor de 30% (954 vs. 1 365 euros; p = 0.026). Los 101 MG que participaron del proyecto B prescribieron 5 535 euros en IBP y 556 euros en bloqueantes H2, mientras que los 61 MG controles hiceron prescripciones por 5 732 y 706 euros, respectivamente (lo que significó un ahorro del 3% en IBP y 21% en ARH2; p = ns). Los 15 MG que estuvieron en el proyecto C prescribieron 2 479 euros en IBP y 1 258 euros en ARH2, lo que implica un gasto 12% superior en IBP y una reducción del 17% en ARH2 cuando se los compara con los 2 215 euros empleados en IBP y 1 524 euros en bloqueantes H2 por los 270 MG del grupo control (p = ns)...

Pautas para reducir el número de prescripciones inadecuadas en pacientes con dispepsia / Guidelines to cut the number of inappropriate prescriptions in dyspepsia patients

Se considera demostrado que diferentes métodos de implementación dan como resultado un mayor o menor grado de aceptación de las pautas en atención primaria. Este estudio analiza el efecto sobre los gastos estimados en medicamentos a partir de tres métodos distintos de implementar las mismas pautas, utilizados en tres grupos diferentes de médicos generalistas. La investigación estuvo basada en: un método de implementación negociado, de nueve meses de duración (con incentivos económicos para completar el programa) (proyecto A); una sesión de un día de entrenamiento basado en la evidencia llevada adelante por colegas en pequeños grupos de trabajo (proyecto B); una reunión de aplicación conducida por un experto (proyecto C). Para cada proyecto comparamos los gastos estimados mensuales en inhibidores de la bomba de protones (IBP) y antagonistas de los receptores de histamina (ARH2) por cada mil pacientes registrados de los médicos generalistas (MG) que participaron con los de un grupo de MG de control, antes y después de implementar las pautas. Los 58 MG involucrados en el proyecto A redujeron las prescripciones en IBP alrededor del 26% (4 564 euros vs. 6 201 euros para 222 controles, p = 0.057) y de ARH2 alrededor de 30% (954 vs. 1 365 euros; p = 0.026). Los 101 MG que participaron del proyecto B prescribieron 5 535 euros en IBP y 556 euros en bloqueantes H2, mientras que los 61 MG controles hiceron prescripciones por 5 732 y 706 euros, respectivamente (lo que significó un ahorro del 3% en IBP y 21% en ARH2; p = ns). Los 15 MG que estuvieron en el proyecto C prescribieron 2 479 euros en IBP y 1 258 euros en ARH2, lo que implica un gasto 12% superior en IBP y una reducción del 17% en ARH2 cuando se los compara con los 2 215 euros empleados en IBP y 1 524 euros en bloqueantes H2 por los 270 MG del grupo control (p = ns)...(AU)