Background In the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hypothesis that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) increased the risk and/or severity of the disease was widely spread. Consequently, in many hospitals, these drugs were discontinued as a “precautionary measure”. We aimed to assess whether the in-hospital discontinuation of ARBs or ACEIs, in real-life conditions, was associated with a reduced risk of death as compared to their continuation and also to compare head-to-head the continuation of ARBs with the continuation of ACEIs. Methods Adult patients with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 requiring admission during March 2020 were consecutively selected from 7 hospitals in Madrid, Spain. Among them, we identified outpatient users of ACEIs/ARBs and divided them in two cohorts depending on treatment discontinuation/continuation at admission. Then, they were followed-up until discharge or in-hospital death. An intention-to-treat survival analysis was carried out and hazard ratios (HRs), and their 95%CIs were computed through a Cox regression model adjusted for propensity scores of discontinuation and controlled by potential mediators. Results Out of 625 ACEI/ARB users, 340 (54.4%) discontinued treatment. The in-hospital mortality rates were 27.6% and 27.7% in discontinuation and continuation cohorts, respectively (HR=1.01; 95%CI 0.70–1.46). No difference in mortality was observed between ARB and ACEI discontinuation (28.6% vs. 27.1%, respectively), while a significantly lower mortality rate was found among patients who continued with ARBs (20.8%, N=125) as compared to those who continued with ACEIs (33.1%, N=136; p=0.03). The head-to-head comparison (ARB vs. ACEI continuation) yielded an adjusted HR of 0.52 (95%CI 0.29–0.93), being especially notorious among males (HR=0.34; 95%CI 0.12–0.93), subjects older than 74 years (HR=0.46; 95%CI 0.25–0.85), and patients with obesity (HR=0.22; 95%CI 0.05–0.94), diabetes (HR=0.36; 95%CI 0.13–0.97), and heart failure (HR=0.12; 95%CI 0.03–0.97). Conclusions The discontinuation of ACEIs/ARBs at admission did not improve the in-hospital survival. On the contrary, the continuation with ARBs was associated with a trend to a reduced mortality as compared to their discontinuation and to a significantly lower mortality risk as compared to the continuation with ACEIs, particularly in high-risk patients.

No abstract

No abstract

The clinical information stored in registries and records of different types is a fundamental tool for biomedical research. Up until just a few years ago, hardly any limitations existed on the creation and use of epidemiological registries or the use of information from pre-existing records for research purposes. This situation has changed substantially due mainly to the growing importance current laws place upon the safeguarding of the privacy and confidentiality of personal data. Although the legal framework is already quite explicit, a certain degree of leeway exists for ethical debate and prudence advice for the purpose of conducting valid, useful research with this information which will also respect the rights of the subjects and the laws in force. These guidelines deal with those aspects which have been considered relevant from an ethical standpoint in the handling of records and registries for research-related purposes, including not only the use but also the creation proper of the registries. A total of twenty-four recommendations are provided, grouped into ten sections: warranting of the creation of registry, organization and definition of responsibilities, scientific validity of the research project, ethical requirements of the collections of anonymous and anonymized data, ethical requirements of the registries including personal data, uses of medical records for research purposes, use of historical records of deceased individuals, contact with the research subjects, notification of results and review by a Research Ethics Committee.

No abstract

If BIFAP were viable, a standardised procedure for its use and protocols to support it as a research tool would be put in place.

The Committee on Ethics of the Instituto de Investigación de Enfermedades Raras (CEIIER) of the Spanish National Institute of Health Carlos III, presents this article dealing with ethical guidelines regarding the implementation of screening population programmes with special emphasis on genetic screening. After a critical review it has been addressed 24 recommendations concerning 14 topics: evaluation of the opportunity of the programme, including ethical analysis besides scientific evidences and cost/benefits issues; the need to differentiate between research and public health intervention and to built a specific and comprehensive programme; the creation of an interdisciplinary working group which control its implementation and prepare a protocol including justification, development, therapeutic or preventive actions and follow-up activities; the review of the programme by an independent Ethical committee; the guarantee of the voluntary, universal and equitable population access, which requires sufficient information on the programme and their specific relevant facts, as incidental detection of heterozygous state in minors in newborn screening and the relevance of non directive genetic counselling specially in prenatal screening offered to pregnant women; considerations regarding future uses of samples for research purposes; total quality and periodic programme evaluation; guarantee of personal data confidentiality and the conflict of interest statement of the members of all the Committees involved in the programme.

Background: Multiple studies have reported that the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke; however, this finding may be the result of a confounding by indication. We examined the association using different approaches to minimize such potential bias. Methods: A nested case-control study was carried out in a Spanish primary health-care database over the study period 2001 to 2015. Cases were patients sustaining an ischemic stroke with no sign of cardioembolic or unusual cause. For each case, up to 5 matched controls (for exact age, sex, and index date) were randomly selected. Antidepressants were divided in 6 pharmacological subgroups according to their mechanism of action. The current use of SSRIs (use within a 30-day window before index date) was compared with nonuse, past use (beyond 365 days) and current use of other antidepressants through a conditional logistic regression model to obtain adjusted odds ratios and 95% CI. Only initiators of SSRIs and other antidepressants were considered. Results: A total of 8296 cases and 37 272 matched controls were included. Of them, 255 (3.07%) were current users of SSRIs among cases and 834 (2.24%) among controls, yielding an adjusted odds ratio of 1.14 (95% CI, 0.97–1.34) as compared with nonusers, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77–1.13) as compared with past-users and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58–0.93) as compared with current users of other antidepressants. No relevant differences were found by duration (≤1, >1 year), sex, age (<70, ≥70 years old) and background vascular risk. Conclusions: The use of SSRIs was not associated with an increased risk of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke. On the contrary, as compared with other antidepressants, SSRIs appeared to be protective.