Background Concerns have been raised about the possibility that inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) could predispose individuals to severe COVID-19; however, epidemiological evidence is lacking. We report the results of a case-population study done in Madrid, Spain, since the outbreak of COVID-19.Methods In this case-population study, we consecutively selected patients aged 18 years or older with a PCRconfirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital from seven hospitals in Madrid, who had been admitted between March 1 and March 24, 2020. As a reference group, we randomly sampled ten patients per case, individually matched for age, sex, region (ie, Madrid), and date of admission to hospital (month and day; index date), from Base de datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP), a Spanish primary health-care database, in its last available year (2018). We extracted information on comorbidities and prescriptions up to the month before index date (ie, current use) from electronic clinical records of both cases and controls. The outcome of interest was admission to hospital of patients with COVID-19. To minimise confounding by indication, the main analysis focused on assessing the association between COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital and use of RAAS inhibitors compared with use of other antihypertensive drugs. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, adjusted for age, sex, and cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors, using conditional logistic regression. The protocol of the study was registered in the EU electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies, EUPAS34437.Findings We collected data for 1139 cases and 11 390 population controls. Among cases, 444 (39•0%) were female and the mean age was 69•1 years (SD 15•4), and despite being matched on sex and age, a significantly higher proportion of cases had pre-existing cardiovascular disease (OR 1•98, 95% CI 1•62-2•41) and risk factors (1•46, 1•23-1•73) than did controls. Compared with users of other antihypertensive drugs, users of RAAS inhibitors had an adjusted OR for COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital of 0•94 (95% CI 0•77-1•15). No increased risk was observed with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (adjusted OR 0•80, 0•64-1•00) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (1•10, 0•88-1•37). Sex, age, and background cardiovascular risk did not modify the adjusted OR between use of RAAS inhibitors and COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital, whereas a decreased risk of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital was found among patients with diabetes who were users of RAAS inhibitors (adjusted OR 0•53, 95% CI 0•34-0•80). The adjusted ORs were similar across severity degrees of COVID-19.Interpretation RAAS inhibitors do not increase the risk of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital, including fatal cases and those admitted to intensive care units, and should not be discontinued to prevent a severe case of COVID-19.Funding Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Background: Evidence to support the use of steroids in COVID-19 pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 pneumonia in-hospital mortality. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a University hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, adjusting by a propensity-score for steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using log-rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared, and adjusted with a second propensity score. Results: During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. Median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (IQR 8-13). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67], HR 0.51 [0.27-0.96], p= 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0,42 [0.048- 0.65). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86], OR 0.880 [0.449-1.726], p=0.710). Conclusions: Our results show that survival of patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. In-hospital mortality was not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.

Patients should undergo a baseline ECG assessment before starting AP medication treatment, particularly patients with concomitant use of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder drugs or a family/personal history of heart disease.

IntroductionDespite drastic increases in antipsychotic prescribing in youth, data are still limited regarding their safety in this vulnerable population, necessitating additional tools for capturing long-term, real world data.MethodsWe present SENTIA (SafEty of NeurolepTics in Infancy and Adolescence; https://SENTIA.es), an online registry created in 2010 to track antipsychotic adverse effects in Spanish youth <18 years old currently taking or initiating with any antipsychotic treatment. SENTIA collects information on sociodemographic, diagnostic and treatment characteristics, past personal medical/psychiatric history, healthy lifestyle habits and treatment adherence. Additionally, efficacy and adverse effect data are recorded including the Children’s Global Assessment Scale; Clinical Global Impressions scale for Severity and Improvement, the Safety Monitoring Uniform Report Form, Simpson-Angus Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, vital signs, blood pressure, and EKG. Finally, fasting blood is drawn for hematology, electrolytes, renal, liver and thyroid function, glucose, insulin, lipid, prolactin and sex hormone levels. Initially, a diagnostic interview and several psychopathology scales were also included. Patients are assessed regularly and followed even beyond stopping antipsychotics.ResultsSince 01/17/2011, 85 youth (11.5 ± 2.9 (range = 4-17) years old, 70.6% male) have been included at one inaugural center. After a mean duration of 17 ± 11 (range = 1-34) months, 78.8% are still actively followed. For feasibility reasons, the diagnostic interview and detailed psychopathology scales were dropped. The remaining data can be entered in <30 minutes. Several additional centers are currently being added to SENTIA.ConclusionsImplementation of a systematic online pharmacovigilance system for antipsychotic adverse effects in youth is feasible and promises to generate important information.

Background: An increase in prescription of psychotropic medications in children and adolescents has been reported in some countries. We report the evolution in a Health Area in Spain in the period 2013-2017. To describe psychopharmacologic prescriptions and the users’ profile in a paediatric population attending a Mental Health Care Service and its evolution between 2013-2017. Methods: An observational, longitudinal study was conducted. All Electronic Medical Records of the paediatric population (0-18 years) attending our Mental Health Area during this period were included. Each year is treated as a specific cohort including all patients attended during that year in order to perform a trend analysis over the 5 years period. Demographic data, psychiatric diagnoses and psychotropic prescription were collected for all patients attended. Results: A total of 4,228 individual patients were included with a mean of 1.011 individual patients in each year cohort. The rate of ADHD patient receiving pharmacological treatment increased up to 85.1% in 2017. The use of antidepressants increased, along with its use in disorders other than depression such as ADHD. Antipsychotics use increases in patients with diagnosis such as depression or eating disorders. The rate of patients receiving more than one type of psychotropics (20%) shows a significant increasing trend during years 2013-2017. Conclusions: In our sample, psychotropic prescriptions is high and shows a significant increasing trend in the period 2013-2017.There is a strong need to improve our scientific knowledge about the effectiveness and long term safety of the use of psychotropics in children and adolescents.