Aina Casellas

Background: Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro at concentrations not readily achievable with currently approved doses. There is limited evidence to support its clinical use in COVID-19 patients. We conducted a Pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of ivermectin reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when administered early after disease onset. Methods: Consecutive patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for complicated disease attending the emergency room of the Clnica Universidad de Navarra between July 31, 2020 and September 11, 2020 were enrolled. All enrollments occurred within 72 h of onset of fever or cough. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ivermectin, 400 mcg/kg, single dose (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA by PCR from nasopharyngeal swab at day 7 post-treatment. The primary outcome was supported by determination of the viral load and infectivity of each sample. The differences between ivermectin and placebo were calculated using Fisher's exact test and presented as a relative risk ratio. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04390022. Findings: All patients recruited completed the trial (median age, 26 [IQR 1936 in the ivermectin and 2144 in the controls] years; 12 [50%] women; 100% had symptoms at recruitment, 70% reported headache, 62% reported fever, 50% reported general malaise and 25% reported cough). At day 7, there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positive patients (RR 092, 95% CI: 077109, p = 10). The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 024 for gene E; p = 018 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 016 for gene E; p = 018 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 024). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p < 0.001). Interpretation: Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the

We estimated healthcare costs associated with patients with type 2 diabetes compared with non-diabetic subjects in a population-based primary care database through a retrospective analysis of economic impact during 2011, including 126,811 patients with type 2 diabetes in Catalonia, Spain. Total annual costs included primary care visits, hospitalizations, referrals, diagnostic tests, self-monitoring test strips, medication, and dialysis. For each patient, one control matched for age, gender and managing physician was randomly selected from a population database. The annual average cost per patient was €3110.1 and €1803.6 for diabetic and non-diabetic subjects, respectively (difference €1306.6; i.e., 72.4 % increased cost). The costs of hospitalizations were €1303.1 and €801.6 (62.0 % increase), and medication costs were €925.0 and €489.2 (89.1 % increase) in diabetic and non-diabetic subjects, respectively. In type 2 diabetic patients, hospitalizations and medications had the greatest impact on the overall cost (41.9 and 29.7 %, respectively), generating approximately 70 % of the difference between diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Patients with poor glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin >7 %; >53 mmol/mol) had average costs of €3296.5 versus €2848.5 for patients with good control. In the absence of macrovascular complications, average costs were €3008.1 for diabetic and €1612.4 for non-diabetic subjects, while its presence increased costs to €4814.6 and €3306.8, respectively. In conclusion, the estimated higher costs for type 2 diabetes patients compared with non-diabetic subjects are due mainly to hospitalizations and medications, and are higher among diabetic patients with poor glycaemic control and macrovascular complications.

PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a representative population of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) patients in Catalonia (Spain). METHODS: This was a population-based, cross-sectional study. A total of 28,344 patients diagnosed with DM2 who had recorded ophthalmologic and renal functional examinations were evaluated. Data were obtained from a primary healthcare electronic database of medical records. CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration ratio (eGFR) of <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and/or urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥30 mg/g. DR was categorized as non-vision threatening diabetic retinopathy and vision threatening diabetic retinopathy. RESULTS: CKD was associated with a higher rate of DR [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 (1.4-1.7). When we analyzed the association between different levels of UACR and DR prevalence observed that DR prevalence rose with the increase of UACR levels, and this association was significant from UACR values ≥10 mg/g, and increased considerably with UACR values ≥300 mg/g (Odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0 (1.6-2.5). This association was lower in patients with eGFR levels 44 to 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 (1.1-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that CKD, high UACR and/or low eGFR, appear to be associated with DR in this DM2 population.

Background: Benznidazole is one of the two most effective antiparasitic drugs for Chagas' disease treatment. However, knowledge about its toxicity profile is mostly based on post-marketing observational studies. Objectives: Our study combines data from two prospective clinical trials designed to assess the safety of the drug newly produced by ELEA Laboratories (Abarax®). Methods: Eligible participants were selected using a consecutive sampling strategy in the CINEBENZ and BIOMARCHA studies between 2013 and 2016 (EUDRACT 2011-002900-34 and 2012-002645-38, respectively, and clinicaltrials.gov NCT01755403 and NCT01755377, respectively). Enrolled subjects received treatment with 5 mg/kg/day benznidazole orally in two divided doses for 8 weeks and were followed up fortnightly. Results: We observed 305 adverse reactions in 85 of 99 participants (85.9%). Each patient had a median of three adverse reactions, 89.5% were mild and the median duration was 12 days. Most adverse reactions appeared in the first month of treatment except arthritis and peripheral neuropathy. Twenty-six patients did not complete treatment: 2 were withdrawn, 1 for ectopic pregnancy and 1 for epilepsy relapse due to cysticercosis; 2 were lost to follow-up; and 22 were owing to adverse reactions, two of them severe. We observed some unexpected adverse reactions that have not been described previously, such as psychiatric symptoms, erectile dysfunction, menstrual cycle alterations and lung infiltration. Conclusions: There is a very high frequency of adverse reactions to benznidazole. Most adverse reactions are mild, but the treatment burden is significant and unexpected reactions are not rare. Severe reactions are uncommon, but they can be life-threatening. Further studies are necessary to optimize treatment.

BACKGROUND: Older subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have differential characteristics compared with middle-aged or younger populations, and require tailored management of the disease. AIMS: To evaluate how clinical characteristics, degree of control of glycaemia and cardiovascular risk factors, presence of chronic complications and treatments differ between older T2DM patients and younger adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using data from a population-based electronic database. We retrieved data from 318,020 patients ≥ 30 years diagnosed with T2DM, attended during 2011 in primary care centres in Catalonia, Spain. We performed descriptive and comparative analyses stratified by gender and age subgroups: ≤ 65, 66-75, 76-85 and >85 years. RESULTS: Both men and women across older age subgroups (> 65 years) had longer diabetes duration than younger adults (8.0 vs. 5.6 in men and 8.4 vs. 6.9 years in women; p < 0.001), but better glycaemic control (mean glycated haemoglobin 7.1 vs. 7.7 in men and 7.1 vs. 7.4 in women; p < 0.001), and better combined control of different cardiovascular risk factors (p < 0.001). Moreover, older patients were more likely to achieve glycaemic targets irrespective of having cardiovascular disease. The use of oral antidiabetics decreased with increasing age, and insulin in monotherapy was more frequently prescribed among patients in the older age subgroups. Diabetes-related complications were more frequent in men of all group ages. In the older age subgroups, patients of both sexes had a longer duration of T2DM but better glycaemic control. In this context, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy decreased unexpectedly with increasing age. CONCLUSION: Control of glycaemia and cardiovascular risk factors was better among older T2DM patients. There is a need for prospective studies to quantify the weight of risk factors in each complication to adapt the therapeutic and care approaches in elderly people.