Background. The objective of this quasi-experimental study was to determine whether bolus vitamin D supplementation taken either regularly over the preceding year or after the diagnosis of COVID-19 was effective in improving survival among hospitalized frail elderly COVID-19 patients. Methods. Seventy-seven patients consecutively hospitalized for COVID-19 in a geriatric unit were included. Intervention groups were participants regularly supplemented with vitamin D over the preceding year (Group 1), and those supplemented with vitamin D after COVID-19 diagnosis (Group 2). The comparator group involved participants having received no vitamin D supplements (Group 3). Outcomes were 14-day mortality and highest (worst) score on the ordinal scale for clinical improvement (OSCI) measured during COVID-19 acute phase. Potential confounders were age, gender, functional abilities, undernutrition, cancer, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, glycated hemoglobin, number of acute health issues at admission, hospital use of antibiotics, corticosteroids, and pharmacological treatments of respiratory disorders. Results. The three groups (n = 77; mean ± SD, 88 ± 5years; 49% women) were similar at baseline (except for woman proportion, p = 0.02), as were the treatments used for COVID-19. In Group 1 (n = 29), 93.1% of COVID-19 participants survived at day 14, compared to 81.2% survivors in Group 2 (n = 16) (p = 0.33) and 68.7% survivors in Group 3 (n = 32) (p = 0.02). While considering Group 3 as reference (hazard ratio (HR) = 1), the fully-adjusted HR for 14-day mortality was HR = 0.07 (p = 0.017) for Group 1 and HR = 0.37 (p = 0.28) for Group 2. Group 1 had longer survival time than Group 3 (log-rank p = 0.015), although there was no difference between Groups 2 and 3 (log-rank p = 0.32). Group 1, but not Group 2 (p = 0.40), was associated with lower risk of OSCI score ≥5 compared to Group 3 (odds ratio = 0.08, p= 0.03). Conclusions. Regular bolus vitamin D supplementation was associated with less severe COVID-19 and better survival in frail elderly.

Objectives : To assess and compare the pharmaceutical analysis on drug management in a geriatric acute care unit prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods : This was a single-centre, retrospective, and comparative cohort study. All Pharmacist Interventions (PIs) carried out in the unit between 27 January 2020 and 30 April 2020 were distinguished according to whether they were conducted prior to or during the first wave of COVID-19. The main outcome measure was the rate of PIs per patient and per prescription lines analysed. Other data collected were the drug class managed by the PI, the Drug Related Problems (DRP) identified, the nature of the advice given, and the acceptance rate by geriatricians. Results: A total of 355 patients were analysed, with PIs generated for 21.7% of the patients prior to COVID-19, and for 53.4% of the patients during the first wave (p<0.001). Among the 4,402 prescription lines analysed, 54 PIs were carried out for prescriptions prior to COVID-19, and 177 during the first wave (p=0.002). DRPs were mostly related to anti-infectious drugs during the pandemic (20.3%, p=0.038), and laxatives prior to the pandemic (13.0%, p=0.023). The clinical impact of the PIs was mainly moderate (43.7%). The acceptance rate was 59.3%. Conclusions: A greater amount of DRPs were detected and more therapeutic advice was proposed during the first wave of COVID-19, with a focus on drugs used for the management of COVID-19 rather than geriatric routine treatments. The needs for clinical pharmacists were strengthened during the pandemic.

No abstract

C1-inhibitor (C1INH) concentrates and the selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist icatibant are approved only for treating hereditary angioedema with C1INH deficiency. Yet, they are regularly prescribed off label in other types of bradykinin-mediated angioedema including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)-related and undetermined angioedema. We conducted a retrospective chart review of inpatient prescriptions of C1INH concentrates and icatibant between 2016 and 2020 in the University Hospital of Angers.The first outcome was the proportion of prescriptions with explicit indication.Then,we determined the compliance of prescriptions with European Medicines Agency approvals and the French bradykinin-mediated angioedema reference center guidelines. Finally, we estimated the economic impact of inappropriate prescribing. The therapeutic indication was explicit in 90.4% of prescriptions (n = 66/73). Only 17.8% of prescriptions were for hereditary angioedema with C1INH deficiency, while 31.5% were for ACEi-related and 28.7% for undetermined angioedema. However, most off-label prescriptions were consistent with the French bradykinin-mediated angioedema reference center guidelines (73.3%). We estimated that 13% of drug expenditures were potentially excessive. The predominance of off-label prescriptions may be explained by the infrequency of hereditary angioedema and the absence of approved alternatives in other types of bradykinin-mediated angioedema. Most attacks were related to ACEis. Epinephrine was rarely prescribed as first-line therapy in attacks of unknown origin. Given the high prices of these drugs, we advocate the development of a readily available management algorithm of angioedema to reduce inappropriate prescriptions in our center. In addition, we think that the drug prescription circuit should be redesigned to ensure the traceability of prescribed vials in the dispensing areas.