Background: Since the confirmation of the first patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain in January 2020, the epidemic has grown rapidly, with the greatest impact on the region of Madrid. This article describes the first 2226 adult patients with COVID-19, consecutively admitted to La Paz University Hospital in Madrid. Methods: Our cohort included all patients consecutively hospitalized who had a final outcome (death or discharge) in a 1286-bed hospital of Madrid (Spain) from 25 February (first case admitted) to 19 April 2020. The data were manually entered into an electronic case report form, which was monitored prior to the analysis. Results: We consecutively included 2226 adult patients admitted to the hospital who either died (460) or were discharged (1766). The patients’ median age was 61 years, and 51.8% were women. The most common comorbidity was arterial hypertension (41.3%), and the most common symptom on admission was fever (71.2%). The median time from disease onset to hospital admission was 6 days. The overall mortality was 20.7% and was higher in men (26.6% vs. 15.1%). Seventy-five patients with a final outcome were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) (3.4%). Most patients admitted to the ICU were men, and the median age was 64 years. Baseline laboratory values on admission were consistent with an impaired immune-inflammatory profile. Conclusions: We provide a description of the first large cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Europe. Advanced age, male sex, the presence of comorbidities and abnormal laboratory values were more common among the patients with fatal outcomes.

Data from several cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest that the most common comorbidities for severe COVID-19 disease are the elderly, high blood pressure, and diabetes; however, it is not currently known whether the previous use of certain drugs help or hinder recovery. This study aims to explore the association of previous hospitalisation use of medication on the mortality of COVID-19 disease. A retrospective case-control from two hospitals in Madrid, Spain, included all patients aged 18 years or above hospitalised with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A Propensity Score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Confounding variables were considered to be age, sex, and the number of comorbidities. Finally, 3712 patients were included. Of these, 687 (18.5%) patients died (cases). The 22,446 medicine trademarks used previous to admission were classified according to the ATC, obtaining 689 final drugs; all of them were included in PSM analysis. Eleven drugs displayed a reduction in mortality: azithromycin, bemiparine, budesonide-formoterol fumarate, cefuroxime, colchicine, enoxaparin, ipratropium bromide, loratadine, mepyramine theophylline acetate, oral rehydration salts, and salbutamol sulphate. Eight final drugs displayed an increase in mortality: acetylsalicylic acid, digoxin, folic acid, mirtazapine, linagliptin, enalapril, atorvastatin, and allopurinol. Medication associated with survival (anticoagulants, antihistamines, azithromycin, bronchodilators, cefuroxime, colchicine, and inhaled corticosteroids) may be candidates for future clinical trials. Drugs associated with mortality show an interaction with the underlying conditions.

Background: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. Methods: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. Results: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited “to contribute to scientific knowledge” (n=80, 53.0%), followed by “to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection” (n=33, 21.9%) and “the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2” (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). Conclusions: Health care workers’ reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

BACKGROUND In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited “to contribute to scientific knowledge” (n=80, 53.0%), followed by “to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection” (n=33, 21.9%) and “the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2” (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS Health care workers’ reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.