Prevalence and Predictors of Post-Acute COVID-19 Symptoms in Italian Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite all the progress in the management of acute COVID-19, it is still not clear why some people continue to experience symptoms after recovery. Using data from a self-administered online survey, we assessed the prevalence and predictors of post-acute COVID-19 in an unselected population followed by GPs. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included. The survey collected information on demographics, risk factors, COVID-19 course and symptomatology. Fatigue and Quality of Life questionnaires were also administered. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patients' characteristics, stratified as acute and post-acute COVID-19. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between clinical characteristics and post-acute COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1108 surveys were analyzed. Nearly 29% of patients reported post-acute COVID-19. The more persistent symptoms were fatigue, memory and concentration impairment. Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) showed a significantly higher probability of post-acute COVID-19 for women compared to men (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.5), for age >50 years than ≤50 years (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2), for BMI > 25 compared to BMI ≤ 25 (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.1) and those with autoimmune diseases, compared to those without (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.1-2.9). In addition, a significant association was found with COVID-19 hospitalization, anxiety and allergies. We found that post-acute COVID-19 patients showed a higher fatigue and a worst quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest the need for tailored personalized strategies to improve the management of patients with post-acute COVID-19.

Impact of first and second/third wave of COVID-19 pandemic on post-acute cardiovascular outcomes in Lombardy.

Background: COVID-19 has been associated with a higher risk of post-acute complications. Our aim was to analyze and compare post-acute cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 survivors of the first and second/third pandemic waves in Lombardy, in both hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods and results: We included adults aged ≥40 years infected during the first and second/third waves of COVID-19 pandemic. The follow-up initiated 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis and continued up to 9 months. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the post-acute cardiovascular outcomes were calculated against an inverse probability treatment weighted control group. Subgroup analysis were performed by age classes, sex, previous cardiovascular disease and stratified by COVID-19 hospitalization status to explore the impact of COVID-19 severity on outcomes. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients had an increased risk of hospitalization for any cardiovascular complications (HR 1st wave 1.53 95% CI: 1.38-1.69; HR 2nd/3rd wave 1.25 95% CI: 1.19-1.31) and for individual cardiovascular outcomes, although HRs were higher in COVID-19 group from the 1st pandemic wave. The results were confirmed in the subgroup analyses. Of note, the risk for any cardiovascular disease was also evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection. Conclusion: Our results provide evidence that COVID-19 is a risk factor for post-acute cardiovascular complications among different pandemic waves regardless of COVID-19 severity, age, sex and a history of cardiovascular diseases. Care strategies of people with COVID-19 should include cardiac monitoring.

Prescribing trends of glucose-lowering drugs in older adults from 2010 to 2021: A population-based study of Northern Italy.

AIMS: To describe glucose-lowering drugs prescribing pattern in a large population of older diabetics from 2010 to 2021. METHODS: Using linkable administrative health databases, we included patients aged 65-90 years treated with glucose-lowering drugs. Prevalence rate of drugs was collected within each study year. A stratified analysis by gender, age and coexistence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 251 737 and 308 372 patients were identified in 2010 and 2021, respectively. Use of metformin (68.4% to 76.6%), DPP-4i (1.6% to 18.4%), GLP-1-RA (0.4% to 10.2%), SGLT2i (0.6% to 11.1%) increased, while sulfonylureas (53.6% to 20.7%) and glinides (10.5% to 3.5%) decreased over time. Metformin, glitazones, GLP1-RA, SGLT2i and DPP4i (except for 2021) usage decreased with aging, in contrast to sulfonylureas, glinides and insulin. The coexistence of CVD was associated with a higher prescription of glinides, insulin, DPP-4i, GLP1-RA and SGLT2i, particularly in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant increase in the prescriptions of GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i in older diabetics, mainly in those with CVD. However, drugs without CV benefits including sulfonylureas and DPP-4i continued to be highly prescribed in older patients. There is still room to improve the management in this population according to recommendations.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors, Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists, and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and COVID-19 Outcomes.

PURPOSE: It has been reported that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have a role in modulation of inflammation associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study assessed the effect of these drug classes on COVID-19-related outcomes. METHODS: Using a COVID-19 linkable administrative database, we selected patients aged ≥40 years with at least 2 prescriptions of DPP-4i, GLP-1 RA, or SGLT-2i or any other antihyperglycemic drug and a diagnosis of COVID-19 from February 15, 2020, to March 15, 2021. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were used to calculate the association between treatments and all-cause and in-hospital mortality and COVID-19-related hospitalization. A sensitivity analysis was performed by using inverse probability treatment weighting. FINDINGS: Overall, 32,853 subjects were included in the analysis. Multivariable models showed a reduction of the risk for COVID-19 outcomes for users of DPP-4i, GLP-1 RA, and SGLT-2i compared with nonusers, although statistical significance was reached only in DPP-4i users for total mortality (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97). The sensitivity analysis confirmed the main results reaching a significant reduction for hospital admission in GLP-1 RA users and in-hospital mortality in SGLT-2i users compared with nonusers. IMPLICATIONS: This study found a beneficial effect in the risk reduction of COVID-19 total mortality in DPP-4i users compared with nonusers. A positive trend was also observed in users of GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i compared with nonusers. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the effect of these drug classes as potential therapy for the treatment of COVID-19.

Effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus SGLT-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: an Italian cohort study.

BACKGROUND: GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have shown to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death and worsening nephropathy when added to standard of care. However, these two dug classes differ in efficacy and safety. We compared the effectiveness and safety profile of GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i in a large and unselected cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes resident in Lombardy from 2015 to 2020. METHODS: Using linkable administrative health databases, we included patients aged 50 years and older initiating GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i. Clinical events were: death, hospital admission for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure (HF), and renal disease as individual and composite outcomes (MACE-3: all cause-death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke; MACE-4: MACE-3 plus unstable angina). Outcomes were evaluated separately in subjects with and without previous cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Treatments were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression model after Propensity Score Matching (PSM) in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Serious adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 20,762 patients per cohort. The ITT analysis showed a significant risk reduction for non-fatal MI (HR 0.77; CI 95% 0.66-0.90), MACE-3 (HR 0.91; CI 95% 0.84-0.98), and MACE-4 (HR 0.92; CI 95% 0.86-0.99) in GLP-1RA compared with SGLT-2i users, while no difference was reported in the incidence of HF hospitalization and stroke between the two cohorts. Similar benefits were found in the subgroup of patients without previous CV diseases only. PP analysis largely confirmed the main results. The incidence of serious adverse events was low in both cohorts (< 1%). CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1RA showed to be equally safe and more effective than SGLT-2i in reducing the risk of MACE-3, MACE-4 and MI. This study adds to the growing body of real-world evidence addressing the specific clinical properties of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i in everyday practice to tailor treatment to the individual patient.

Metformin use is associated with a decrease in the risk of hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19 patients with diabetes: A population-based study in Lombardy.

AIM: To compare the association of metformin use and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in a cohort of 31 966 patients with diabetes in Lombardy. METHODS: We used a COVID-19 linkable administrative regional database to select patients with diabetes who were aged 40 years or older. They had at least two prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in 2019 and a positive test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 from 15 February 2020 to 15 March 2021. The association of metformin use and clinical outcomes was assessed by multivariable logistic regression analyses and after propensity score matching (PSM). Clinical outcomes were all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, hospitalization for COVID-19, and admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). RESULTS: In multivariable models, metformin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of total mortality (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.66-0.75), in-hospital mortality (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.63-0.73), hospitalization for COVID-19 (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.81-0.91), and ICU admission (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.94) compared with metformin non-users. Results were similar after PSM; metformin was associated with a significantly lower risk of total mortality (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86), in-hospital mortality (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.67-0.81), and ICU admission (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort, metformin use was associated with a protective effect in COVID-19 clinical outcomes, suggesting that it might be a potentially useful drug to prevent severe COVID-19 disease, although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to confirm this. While awaiting the results of RCTs, we suggest continuing prescribing metformin to COVID-19 patients with diabetes.