Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry ; 32(10): 2021-2029, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35792937

RESUMO

We aimed to provide a detailed description of the use of melatonin in Danish children, adolescents, and young adults during 2012-2019. We identified melatonin users 0-24 years of age (n = 43,652; median age 16 years) via the Danish nationwide health registers. Melatonin is a prescription drug in Denmark. The incidence of melatonin use increased from 2.4 to 3.9/1000 person-years during 2012 to 2019. Among 6,557 incident users in 2019, 53% filled only a single prescription within the first 6 months. Long-term use was most common among the younger age groups, with 17% of 5-9-year-olds and 14% of 10-13-year-olds being in continued treatment (no treatment breaks) 12 months after their first melatonin prescription. Disregarding treatment breaks, 3 in 10 were using melatonin 12 months after their first melatonin prescription and this proportion was also highest among 5-9-year-olds (63%) and 10-13-year-olds (51%). Psychopathology was common among melatonin users with 75% registered with either a psychiatric disorder diagnosis (54%), a filled prescription for another psychotropic (58%), or a contact to a private practice psychiatrist (15%) within ± 12 months of treatment initiation. General practitioners authorized melatonin prescriptions to almost half of all new users (48%), while psychiatric specialists authorized 37% of first prescriptions. In conclusion, the incidence of melatonin use increased in Denmark from 2012 to 2019. A substantial proportion of users had concurrent psychopathology most likely explaining their use of melatonin. Long-term melatonin use was more common among the youngest age groups, which should be a focus of interest due to limited safety data.


Assuntos
Melatonina , Medicamentos sob Prescrição , Humanos , Criança , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Lactente , Melatonina/uso terapêutico , Sistema de Registros , Uso de Medicamentos , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , Prescrições de Medicamentos
2.
BMJ ; 378: e070483, 2022 07 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35831006

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of adverse events associated with heterologous primary (two dose) and booster (three dose) vaccine schedules for covid-19 with Oxford-AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1-S priming followed by mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 or Moderna's mRNA-1273) as compared with homologous mRNA vaccine schedules for covid-19. DESIGN: Nationwide cohort study. SETTING: Denmark, 1 January 2021 to 26 March 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18-65 years who received a heterologous vaccine schedule of priming with ChAdOx1-S and one or two mRNA booster doses (with either the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine) were compared with adults who received a homologous BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine schedule (ie, two dose v two dose, and three dose v three dose schedule). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of hospital contacts for a range of adverse cardiovascular and haemostatic events within 28 days after the second or third vaccine dose, comparing heterologous versus homologous vaccine schedules. Secondary outcomes included additional prioritised adverse events of special interest. Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios with adjustment for selected covariates. RESULTS: Individuals who had had a heterologous primary vaccine (n=137 495) or a homologous vaccine (n=2 688 142) were identified, in addition to those who had had a heterologous booster (n=129 770) or a homologous booster (n=2 197 213). Adjusted incidence rate ratios of adverse cardiovascular and haemostatic events within 28 days for the heterologous primary and booster vaccine schedules in comparison with the homologous mRNA vaccine schedules were 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.91) and 1.00 (0.58 to 1.72) for ischaemic cardiac events, 0.74 (0.40 to 1.34) and 0.72 (0.37 to 1.42) for cerebrovascular events, 1.12 (0.13 to 9.58) and 4.74 (0.94 to 24.01) for arterial thromboembolisms, 0.79 (0.45 to 1.38) and 1.09 (0.60 to 1.98) for venous thromboembolisms, 0.84 (0.18 to 3.96) and 1.04 (0.60 to 4.55) for myocarditis or pericarditis, 0.97 (0.45 to 2.10) and 0.89 (0.21 to 3.77) for thrombocytopenia and coagulative disorders, and 1.39 (1.01 to 1.91) and 1.02 (0.70 to 1.47) for other bleeding events, respectively. No associations with any of the outcomes were found when restricting to serious adverse events defined as stay in hospital for more than 24 h. CONCLUSION: Heterologous primary and booster covid-19 vaccine schedules of ChAdOx1-S priming and mRNA booster doses as both second and third doses were not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events compared with homologous mRNA vaccine schedules. These results are reassuring but given the rarity of some of the adverse events, associations cannot be excluded.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hemostáticos , Tromboembolia , Vacinas de mRNA , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Vacina BNT162/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Imunização Secundária , RNA Mensageiro , Tromboembolia/etiologia , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Sintéticas , Vacinas de mRNA/efeitos adversos
3.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(10): 1373-1382, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33984263

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Individuals admitted to hospital for COVID-19 might have persisting symptoms (so-called long COVID) and delayed complications after discharge. However, little is known regarding the risk for those not admitted to hospital. We therefore examined prescription drug and health-care use after SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospital admission. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using the Danish prescription, patient, and health insurance registries. All individuals with a positive or negative RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark between Feb 27 and May 31, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of interest were delayed acute complications, chronic disease, hospital visits due to persisting symptoms, and prescription drug use. We used data from non-hospitalised SARS-CoV-2-positive and matched SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals from 2 weeks to 6 months after a SARS-CoV-2 test to obtain propensity score-weighted risk differences (RDs) and risk ratios (RRs) for initiation of 14 drug groups and 27 hospital diagnoses indicative of potential post-acute effects. We also calculated prior event rate ratio-adjusted rate ratios of overall health-care use. This study is registered in the EU Electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EUPAS37658). FINDINGS: 10 498 eligible individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark from Feb 27 to May 31, 2020, of whom 8983 (85·6%) were alive and not admitted to hospital 2 weeks after their positive test. The matched SARS-CoV-2-negative reference population not admitted to hospital consisted of 80 894 individuals. Compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals, SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were not at an increased risk of initiating new drugs (RD <0·1%) except bronchodilating agents, specifically short-acting ß2-agonists (117 [1·7%] of 6935 positive individuals vs 743 [1·3%] of 57 206 negative individuals; RD +0·4% [95% CI 0·1-0·7]; RR 1·32 [1·09-1·60]) and triptans (33 [0·4%] of 8292 vs 198 [0·3%] of 72 828; RD +0·1% [0·0-0·3]; RR 1·55 [1·07-2·25]). There was an increased risk of receiving hospital diagnoses of dyspnoea (103 [1·2%] of 8676 vs 499 [0·7%] of 76 728; RD +0·6% [0·4-0·8]; RR 2·00 [1·62-2·48]) and venous thromboembolism (20 [0·2%] of 8785 vs 110 [0·1%] of 78 872; RD +0·1% [0·0-0·2]; RR 1·77 [1·09-2·86]) for SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals compared with negative individuals, but no increased risk of other diagnoses. Prior event rate ratio-adjusted rate ratios of overall general practitioner visits (1·18 [95% CI 1·15-1·22]) and outpatient hospital visits (1·10 [1·05-1·16]), but not hospital admission, showed increases among SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals. INTERPRETATION: The absolute risk of severe post-acute complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospital admission is low. However, increases in visits to general practitioners and outpatient hospital visits could indicate COVID-19 sequelae. FUNDING: None.


Assuntos
COVID-19/complicações , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Síndrome de COVID-19 Pós-Aguda
4.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 3246, 2021 02 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33547335

RESUMO

Patients with severe COVID-19 have overwhelmed healthcare systems worldwide. We hypothesized that machine learning (ML) models could be used to predict risks at different stages of management and thereby provide insights into drivers and prognostic markers of disease progression and death. From a cohort of approx. 2.6 million citizens in Denmark, SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were performed on subjects suspected for COVID-19 disease; 3944 cases had at least one positive test and were subjected to further analysis. SARS-CoV-2 positive cases from the United Kingdom Biobank was used for external validation. The ML models predicted the risk of death (Receiver Operation Characteristics-Area Under the Curve, ROC-AUC) of 0.906 at diagnosis, 0.818, at hospital admission and 0.721 at Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. Similar metrics were achieved for predicted risks of hospital and ICU admission and use of mechanical ventilation. Common risk factors, included age, body mass index and hypertension, although the top risk features shifted towards markers of shock and organ dysfunction in ICU patients. The external validation indicated fair predictive performance for mortality prediction, but suboptimal performance for predicting ICU admission. ML may be used to identify drivers of progression to more severe disease and for prognostication patients in patients with COVID-19. We provide access to an online risk calculator based on these findings.


Assuntos
COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/mortalidade , Simulação por Computador , Aprendizado de Máquina , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Índice de Massa Corporal , COVID-19/complicações , COVID-19/fisiopatologia , Comorbidade , Cuidados Críticos , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Hipertensão/complicações , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prognóstico , Estudos Prospectivos , Curva ROC , Respiração Artificial , Fatores de Risco , Fatores Sexuais
5.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol ; 77(4): 617-624, 2021 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33112987

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To describe the use of tramadol and other analgesics in Denmark focusing on the impact of media attention (June and December 2017) and regulatory actions (September 2017 and January 2018) on the use of tramadol. METHODS: Using nationwide registries, we identified all adults who filled a prescription for tramadol and other analgesics from 2014 to 2019. We described incidence rates, prevalence proportions, and total use of tramadol and other analgesics over time. We also described switching between analgesics, treatment duration, skewness in drug use, and doctor-shopping. RESULTS: From early 2017 until the end of 2019, total tramadol use decreased markedly while the use of morphine and oxycodone decreased slightly. The quarterly prevalence of tramadol use decreased from 32/1000 individuals in 2014 to 18/1000 at the end of 2019, dropping mainly at the time of media attention. Concomitantly, the quarterly prevalence increased for oxycodone (from 5.1 to 8.2) and morphine (from 8.5 to 9.8), mainly due to more short-term and sporadic users, and decreased for codeine (14 to 9.6). From 2014 to mid-2017, the incidence of tramadol use was stable (around 2.2/1000 person-months) but dropped in June 2017 to 1.7/1000, coinciding with the media attention. The incidence of tramadol use continued to decrease (to 1.1/1000 at the end of 2019). CONCLUSION: We identified a decline in tramadol use coinciding with the media attention in 2017 and continuing during regulatory actions. There was generally no evidence of unintended effects on the utilization of opioids related to the media attention and regulatory actions.


Assuntos
Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Meios de Comunicação/estatística & dados numéricos , Uso de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Controle de Medicamentos e Entorpecentes , Tramadol/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Dinamarca , Substituição de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Regulamentação Governamental , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/prevenção & controle , Sistema de Registros , Risco
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA