Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalisation in Patients with Osteoarthritis or Back Pain Treated with Ibuprofen Compared to Other NSAIDs or Paracetamol: A Network Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether ibuprofen use, compared with other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2i) or paracetamol, increases the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis or hospitalisation. DESIGN: A prevalent user and active comparator cohort study. SETTING: Two US claims databases (Open Claims and PharMetrics Plus) mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. PARTICIPANTS: Insured patients with a history of osteoarthritis or back pain and receiving ibuprofen, other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol between 1 November, 2019 and 31 January, 2020 (study enrolment window 1) or between 1 February, 2020 and 31 October, 2020 (study enrolment window 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Large-scale propensity score matching and empirical calibration were used to minimise confounding. Incidence and hazard ratios of COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalisation according to drug/s use were estimated and pooled in the same study period across data sources using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Index treatment episode was the primary risk evaluation window, censored at the time of discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 633,562 and 1,063,960 participants were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively, for the ibuprofen versus ns-NSAIDs comparison, 311,669 and 524,470 for ibuprofen versus COX-2i, and 492,002 and 878,598 for ibuprofen versus paracetamol. Meta-analyses of empirically calibrated hazard ratios revealed no significantly differential risk of COVID-19 outcomes in users of ibuprofen versus any of the other studied analgesic classes: hazard ratios were 1.13 (0.96-1.33) for the ibuprofen-ns-NSAIDs comparison, 1.03 (0.83-1.28) for the ibuprofen-COX-2i comparison and 1.13 (0.74-1.73) for ibuprofen-paracetamol comparison on COVID-19 diagnosis in the February 2020-October 2020 window. Similar hazard ratios were found on COVID-19 hospitalisation and across both study periods. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, we found no differential risks of incident COVID-19 diagnosis or COVID-19 hospitalisation for ibuprofen users compared with other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol. Our findings support regulatory recommendations that NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, should be prescribed as indicated in the same way as before the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for those who rely on ibuprofen or NSAIDs to manage chronic arthritis or musculoskeletal pain symptoms.

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes-diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services-using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis. Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89-1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71-1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services. Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers-further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes—diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services—using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis. Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92–1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89–1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71–1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services. Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers—further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.

Genetic risk and incident venous thromboembolism in middle-aged and older adults following COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination has been associated with increased venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. However, it is unknown whether genetic predisposition to VTE is associated with an increased risk of thrombosis following vaccination. METHODS: Using data from the UK Biobank, which contains in-depth genotyping and linked vaccination and health outcomes information, we generated a polygenic risk score (PRS) using 299 genetic variants. We prospectively assessed associations between PRS and incident VTE immediately after first- and the second-dose vaccination and among historical unvaccinated cohorts during the pre- and early pandemic. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) for PRS-VTE associations using Cox models. RESULTS: Of 359 310 individuals receiving one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 160 327 (44.6%) were males, and the mean age at the vaccination date was 69.05 (standard deviation [SD] 8.04) years. After 28- and 90-days' follow-up, 88 and 299 individuals developed VTE, respectively, equivalent to an incidence rate of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.08) and 0.92 (0.82-1.04) per 100 000 person-days. The PRS was significantly associated with a higher risk of VTE (HR per 1 SD increase in PRS, 1.41 (1.15-1.73) in 28 days and 1.36 (1.22-1.52) in 90 days). Similar associations were found in the historical unvaccinated cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The strength of genetic susceptibility with post-COVID-19-vaccination VTE is similar to that seen in historical data. Additionally, the observed PRS-VTE associations were equivalent for adenovirus- and mRNA-based vaccines. These findings suggest that, at the population level, the VTE that occurred after the COVID-19 vaccination has a similar genetic etiology to the conventional VTE.

Clinical and Genetic Risk Factors for Acute Incident Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory COVID-19 is controversial. In addition, the association of vaccination with COVID-19-related VTE and relevant clinical and genetic risk factors remain to be elucidated. Objective: To quantify the association between ambulatory COVID-19 and short-term risk of VTE, study the potential protective role of vaccination, and investigate clinical and genetic risk factors for post-COVID-19 VTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19 from UK Biobank included participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection that was confirmed by a positive polymerase chain test reaction result between March 1, 2020, and September 3, 2021, who were then propensity score matched to COVID-19-naive people during the same period. Participants with a history of VTE who used antithrombotic drugs (1 year before index dates) or tested positive in hospital were excluded. Exposures: First infection with SARS-CoV-2, age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, obesity, vaccination status, and inherited thrombophilia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite VTE, including deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, which occurred 30 days after the infection. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using cause-specific Cox models. Results: In 18 818 outpatients with COVID-19 (10 580 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [8.0] years) and 93 179 matched uninfected participants (52 177 women [56.0%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [7.9] years), the infection was associated with an increased risk of VTE in 30 days (incidence rate of 50.99 and 2.37 per 1000 person-years for infected and uninfected people, respectively; HR, 21.42; 95% CI, 12.63-36.31). However, risk was substantially attenuated among the fully vaccinated (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.82-19.5; interaction P = .02). In patients with COVID-19, older age, male sex, and obesity were independently associated with higher risk, with adjusted HRs of 1.87 (95% CI, 1.50-2.33) per 10 years, 1.69 (95% CI, 1.30-2.19), and 1.83 (95% CI, 1.28-2.61), respectively. Further, inherited thrombophilia was associated with an HR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.15-3.66) for post-COVID-19 VTE. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19, ambulatory COVID-19 was associated with a substantially increased risk of incident VTE, but this risk was greatly reduced in fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infection. Older age, male sex, and obesity were clinical risk factors for post-COVID-19 VTE; factor V Leiden thrombophilia was additionally associated with double the risk, comparable with the risk of 10-year aging. These findings may reinforce the need for vaccination, inform VTE risk stratification, and call for targeted VTE prophylaxis strategies for unvaccinated outpatients with COVID-19.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of homologous two-dose ChAdOx1 versus heterologous vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2.

Small trials have suggested that heterologous vaccination with first-dose ChAdOx1 and second-dose BNT162b2 may generate a better immune response than homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. In this cohort analysis, we use linked data from Catalonia (Spain), where those aged <60 who received a first dose of ChAdOx1 could choose between ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 for their second dose. Comparable cohorts were obtained after exact-matching 14,325/17,849 (80.3%) people receiving heterologous vaccination to 14,325/149,386 (9.6%) receiving homologous vaccination by age, sex, region, and date of second dose. Of these, 464 (3.2%) in the heterologous and 694 (4.8%) in the homologous groups developed COVID-19 between 1st June 2021 and 5th December 2021. The resulting hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is 0.66 [0.59-0.74], favouring heterologous vaccination. The two groups had similar testing rates and safety outcomes. Sensitivity and negative control outcome analyses confirm these findings. In conclusion, we demonstrate that a heterologous vaccination schedule with ChAdOx1 followed by BNT162b2 was more efficacious than and similarly safe to homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. Most of the infections in our study occurred when Delta was the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in Spain. These data agree with previous phase 2 randomised trials.

Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50.

Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, not many studies have directly compared vaccine effectiveness in the population. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-19. We analyse 235,181 UK Biobank participants aged 50 years or older and vaccinated with one or two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. People are followed from the vaccination date until 18/10/2021. Inverse probability weighting is used to minimise confounding and the Cox models to derive hazard ratio. We find that, compared with one dose of ChAdOx1, vaccination with BNT162b2 is associated with a 28% (95% CI, 12-42) decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, two doses of BNT162b2 vs ChAdOx1 confers 30% (95% CI, 25-35) and 29% (95% CI, 10-45) lower risks of both infection and hospitalisation during the study period when the Delta variant is dominant. Furthermore, the comparative protection against the infection persists for at least six months among the fully vaccinated, suggesting no differential waning between the two vaccines. These findings can inform evidence-based Covid-19 vaccination campaigns and booster strategies.

Smoking and COVID-19 Infection and Related Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Analysis of UK Biobank Data.

BACKGROUND: Several papers have shown contradictory evidence about the relationship between smoking and COVID-19-related deaths. There is little evidence about smoking and risk of infection. We aim to examine association between smoking and COVID-19 infection and subsequent mortality. METHODS: This was a prospective study with participants from the UK Biobank cohort. Participants who lived in England were followed up from 01/02/2020 to 28/06/2020 with data linked to hospital episode statistics, Office for National Statistics and Public Health England PCR tests. We compared current-smokers, previous-smokers with never-smokers and estimated risk ratio (RR) of COVID-19 infection and subsequent mortality using Poisson regression adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index and socio-economic status. Interactions between smoking status and age and sex were tested for using multiplicative interactions, and analyses were stratified by median age (49-68 years, 69-86 years) and sex. RESULTS: In total, 402,978 participants were included in the analyses. The majority were never smokers, 226,294 (56.2%), 140,090 (34.8%) were previous smokers, and 39,974 (9.9%) current smokers. COVID-19 infection was identified in 1591 (0.39%) people, and 372/1591 (23.4%) died. Amongst the younger participants, smokers were nearly twice as likely to become infected with COVID-19 than never smokers (RR 1.88 [1.49-2.38]) whereas there was no difference for those aged 69+ (RR 1.05 [0.82-1.34]). In contrast, amongst the older participants, smokers were twice as likely to die from COVID-19 compared to non-smokers (RR 2.15 [1.11-4.16]) whereas there was no difference for those under the age of 69 (RR 1.22[0.83-1.79]). Similar patterns were observed for previous smokers. The impact of smoking was similar in men and women. CONCLUSION: The association between smoking and COVID-19 infection and subsequent death is modified by age. Smokers and previous smokers aged under 69 were at higher risk of COVID-19 infection, suggesting the risk is associated with increased exposure to SARS-COV-2 virus. Once infected, older smokers were twice as likely to die from COVID-19 than never smokers, possibly mediated by increased risk of chronic conditions/illnesses.