RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Multiple treatment options are recommended for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) by clinical guidelines. This study aimed to explore SLE treatment patterns as there is limited real-world data of SLE medication utilisation, especially in childhood-onset SLE (cSLE). METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study using five routinely collected healthcare databases from four European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain). We described the characteristics of adult and paediatric patients at time of SLE diagnosis. We calculated the percentage of patients commencing SLE treatments in the first month and year after diagnosis, reported number of prescriptions, starting dose, cumulative dose, and duration of each treatment, and characterised the line of therapy. RESULTS: We characterised 11,255 patients with a first diagnosis of SLE and included 5718 in our medication utilisation analyses. The majority of adult SLE patients were female (range 80-88 %), with median age of 49 to 54 years at diagnosis. In the paediatric cohort (n = 378), 66-83 % of SLE patients were female, with median age of 12 to 16 years at diagnosis. Hydroxychloroquine and glucocorticoids were common first-line treatments in both adults and children, with second-line treatments including mycophenolate mofetil and methotrexate. Few cases of monoclonal antibody use were seen in either cohort. Initial glucocorticoid dosing in paediatric patients was often higher than in adults. CONCLUSION: Treatment choices for adult SLE patients across four European countries were in line with recent therapeutic consensus guidelines. High glucocorticoid prescriptions in paediatric patients suggests the need for steroid-sparing treatment alternatives and paediatric specific guidelines.
RESUMEN
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic affected cancer screening, diagnosis and treatments. Many surgeries were substituted with bridging therapies during the initial lockdown, yet consideration of treatment side effects and their management was not a priority. Objectives: To examine how the changing social restrictions imposed by the pandemic affected incidence and trends of endocrine treatment prescriptions in newly diagnosed (incident) breast and prostate cancer patients and, secondarily, endocrine treatment-related outcomes (including bisphosphonate prescriptions, osteopenia and osteoporosis), in UK clinical practice from March 2020 to June 2022. Design: Population-based cohort study using UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Methods: There were 13,701 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients and 12,221 prostate cancer patients with ⩾1-year data availability since diagnosis between January 2017 and June 2022. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated across multiple time periods before and after lockdown to examine the impact of changing social restrictions on endocrine treatments and treatment-related outcomes, including osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions. Results: In breast cancer patients, aromatase inhibitor (AI) prescriptions increased during lockdown versus pre-pandemic [IRR: 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.34)], followed by a decrease post-first lockdown [IRR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69-0.89)]. In prostate cancer patients, first-generation antiandrogen prescriptions increased versus pre-pandemic [IRR: 1.23 (95% CI: 1.08-1.4)]. For breast cancer patients on AIs, diagnoses of osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions were reduced across all lockdown periods versus pre-pandemic (IRR range: 0.31-0.62). Conclusion: During the first 2 years of the pandemic, newly diagnosed breast and prostate cancer patients were prescribed more endocrine treatments compared to pre-pandemic due to restrictions on hospital procedures replacing surgeries with bridging therapies. But breast cancer patients had fewer diagnoses of osteopenia and osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions. These patients should be followed up in the coming years for signs of bone thinning. Evidence of poorer management of treatment-related side effects will help assess resource allocation for patients at high risk for bone-related complications.
Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on hormone treatments for breast and prostate cancer in the UK: implications for bone health The COVID-19 pandemic has had a big impact on health, going beyond just causing illness. One area it has influenced is how patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer are treated. Surgeries and radiotherapies were delayed from the first lockdown as hospitals reduced non-covid related procedures. Some patients with breast or prostate cancer were instead given some medications to help stop their cancers from growing until they were able to have surgery or radiotherapy. These medications (called endocrine treatments) have important side effects, such as conditions that affect the bones. Patients on these medications should be monitored by doctors for signs of bone thinning and should, in some cases, be given other medications to help stop this happening. This study used doctors' records from more than 5 million people to find out whether the pandemic affected the number of endocrine medications being prescribed in patients with breast or prostate cancer, and also looked at the number of these patients that were diagnosed with conditions that affect their bones and whether they were given medications that could protect their bone health. We found that during the first lockdown, patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer had more of some types of endocrine treatments compared to before the lockdown. However, they had fewer diagnoses of conditions related to bone health and fewer medications to protect their bones. It is possible that appointments and tests that are usually carried out to diagnose conditions relating to bone health were not performed in the months after the first lockdown, and so these conditions were underdiagnosed. The use of medications to protect their bones was also reduced, likely because this was not considered a priority during the pandemic. This highlights that such patients should be followed up in the coming years for signs of bone thinning, given the relatively poorer management of these side effects in these people after the pandemic.
RESUMEN
Background: Countries across Europe have faced similar evolutions of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants. Materials and methods: We used data from GISAID and applied a robust, automated mathematical substitution model to study the dynamics of COVID-19 variants in Europe over a period of more than 2 years, from late 2020 to early 2023. This model identifies variant substitution patterns and distinguishes between residual and dominant behavior. We used weekly sequencing data from 19 European countries to estimate the increase in transmissibility ( Δ ß ) between consecutive SARS-CoV-2 variants. In addition, we focused on large countries with separate regional outbreaks and complex scenarios of multiple competing variants. Results: Our model accurately reproduced the observed substitution patterns between the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron major variants. We estimated the daily variant prevalence and calculated Δ ß between variants, revealing that: ( i ) Δ ß increased progressively from the Alpha to the Omicron variant; ( i i ) Δ ß showed a high degree of variability within Omicron variants; ( i i i ) a higher Δ ß was associated with a later emergence of the variant within a country; ( i v ) a higher degree of immunization of the population against previous variants was associated with a higher Δ ß for the Delta variant; ( v ) larger countries exhibited smaller Δ ß , suggesting regionally diverse outbreaks within the same country; and finally ( v i ) the model reliably captures the dynamics of competing variants, even in complex scenarios. Conclusion: The use of mathematical models allows for precise and reliable estimation of daily cases of each variant. By quantifying Δ ß , we have tracked the spread of the different variants across Europe, highlighting a robust increase in transmissibility trend from Alpha to Omicron. Additionally, we have shown that the geographical characteristics of a country, as well as the timing of new variant entrances, can explain some of the observed differences in variant substitution dynamics across countries.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Modelos Teóricos , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/transmisión , COVID-19/epidemiología , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2/genéticaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a standardized method to calculate daily dose (i.e., the amount of drug a patient was exposed to per day) of any drug on a global scale using only drug information of typical observational data in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) and a single reference table from Observational Health Data Sciences And Informatics (OHDSI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OMOP DRUG_STRENGTH reference table contains information on the strength or concentration of drugs, whereas the OMOP DRUG_EXPOSURE table contains information on patients' drug prescriptions or dispensations/claims. Based on DRUG_EXPOSURE data from the primary care databases Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD (United Kingdom) and Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI, The Netherlands) and healthcare claims from PharMetrics® Plus for Academics (USA), we developed four formulas to calculate daily dose given different DRUG_STRENGTH reference table information. We tested the dose formulas by comparing the calculated median daily dose to the World Health Organization (WHO) Defined Daily Dose (DDD) for six different ingredients in those three databases and additional four international databases representing a variety of healthcare settings: MAITT (Estonia, healthcare claims and discharge summaries), IQVIA Disease Analyzer Germany (outpatient data), IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database Belgium (outpatient data), and IMASIS Parc Salut (Spain, hospital data). Finally, in each database, we assessed the proportion of drug records for which daily dose calculations were possible using the suggested formulas. RESULTS: Applying the dose formulas, we obtained median daily doses that generally matched the WHO DDD definitions. Our dose formulas were applicable to >85% of drug records in all but one of the assessed databases. CONCLUSION: We have established and implemented a standardized daily dose calculation in OMOP CDM providing reliable and reproducible results.
Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Bases de Datos Factuales/estadística & datos numéricos , Reino Unido , Cálculo de Dosificación de Drogas , Países Bajos , Atención Primaria de Salud , Farmacoepidemiología/métodos , Organización Mundial de la SaludRESUMEN
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had collateral effects on many health systems. Cancer screening and diagnostic tests were postponed, resulting in delays in diagnosis and treatment. This study assessed the impact of the pandemic on screening, diagnostics and incidence of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer; and whether rates returned to pre-pandemic levels by December, 2021. Methods: This is a cohort study of electronic health records from the United Kingdom (UK) primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database. The study included individuals registered with CPRD GOLD between January, 2017 and December, 2021, with at least 365 days of clinical history. The study focused on screening, diagnostic tests, referrals and diagnoses of first-ever breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Incidence rates (IR) were stratified by age, sex, and region, and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated to compare rates during and after lockdown with rates before lockdown. Forecasted rates were estimated using negative binomial regression models. Results: Among 5,191,650 eligible participants, the first lockdown resulted in reduced screening and diagnostic tests for all cancers, which remained dramatically reduced across the whole observation period for almost all tests investigated. There were significant IRR reductions in breast (0.69 [95% CI: 0.63-0.74]), colorectal (0.74 [95% CI: 0.67-0.81]), and prostate (0.71 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78]) cancer diagnoses. IRR reductions for lung cancer were non-significant (0.92 [95% CI: 0.84-1.01]). Extrapolating to the entire UK population, an estimated 18,000 breast, 13,000 colorectal, 10,000 lung, and 21,000 prostate cancer diagnoses were missed from March, 2020 to December, 2021. Discussion: The UK COVID-19 lockdown had a substantial impact on cancer screening, diagnostic tests, referrals, and diagnoses. Incidence rates remained significantly lower than pre-pandemic levels for breast and prostate cancers and associated tests by December, 2021. Delays in diagnosis are likely to have adverse consequences on cancer stage, treatment initiation, mortality rates, and years of life lost. Urgent strategies are needed to identify undiagnosed cases and address the long-term implications of delayed diagnoses.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To study the association between COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic complications. METHODS: We conducted a staggered cohort study based on national vaccination campaigns using electronic health records from the UK, Spain and Estonia. Vaccine rollout was grouped into four stages with predefined enrolment periods. Each stage included all individuals eligible for vaccination, with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccine at the start date. Vaccination status was used as a time-varying exposure. Outcomes included heart failure (HF), venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thrombosis/thromboembolism (ATE) recorded in four time windows after SARS-CoV-2 infection: 0-30, 31-90, 91-180 and 181-365 days. Propensity score overlap weighting and empirical calibration were used to minimise observed and unobserved confounding, respectively.Fine-Gray models estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). Random effect meta-analyses were conducted across staggered cohorts and databases. RESULTS: The study included 10.17 million vaccinated and 10.39 million unvaccinated people. Vaccination was associated with reduced risks of acute (30-day) and post-acute COVID-19 VTE, ATE and HF: for example, meta-analytic sHR of 0.22 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.29), 0.53 (0.44 to 0.63) and 0.45 (0.38 to 0.53), respectively, for 0-30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, while in the 91-180 days sHR were 0.53 (0.40 to 0.70), 0.72 (0.58 to 0.88) and 0.61 (0.51 to 0.73), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination reduced the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic outcomes. These effects were more pronounced for acute COVID-19 outcomes, consistent with known reductions in disease severity following breakthrough versus unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Tromboembolia Venosa , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & control , Estudios de Cohortes , SARS-CoV-2 , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/epidemiología , VacunaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We studied whether the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID-19 resulted in supply shortages for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: We used US claims data (IQVIA PHARMETRICS® Plus for Academics [PHARMETRICS]) and hospital electronic records from Spain (Institut Municipal d'Assistència Sanitària Information System [IMASIS]) to estimate monthly rates of HCQ use between January 2019 and March 2022, in the general population and in patients with RA and SLE. Methotrexate (MTX) use was estimated as a control. RESULTS: More than 13.5 million individuals (13,311,811 PHARMETRICS, 207,646 IMASIS) were included in the general population cohort. RA and SLE cohorts enrolled 135,259 and 39,295 patients, respectively, in PHARMETRICS. Incidence of MTX and HCQ were stable before March 2020. On March 2020, the incidence of HCQ increased by 9- and 67-fold in PHARMETRICS and IMASIS, respectively, and decreased in May 2020. Usage rates of HCQ went back to prepandemic trends in Spain but remained high in the United States, mimicking waves of COVID-19. No significant changes in HCQ use were noted among patients with RA and SLE. MTX use rates decreased during HCQ approval period for COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSION: Use of HCQ increased dramatically in the general population in both Spain and the United States during March and April 2020. Whereas Spain returned to prepandemic rates after the first wave, use of HCQ remained high and followed waves of COVID-19 in the United States. However, we found no evidence of general shortages in the use of HCQ for both RA and SLE in the United States.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos , Artritis Reumatoide , COVID-19 , Hidroxicloroquina , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapéutico , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/tratamiento farmacológico , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/epidemiología , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Artritis Reumatoide/epidemiología , Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , COVID-19/epidemiología , Adulto , España/epidemiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Anciano , Incidencia , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although vaccines have proved effective to prevent severe COVID-19, their effect on preventing long-term symptoms is not yet fully understood. We aimed to evaluate the overall effect of vaccination to prevent long COVID symptoms and assess comparative effectiveness of the most used vaccines (ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2). METHODS: We conducted a staggered cohort study using primary care records from the UK (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD] GOLD and AURUM), Catalonia, Spain (Information System for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]), and national health insurance claims from Estonia (CORIVA database). All adults who were registered for at least 180 days as of Jan 4, 2021 (the UK), Feb 20, 2021 (Spain), and Jan 28, 2021 (Estonia) comprised the source population. Vaccination status was used as a time-varying exposure, staggered by vaccine rollout period. Vaccinated people were further classified by vaccine brand according to their first dose received. The primary outcome definition of long COVID was defined as having at least one of 25 WHO-listed symptoms between 90 and 365 days after the date of a PCR-positive test or clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, with no history of that symptom 180 days before SARS-Cov-2 infection. Propensity score overlap weighting was applied separately for each cohort to minimise confounding. Sub-distribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to estimate vaccine effectiveness against long COVID, and empirically calibrated using negative control outcomes. Random effects meta-analyses across staggered cohorts were conducted to pool overall effect estimates. FINDINGS: A total of 1 618 395 (CPRD GOLD), 5 729 800 (CPRD AURUM), 2 744 821 (SIDIAP), and 77 603 (CORIVA) vaccinated people and 1 640 371 (CPRD GOLD), 5 860 564 (CPRD AURUM), 2 588 518 (SIDIAP), and 302 267 (CORIVA) unvaccinated people were included. Compared with unvaccinated people, overall HRs for long COVID symptoms in people vaccinated with a first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine were 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67) in CPRD GOLD, 0·48 (0·34-0·68) in CPRD AURUM, 0·71 (0·55-0·91) in SIDIAP, and 0·59 (0·40-0·87) in CORIVA. A slightly stronger preventative effect was seen for the first dose of BNT162b2 than for ChAdOx1 (sHR 0·85 [0·60-1·20] in CPRD GOLD and 0·84 [0·74-0·94] in CPRD AURUM). INTERPRETATION: Vaccination against COVID-19 consistently reduced the risk of long COVID symptoms, which highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent persistent COVID-19 symptoms, particularly in adults. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , Estonia , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , España , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Introduction: Bronchiolitis, mostly caused by Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), and influenza among other respiratory infections, lead to seasonal saturation at healthcare centers in temperate areas. There is no gold standard to characterize the stages of epidemics, nor the risk of respiratory infections growing. We aimed to define a set of indicators to assess the risk level of respiratory viral epidemics, based on both incidence and their short-term dynamics, and considering epidemical thresholds. Methods: We used publicly available data on daily cases of influenza for the whole population and bronchiolitis in children <2 years from the Information System for Infection Surveillance in Catalonia (SIVIC). We included a Moving Epidemic Method (MEM) variation to define epidemic threshold and levels. We pre-processed the data with two different nowcasting approaches and performed a 7-day moving average. Weekly incidences (cases per 105 population) were computed and the 5-day growth rate was defined to create the effective potential growth (EPG) indicator. We performed a correlation analysis to define the forecasting ability of this index. Results: Our adaptation of the MEM method allowed us to define epidemic weekly incidence levels and epidemic thresholds for bronchiolitis and influenza. EPG was able to anticipate daily 7-day cumulative incidence by 4-5 (bronchiolitis) or 6-7 (influenza) days. Discussion: We developed a semi-empirical risk panel incorporating the EPG index, which effectively anticipates surpassing epidemic thresholds for bronchiolitis and influenza. This panel could serve as a robust surveillance tool, applicable to respiratory infectious diseases characterized by seasonal epidemics, easy to handle for individuals lacking a mathematical background.