RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The evidence of thyroid dysfunction in the post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of incident thyroid dysfunction in the post-acute phase of COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective, propensity-score matched, population-based study included COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 individuals between January 2020 and March 2022, identified from the electronic medical records of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. The cohort was followed up until the occurrence of outcomes, death, or 31 January 2023, whichever came first. Patients with COVID-19 were 1:1 matched to controls based on various variables. The primary outcome was a composite of thyroid dysfunction (hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, initiation of antithyroid drug or levothyroxine, and thyroiditis). Cox regression was employed to evaluate the risk of incident thyroid dysfunction during the post-acute phase. RESULTS: A total of 84 034 COVID-19 survivors and 84 034 matched controls were identified. Upon a median follow-up of 303 days, there was no significant increase in the risk of diagnosed thyroid dysfunction in the post-acute phase of COVID-19 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.058, 95% confidence interval 0.979-1.144, P = .154). Regarding the secondary outcomes, patients with COVID-19 did not have increased risk of hyperthyroidism (HR 1.061, P = .345), hypothyroidism (HR 1.062, P = .255), initiation of antithyroid drug (HR 1.302, P = .070), initiation of levothyroxine (HR 1.086, P = .426), or thyroiditis (P = .252). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were largely consistent with the main analyses. CONCLUSION: Our population-based cohort study provided important reassuring data that COVID-19 was unlikely to be associated with persistent effects on thyroid function.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hipotireoidismo , Doenças da Glândula Tireoide , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/complicações , Hong Kong/epidemiologia , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Idoso , Adulto , Hipotireoidismo/epidemiologia , Doenças da Glândula Tireoide/epidemiologia , Hipertireoidismo/epidemiologia , Incidência , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudos de Coortes , Tiroxina/uso terapêutico , Fatores de Risco , Tireoidite/epidemiologia , Pontuação de Propensão , Síndrome de COVID-19 Pós-Aguda , Antitireóideos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Whether hospitalized patients benefit from COVID-19 oral antivirals is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Omicron outbreak. DESIGN: Target trial emulation study. SETTING: Electronic health databases in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: The molnupiravir emulated trial included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 aged 18 years or older between 26 February and 18 July 2022 (n = 16 495). The nirmatrelvir-ritonavir emulated trial included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 aged 18 years or older between 16 March and 18 July 2022 (n = 7119). INTERVENTION: Initiation of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 5 days of hospitalization with COVID-19 versus no initiation of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. MEASUREMENTS: Effectiveness against all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or use of ventilatory support within 28 days. RESULTS: The use of oral antivirals in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (molnupiravir: hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.93]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.66 to 0.90]) but no significant risk reduction in terms of ICU admission (molnupiravir: HR, 1.02 [CI, 0.76 to 1.36]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.08 [CI, 0.58 to 2.02]) or the need for ventilatory support (molnupiravir: HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.89 to 1.30]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.03 [CI, 0.70 to 1.52]). There was no significant interaction between drug treatment and the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, thereby supporting the effectiveness of oral antivirals regardless of vaccination status. No significant interaction between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment and age, sex, or Charlson Comorbidity Index was observed, whereas molnupiravir tended to be more effective in older people. LIMITATION: The outcome of ICU admission or need for ventilatory support may not capture all severe COVID-19 cases; unmeasured confounders, such as obesity and health behaviors, may exist. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduced all-cause mortality in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hospitalized patients. No significant reduction in ICU admission or the need for ventilatory support was observed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health and Medical Research Fund Research on COVID-19, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Research Grants Council, Collaborative Research Fund; and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Idoso , Humanos , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Ritonavir/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional education (IPE) has the potential to shape students' collaboration perception and interprofessional identity but remains understudied. This study aims to understand the effects of the IPE program as a contextual trigger to promote collaboration perception change and interprofessional identity formation among healthcare professional students. METHODS: Using concurrent triangulation mixed-methods, we examined the relationship between collaboration perception and interprofessional identity change among health profession students (N = 263), and explored their perspectives on how their IPE experiences influenced their perception and identity. Participants completed the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale and Extended Professional Identity Scale and responded to open-ended questions before and after the IPE intervention. Pearson's correlation, t-tests, regression (quantitative), and thematic analysis (qualitative) were conducted. RESULTS: Teams with initially lower collaboration perception (M = 3.59) and lower interprofessional identity (M = 3.59) showed a significant increase in collaboration perception (M = 3.76, t = 2.63; p = .02) and interprofessional identity (M = 3.97, t = 4.86; p < .001) after participating in IPE. The positive relationship between collaboration perception and interprofessional identity strengthened after participating in IPE, as evident from the correlation (Time 1: r = .69; p < .001; Time 2: r = .79; p < .001). Furthermore, collaboration perception in Time 1 significantly predicted the variance in interprofessional identity at Time 2 (ß = 0.347, p < .001). Qualitative findings indicated that 85.2% of students expressed that IPE played a role in promoting their interprofessional identity and collaboration attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating the IPE program into the curriculum can effectively enhance students' collaboration perception and interprofessional identity, ultimately preparing them for collaborative practice in the healthcare system. By engaging students in interprofessional teamwork, communication, and joint decision-making processes, the IPE program provides a valuable context for students to develop a sense of belonging and commitment to interprofessional collaboration.
Assuntos
Comportamento Cooperativo , Educação Interprofissional , Relações Interprofissionais , Identificação Social , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Estudantes de Ciências da Saúde/psicologia , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Adulto Jovem , Adulto , CurrículoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The risk of incident diabetes following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination remains to be elucidated. Also, it is unclear whether the risk of incident diabetes after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is modified by vaccination status or differs by SARS-CoV-2 variants. We evaluated the incidence of diabetes following mRNA (BNT162b2), inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccines, and after SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this population-based cohort study, individuals without known diabetes were identified from an electronic health database in Hong Kong. The first cohort included people who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and those who did not receive any COVID-19 vaccines up to September 2021. The second cohort consisted of confirmed COVID-19 patients and people who were never infected up to March 2022. Both cohorts were followed until August 15, 2022. A total of 325,715 COVID-19 vaccine recipients (CoronaVac: 167,337; BNT162b2: 158,378) and 145,199 COVID-19 patients were 1:1 matched to their respective controls using propensity score for various baseline characteristics. We also adjusted for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection when estimating the conditional probability of receiving vaccinations, and vaccination status when estimating the conditional probability of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident diabetes were estimated using Cox regression models. In the first cohort, we identified 5,760 and 4,411 diabetes cases after receiving CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccines, respectively. Upon a median follow-up of 384 to 386 days, there was no evidence of increased risks of incident diabetes following CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination (CoronaVac: 9.08 versus 9.10 per 100,000 person-days, HR = 0.998 [95% CI 0.962 to 1.035]; BNT162b2: 7.41 versus 8.58, HR = 0.862 [0.828 to 0.897]), regardless of diabetes type. In the second cohort, we observed 2,109 cases of diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Upon a median follow-up of 164 days, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher risk of incident diabetes (9.04 versus 7.38, HR = 1.225 [1.150 to 1.305])-mainly type 2 diabetes-regardless of predominant circulating variants, albeit lower with Omicron variants (p for interaction = 0.009). The number needed to harm at 6 months was 406 for 1 additional diabetes case. Subgroup analysis revealed no evidence of increased risk of incident diabetes among fully vaccinated COVID-19 survivors. Main limitations of our study included possible misclassification bias as type 1 diabetes was identified through diagnostic coding and possible residual confounders due to its observational nature. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased risks of incident diabetes following COVID-19 vaccination. The risk of incident diabetes increased following SARS-CoV-2 infection, mainly type 2 diabetes. The excess risk was lower, but still statistically significant, for Omicron variants. Fully vaccinated individuals might be protected from risks of incident diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Humanos , Vacina BNT162 , Estudos de Coortes , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/etiologia , Hong Kong/epidemiologia , Incidência , Pontuação de Propensão , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: With accruing case reports on de novo or relapsing glomerular diseases (GD) following different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, we evaluated the risk of GD following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines. METHODS: A modified self-controlled case series analysis was conducted using anonymized, territory-wide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination records in Hong Kong. All Hong Kong residents aged 18 years or above with outcomes of interest were included. Outcomes of interest were GD, proteinuria or hematuria within 42 days following each dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Incidence per 100 000 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines administered was calculated, and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression with seasonality adjustment. RESULTS: Between 23 February 2021 and 31 March 2022, 4062 patients had an incident diagnosis of GD, proteinuria or hematuria, with 2873 of them being vaccinated during the observation period. The incidences of the composite events 1-41 days after vaccination were 3.7 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) per 100 000 doses of BNT162b2 administered, and 6.5 (95% CI 5.7-7.5) per 100 000 doses CoronaVac administered. There was no significant increase in the risks of composite events following the first (BNT162b2: IRR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.03; CoronaVac: IRR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.19), second (BNT162b2: IRR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.17; CoronaVac: IRR = 0.88. 95% CI 0.68-1.14) or third (BNT162b2: IRR = 0.39. 95% CI 0.15-1.03; CoronaVac: IRR = 1.18. 95% CI 0.53-2.63) dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased risks of de novo or relapsing GD with either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Nefropatias , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Vacina BNT162 , Hematúria , RNA Mensageiro , SARS-CoV-2 , ProteinúriaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Safety monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is crucial during mass vaccination rollout to inform the choice of vaccines and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Considering the scant evidence directly comparing the safety profiles of mRNA and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, this territory-wide cohort study aims to compare the incidence of various adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and all-cause mortality between CoronaVac (inactivated vaccine) and BNT162b2 (mRNA-based vaccine). Our results can help vaccine recipients make an informed choice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A retrospective, population-based cohort of individuals who had received at least 1 dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac from 23 February to 9 September 2021 in Hong Kong, and had data linkage to the electronic medical records of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, were included. Those who had received mixed doses were excluded. Individuals were observed from the date of vaccination (first or second dose) until mortality, second dose vaccination (for first dose analysis), 21 days after vaccination, or 30 September 2021, whichever came first. Baseline characteristics of vaccinated individuals were balanced between groups using propensity score weighting. Outcome events were AESIs and all-cause mortality recorded during 21 days of post-vaccination follow-up after each dose, except anaphylaxis, for which the observation period was restricted to 2 days after each dose. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of AESIs and mortality comparing between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients were estimated after each dose using Poisson regression models. Among 2,333,379 vaccinated individuals aged 18 years or above, the first dose analysis included 1,308,820 BNT162b2 and 955,859 CoronaVac recipients, while the second dose analysis included 1,116,677 and 821,560 individuals, respectively. The most frequently reported AESI among CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients was thromboembolism (first dose: 431 and 290 per 100,000 person-years; second dose: 385 and 266 per 100,000 person-years). After the first dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.08, p = 0.703) and mortality (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.63-1.48, p = 0.868) associated with CoronaVac were generally comparable to those for BNT162b2, except for Bell palsy (IRR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.12-3.41, p = 0.018), anaphylaxis (IRR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.79, p = 0.012), and sleeping disturbance or disorder (IRR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.89, p = 0.006). After the second dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.87-1.08, p = 0.545) and mortality (IRR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.40, p = 0.516) were comparable between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients, with no significant differences observed for specific AESIs. The main limitations of this study include residual confounding due to its observational nature, and the possibility of its being underpowered for some AESIs with very low observed incidences. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that the incidences of AESIs (cumulative incidence rate of 0.06%-0.09%) and mortality following the first and second doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination were very low. The safety profiles of the vaccines were generally comparable, except for a significantly higher incidence rate of Bell palsy, but lower incidence rates of anaphylaxis and sleeping disturbance or disorder, following first dose CoronaVac versus BNT162b2 vaccination. Our results could help inform the choice of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines, mainly administered in low- and middle-income countries with large populations, in comparison to the safety of mRNA vaccines. Long-term surveillance on the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines should continue.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia , Vacina BNT162 , Paralisia de Bell , COVID-19 , Vacinas , Vacina BNT162/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Estudos de Coortes , Hong Kong/epidemiologia , Humanos , RNA Mensageiro , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Vacinação/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Case reports of severe acute liver injury (ALI) following COVID-19 vaccination have recently been published. We evaluated the risks of ALI following COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 or CoronaVac). METHODS: We conducted a modified self-controlled case series analysis using the vaccination records in Hong Kong with data linkage to electronic medical records from a territory-wide healthcare database. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for ALI outcome in the 56-day period following first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to the non-exposure period were estimated and compared to the ALI risk in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 2,343,288 COVID-19 vaccine recipients who were at risk, 4,677 patients developed ALI for the first time between 23rd February 2021 to 30th September 2021. The number of ALI cases within 56 days after the first and second dose of vaccination were 307 and 521 (335 and 334 per 100,000 person-years) for BNT162b2, and 304 and 474 (358 and 403 per 100,000 person-years) for CoronaVac, respectively, compared to 32,997 ALI cases per 100,000 person-years among patients within 56 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared to the non-exposure period, no increased risk was observed in the 56-day risk period for first (IRR 0.800; 95% CI 0.680-0.942) and second (IRR 0.944; 95% CI 0.816-1.091) dose of BNT162b2, or first (IRR 0.689; 95% CI 0.588-0.807) and second (IRR 0.905; 95% CI 0.781-1.048) dose of CoronaVac. There were no severe or fatal cases of ALI following COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an increased risk of ALI associated with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination. Based on all current available evidence from previous studies and our study, the benefit of mass vaccination far outweighs the ALI risk from vaccination. LAY SUMMARY: There have been some recent reports that COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with acute liver injury. In our study, we found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increased the risk of acute liver injury, which was much more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination. Hence, our study provides further data indicating that the benefits of mass COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Antraquinonas , Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Fígado/lesões , Pirazóis , RNA Mensageiro , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In view of accumulating case reports of thyroid dysfunction following COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the risks of incident thyroid dysfunction following inactivated (CoronaVac) and mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines using a population-based dataset. METHODS: We identified people who received COVID-19 vaccination between 23 February and 30 September 2021 from a population-based electronic health database in Hong Kong, linked to vaccination records. Thyroid dysfunction encompassed anti-thyroid drug (ATD)/levothyroxine (LT4) initiation, biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism, incident Graves' disease (GD), and thyroiditis. A self-controlled case series design was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of thyroid dysfunction in a 56-day post-vaccination period compared to the baseline period (non-exposure period) using conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 2,288,239 people received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination (57.8% BNT162b2 recipients and 42.2% CoronaVac recipients). 94.3% of BNT162b2 recipients and 92.2% of CoronaVac recipients received the second dose. Following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.864, 95% CI 0.670-1.114; CoronaVac: IRR 0.707, 95% CI 0.549-0.912), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.716-1.159; CoronaVac: IRR 0.778, 95% CI 0.618-0.981), biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.872, 95% CI 0.744-1.023; CoronaVac: IRR 0.830, 95% CI 0.713-0.967) or hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.002, 95% CI 0.838-1.199; CoronaVac: IRR 0.963, 95% CI 0.807-1.149), GD, and thyroiditis. Similarly, following the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.972, 95% CI 0.770-1.227; CoronaVac: IRR 0.879, 95%CI 0.693-1.116), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 1.019, 95% CI 0.833-1.246; CoronaVac: IRR 0.768, 95% CI 0.613-0.962), hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.039, 95% CI 0.899-1.201; CoronaVac: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.786-1.055), hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.935, 95% CI 0.794-1.102; CoronaVac: IRR 0.945, 95% CI 0.799-1.119), GD, and thyroiditis. Age- and sex-specific subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed consistent neutral associations between thyroid dysfunction and both types of COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Our population-based study showed no evidence of vaccine-related increase in incident hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism with both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hipertireoidismo , Hipotireoidismo , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Hipertireoidismo/induzido quimicamente , Hipertireoidismo/epidemiologia , Hipotireoidismo/induzido quimicamente , Hipotireoidismo/epidemiologia , RNA Mensageiro , Tiroxina , VacinasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed increased risks of hospitalization and mortality in patients with underlying CKD. Current data on vaccine effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines are limited to patients with CKD on dialysis and seroconversion in the non-dialysis population. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted of adults with CKD using data extracted from the electronic health record database in Hong Kong. Adults with CKD and COVID-19 confirmed by PCR were included in the study. Each case was matched with up to ten controls attending Hospital Authority services without a diagnosis of COVID-19 on the basis of age, sex, and index date (within three calendar days). The vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in preventing COVID-19 infection, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality was estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted by patients' comorbidities and medication history during the outbreak from January to March 2022. RESULTS: A total of 20,570 COVID-19 cases, 6604 COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and 2267 all-cause mortality were matched to 81,092, 62,803, and 21,348 controls, respectively. Compared with the unvaccinated group, three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were associated with a reduced risk of infection (BNT162b2: 64% [95% confidence interval (CI), 60 to 67], CoronaVac: 42% [95% CI, 38 to 47]), hospitalization (BNT162b2: 82% [95% CI, 77 to 85], CoronaVac: 80% [95% CI, 76 to 84]), and mortality (BNT162b2: 94% [95% CI, 88 to 97], CoronaVac: 93% [95% CI, 88 to 96]). Vaccines were less effective in preventing infection and hospitalization in the eGFR <15 and 15-29 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 subgroups as compared with higher GFR subgroups. However, receipt of vaccine, even for one dose, was effective in preventing all-cause mortality, with estimates similar to the higher eGFR subgroups, as compared with unvaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: A dose-response relationship was observed between the number of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac doses and the effectiveness against COVID-19 infection and related comorbidity in the CKD population.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Vacinas de Produtos Inativados , Adulto , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Vacina BNT162 , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Eficácia de Vacinas , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudos de Casos e Controles , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/epidemiologia , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/terapiaRESUMO
Multimorbidity entails a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 complications. We examined vaccine effectiveness (VE) stratified by multimorbidity using a case-control study of territory-wide electronic health records in Hong Kong. Cases of infection (testing positive), hospitalization, and mortality were identified from January to March 2022. Controls were matched by age, sex, outpatient attendance/hospitalization date, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. We demonstrated a consistently good VE among people with increased multimorbidity burden; even more so than among those with minimal such burden. There was also a significantly greater VE after a third dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac against infection. The difference in VE between those with multimorbidity and those without was less pronounced for hospitalization, and such difference for COVID-19-related mortality was negligible. In conclusion, VE of both examined vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection among people with more complex multimorbidity burden is significant. Further vaccine roll-out should prioritize people with multimorbidity.
RESUMO
Introduction: Even with effective vaccines, patients with CKD have a higher risk of hospitalization and death subsequent to COVID-19 infection than those without CKD. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have been approved for emergency use, but their effectiveness for the CKD population is still unknown. This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of these drugs in reducing mortality and severe COVID-19 in the CKD population. Methods: This was a target trial emulation study using electronic health databases in Hong Kong. Patients with CKD aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were included. The per-protocol average treatment effect among COVID-19 oral antiviral initiators, including all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ventilatory support within 28 days, were compared to noninitiators. Results: Antivirals have been found to lower the risk of all-cause mortality, with Molnupiravir at a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.95] and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir at an HR of 0.78 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.00]. However, they do not significantly reduce the risk of ICU admission (molnupiravir: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.30]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.32]) or ventilatory support (molnupiravir: HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33]; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.37]). There was a greater risk reduction in males and those with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The nirmatrelvir-ritonavir trial also showed reduced risk for those who had antiviral treatment and received 3 or more vaccine doses. Conclusion: Both molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir reduced mortality rates for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CKD.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Effectiveness and respiratory adverse events following coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have not been well investigated in Chinese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. METHODS: Using electronic health care records in Hong Kong, we included adults with COPD or asthma or both and hospitalised for severe respiratory exacerbation in a self-controlled case series (SCCS) study between 23/02/2021 and 30/11/2022. Conditional Poisson regression models were used to estimate the incidence of outcomes within exposure periods (28 days after each dose) compared with baseline periods. Cox proportional hazard models evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-related mortality, hospitalisation, and severe complications, including admission to intensive care units or ventilatory support. The VE assessment was based on vaccine types and the number of doses. RESULTS: In the SCCS, 343 CoronaVac recipients and 212 BNT162b2 recipients were included. No increased risk of outcomes was observed within the exposure periods. In the cohort study, 108,423 and 83,323 patients received ≥ 2 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2, respectively. The VE (95% CI) against COVID-related mortality, hospitalisation, and severe complications after two-dose CoronaVac was 77% (74-80%), 18% (6-23%), and 29% (12-43%), respectively, while for the two-dose regimen of BNT162b2, it was 92% (91-94%), 33% (30-37%), and 57% (45-66%), respectively. Higher VE against COVID-related mortality, hospitalisation, and severe complications was found for the three-dose regimen of CoronaVac (94%, 40%, and 71%) and BNT162b2 (98%, 65%, and 83%). Administering a fourth dose of either vaccine showed additional reductions in COVID-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with COPD and asthma, the COVID-19 vaccines CoronaVac and BNT162b2 did not increase severe exacerbations and achieved moderate-to-high effectiveness against COVID-related outcomes. COVID-19 vaccination remains essential and should be encouraged to protect this vulnerable population in future epidemic waves.
Assuntos
Asma , COVID-19 , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Adulto , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Vacina BNT162 , Estudos de Coortes , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Hong Kong/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic liver disease (CLD) was associated with adverse clinical outcomes among people with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. AIM: To determine the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the incidence and treatment strategy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among patients with CLD. METHODS: A retrospective, territory-wide cohort of CLD patients was identified from an electronic health database in Hong Kong. Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)+CLD] between January 1, 2020 and October 25, 2022 were identified and matched 1:1 by propensity-score with those without (COVID-19-CLD). Each patient was followed up until death, outcome event, or November 15, 2022. Primary outcome was incidence of HCC. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, adverse hepatic outcomes, and different treatment strategies to HCC (curative, non-curative treatment, and palliative care). Analyses were further stratified by acute (within 20 d) and post-acute (21 d or beyond) phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated by Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 193589 CLD patients (> 95% non-cirrhotic) in the cohort, 55163 patients with COVID-19+CLD and 55163 patients with COVID-19-CLD were included after 1:1 propensity-score matching. Upon 249-d median follow-up, COVID-19+CLD was not associated with increased risk of incident HCC (IRR: 1.19, 95%CI: 0.99-1.42, P = 0.06), but higher risks of receiving palliative care for HCC (IRR: 1.60, 95%CI: 1.46-1.75, P < 0.001), compared to COVID-19-CLD. In both acute and post-acute phases of infection, COVID-19+CLD were associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (acute: IRR: 7.06, 95%CI: 5.78-8.63, P < 0.001; post-acute: IRR: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.14-1.36, P < 0.001) and adverse hepatic outcomes (acute: IRR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.79-2.18, P < 0.001; post-acute: IRR: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.13-1.35, P < 0.001), compared to COVID-19-CLD. CONCLUSION: Although CLD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were not associated with increased risk of HCC, they were more likely to receive palliative treatment than those without. The detrimental effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted in post-acute phase.
RESUMO
Accrued epidemiologic data largely support an association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer in women with schizophrenia. No studies have specifically investigated such risks in women with bipolar disorder. This study aims to examine the association between antipsychotics and breast cancer in women with bipolar disorder and compare it against schizophrenia. We conducted a nested case-control study using a territory-wide public healthcare database in Hong Kong examining women aged ≥18 years with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Using incidence density sampling, women with a breast cancer diagnosis were matched by up to 10 control participants. In total, 672 case participants (109 with bipolar disorder) and 6,450 control participants (931 with bipolar disorder) were included. Results show a significant association of first-generation antipsychotics with breast cancer in both women with schizophrenia [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.90] or bipolar disorder (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11-2.93). Second-generation antipsychotics was associated with breast cancer only in women with bipolar disorder (aOR 2.49, 95% CI 1.29-4.79), with no significant association found in women with schizophrenia (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.36). In conclusion, further research on breast cancer risks is warranted for women with bipolar disorder on antipsychotics.
Assuntos
Antipsicóticos , Transtorno Bipolar , Neoplasias da Mama , Esquizofrenia , Humanos , Feminino , Adolescente , Adulto , Antipsicóticos/efeitos adversos , Transtorno Bipolar/tratamento farmacológico , Transtorno Bipolar/epidemiologia , Esquizofrenia/tratamento farmacológico , Esquizofrenia/epidemiologia , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Mama/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Severe COVID-19 appears to be disproportionately more common in children and adolescents since the emergence of Omicron. More evidence regarding vaccine effectiveness (VE) is urgently needed to assist policymakers in making decisions and minimize vaccine hesitancy among the public. This was a case-control study in the pediatric population using data extracted from the electronic health records database in Hong Kong. Individuals aged 3-17 with COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction were included in the study. Each case was matched with up to 10 controls based on age, gender, and index date (within 3 calendar days). The VE of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in preventing COVID-19, hospitalizations, and severe outcomes were estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted by patients' comorbidities and medication history during the outbreak from January to August 2022. A total of 36,434 COVID-19 cases, 2231 COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and 1918 severe COVID-19 cases were matched to 109,004, 21,788, and 18,823 controls, respectively. Compared to the unvaccinated group, three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was associated with reduced risk of infection [VE: BNT162b2: 56.0% (95% CI: 49.6-61.6), CoronaVac: 39.4% (95% CI: 25.6-50.6)], hospitalization [VE: BNT162b2: 58.9% (95% CI: 36.1-73.6), CoronaVac: 51.7% (11.6-73.6)], and severe outcomes [VE: BNT162b2: 60.2% (95% CI: 33.7-76.1), CoronaVac: 42.2% (95% CI: -6.2-68.6)]. Our findings showed that three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was effective in preventing COVID-19, hospitalizations, and severe outcomes among the pediatric population during Omicron-dominant pandemic, which was further enhanced after a booster dose.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas , Criança , Adolescente , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Vacina BNT162 , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Hong Kong/epidemiologia , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , HospitalizaçãoRESUMO
Background: Large-scale comparative research exploring the risk after the third dose and after inactivated covid-19 vaccination is limited. This study aimed to assess the risk of carditis following three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Methods: We conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) and a case-control study using electronic health and vaccination records in Hong Kong. Carditis incidents within 28 days of covid-19 vaccination were included as cases. In the case-control study, up to 10 hospitalized controls were selected with stratified probability sampling by age, sex, and hospital admission (±1 day). The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were reported from conditional Poisson regressions for SCCS, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were reported from multivariable logistic regressions. Findings: A total of 8,924,614 doses of BNT162b2 and 6,129,852 doses of CoronaVac were administered from February 2021 to March 2022. The SCCS detected increased carditis risks after BNT162b2: 4.48 (95%confidence interval [CI]:2.99-6.70] in 1-14 days and 2.50 (95%CI:1.43-4.38) in 15-28 days after first dose; 10.81 (95%CI:7.63-15.32) in 1-14 days and 2.95 (95%CI:1.82-4.78) in 15-28 days after second dose; 4.72 (95%CI:1.40-15.97) in 1-14 days after third dose. Consistent results were observed from the case-control study. Risks were specifically found in people aged below 30 years and males. No significant risk increase was observed after CoronaVac in all primary analyses. Interpretations: We detected increased carditis risks within 28 days after all three doses of BNT162b2 but the risk after the third doses were not higher than that of the second dose when compared with baseline period. Continuous monitoring of carditis after both mRNA and inactivated covid-19 vaccines is needed. Funding: : This study was funded by Hong Kong Health Bureau (COVID19F01).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence suggests that certain antipsychotic medications may inhibit the development of lung cancer. This study aims to investigate the association between incident lung cancer and different cumulative exposure periods of flupentixol or any antipsychotics. METHODS: Using electronic health records from the Hospital Authority in Hong Kong, this nested case-control study included case participants aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed lung cancer after initiating antipsychotics between January 1, 2003, and August 31, 2022. Each case was matched to up to ten controls of the same sex and age, who were also antipsychotic users. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were conducted to quantify the association between lung cancer and different cumulative exposure times of flupentixol (0-365 days [ref]; 366-1825 days; 1826+ days) and any antipsychotics (1-365 days [ref]; 366-1825 days; 1826+ days), separately. RESULTS: Here we show that among 6435 cases and 64,348 matched controls, 64.06% are males, and 52.98% are aged 65-84 years. Compared to patients with less than 365 days of exposure, those with 366-1825 days of exposure to flupentixol (OR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47-0.91]) and any antipsychotics (0.42 [0.38-0.45]) have a lower risk of lung cancer. A decreased risk is observed in patients who have 1826+ days of cumulative use of any antipsychotics (0.54 [0.47-0.60]). CONCLUSIONS: A reduced risk of lung cancer is observed in patients with more than one year of exposure to flupentixol or any antipsychotics. Further research on the association between lung cancer and other antipsychotic agents is warranted.
Antipsychotic drugs are mainly used to treat mental illnesses. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as flupentixol, may help protect patients against lung cancer. Here, we investigated whether prolonged use of flupentixol or other antipsychotics could reduce the occurrence of lung cancer among antipsychotic users. We demonstrated that a smaller proportion of patients with one to five years and more than five years of exposure to any antipsychotics develop lung cancer compared to those with less than one year of exposure. Specifically, for flupentixol, we observed a smaller proportion of patients with one to five years of exposure develop lung cancer compared to those with less than one year. To substantiate our current findings, further studies examining other populations and specific antipsychotic agents are necessary for developing effective lung cancer prevention strategies among this high-risk population.
RESUMO
Evidence on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among people who recovered from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is warranted to inform vaccination recommendations. Using the territory-wide public healthcare and vaccination records of over 2.5 million individuals in Hong Kong, we examined the potentially differential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and mortality between those receiving two homologous doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac versus those with a previous infection receiving only one dose amid the Omicron epidemic. Results show a single dose after a SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a lower risk of infection (BNT162b2: adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.475, 95% CI: 0.410-0.550; CoronaVac: adjusted IRR = 0.397, 95% CI: 0.309-0.511) and no significant difference was detected in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality compared with a two-dose vaccination regimen. Findings support clinical recommendations that those with a previous infection could receive a single dose to gain at least similar protection as those who received two doses without a previous infection.
RESUMO
Background: Thyroiditis and Graves' disease have been reported after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. We evaluated the risks of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination among patients treated for hypothyroidism. Methods: In this retrospective population-based cohort study of Hong Kong Hospital Authority electronic health records with the Department of Health vaccination records linkage, levothyroxine (LT4) users were categorized into unvaccinated, vaccinated with BNT162b2 (mRNA vaccine), or CoronaVac (inactivated vaccine) between February 23, 2021, and September 9, 2021. Study outcomes were dosage reduction or escalation in LT4, emergency department (ED) visit, unscheduled hospitalization, adverse events of special interest (AESI) according to the World Health Organization's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, and all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting for propensity score was applied to balance baseline patient characteristics among the three groups. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were observed from the index date until the occurrence of study outcome, death, or censored on September 30, 2021, whichever came first. Results: In total, 47,086 LT4 users were identified (BNT162b2: n = 12,310; CoronaVac: n = 11,353; and unvaccinated: n = 23,423). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risks of LT4 dosage reduction (BNT162b2: HR = 0.971 [confidence interval; CI 0.892-1.058]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.968 [CI 0.904-1.037]) or escalation (BNT162b2: HR = 0.779 [CI 0.519-1.169]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.715 [CI 0.481-1.062]). Besides, COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with a higher risk of ED visits (BNT162b2: HR = 0.944 [CI 0.700-1.273]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.851 [CI 0.647-1.120]) or unscheduled hospitalization (BNT162b2: HR = 0.905 [CI 0.539-1.520]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.735 [CI 0.448-1.207]). There were two (0.016%) deaths and six (0.062%) AESI recorded for BNT162b2 recipients, and one (0.009%) and three (0.035%) for CoronaVac recipients, respectively. Conclusions: BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination is not associated with unstable thyroid status or an increased risk of adverse outcomes among patients treated for hypothyroidism in general. These reassuring data should encourage them to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for protection from potentially worse COVID-19-related outcomes.