Comparative Effectiveness of Roux-en Y Gastric Bypass Versus Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy for Sustained Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery results in rapid weight loss and resolution of comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to determine whether the type of surgical procedure-vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)-was associated with sustained remission from T2DM, and to identify other independent predictors of sustained remission. METHODS: Using the IBM MarketScan database of privately insured patients in the United States, we performed a retrospective cohort study on individuals aged 18-65 y with T2DM on hypoglycemic medication, who underwent either VSG or RYGB from 2010 to 2016. Remission was defined as no refill of antidiabetic medication 180 d after a patient's medication was expected to run out and recurrence as medication refill after at least 180 d of remission. RESULTS: Of 5119 patients in our cohort, 4127 (81%) experienced remission of T2DM, and 816 (19.8%) of the 4127 patients experienced recurrence. Patients who underwent RYGB had a 24% (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.32) increased probability of achieving remission compared with VSG. RYGB had a 36% (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.74) decreased risk of recurrence compared with VSG. A higher number of diabetic medications at the time of surgery and a higher Charlson index score were associated with decreased probability of remission and an increased risk of recurrence of T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: While both procedures are initially effective, RYGB may be better than VSG at providing lasting remission of T2DM.

Statins use and COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies for reversing COVID-19-related lung inflammation. Recent evidence has demonstrated that the cholesterol-lowering agents, statins, are associated with reduced mortality in patients with various respiratory infections. We sought to investigate the relationship between statin use and COVID-19 disease severity in hospitalized patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients admitted to the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 was performed. The outcomes of interest were mortality and severe COVID-19 infection, as defined by prolonged hospital stay (≥ 7 days) and/ or invasive mechanical ventilation. Logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching were used to obtain both univariable and multivariable associations between covariates and outcomes in addition to the average treatment effect of statin use. RESULTS: Of the 4,447 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 594 (13.4%) patients were exposed to statins on admission, of which 340 (57.2%) were male. The mean age was higher in statin users compared to non-users [64.9 ± 13.4 vs. 45.5 ± 16.6 years, p <0.001]. The average treatment effect of statin use on COVID-19-related mortality was RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.01, p = 0.928), while its effect on severe COVID-19 infection was RR = 1.18 (95% CI: 1.11-1.27, p <0.001). CONCLUSION: Statin use was not associated with altered mortality, but with an 18% increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection.

The Global Health Security Index is not predictive of coronavirus pandemic responses among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has devastated many countries with ripple effects felt in various sectors of the global economy. In November 2019, the Global Health Security (GHS) Index was released as the first detailed assessment and benchmarking of 195 countries to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats. This paper presents the first comparison of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD countries' performance during the pandemic, with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic preparedness as determined by the GHS Index. Using a rank-based analysis, four indices were compared between select countries, including total cases, total deaths, recovery rate, and total tests performed, all standardized for comparison. Our findings suggest a discrepancy between the GHS index rating and the actual performance of countries during this pandemic, with an overestimation of the preparedness of some countries scoring highly on the GHS index and underestimation of the preparedness of other countries with relatively lower scores on the GHS index.