RESUMEN
AIMS: To compare the effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for non-hospitalized and hospitalized COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Territory-wide electronic health records in Hong Kong were used to perform target trial emulation using a sequential trial approach. Patients (1) aged ≥18 years, (2) with T2DM, (3) with COVID-19 infection, and (4) who received molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within 5 days of infection between 16 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 in non-hospital and hospital settings were included. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir initiators were matched using one-to-one propensity-score matching and followed for 28 days. Risk of outcomes was compared between groups by Cox regression adjusted for baseline characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed on age (<70 years, ≥70 years), sex, Charlson comorbidity index (<4, ≥4), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses (<2 doses, ≥2 doses). RESULTS: Totals of 17 974 non-hospitalized (8987 in each group) and 3678 hospitalized (1839 in each group) patients were identified. Non-hospitalized nirmatrelvir-ritonavir initiators had lower risk of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction [ARR] at 28 days 0.80%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.04; hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73) and hospitalization (ARR at 28 days 4.01%, 95% CI 3.19-4.83; HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) as compared with molnupiravir initiators. Hospitalized nirmatrelvir-ritonavir initiators had reduced risk of all-cause mortality (ARR at 28 days 2.94%, 95% CI 1.65-4.23; HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.80) as compared with molnupiravir initiators. Consistent findings were found across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may be preferred to molnupiravir for COVID-19 patients with T2DM and without contraindication to either treatment.
RESUMEN
We aimed to identify the clinical subtypes in individuals starting long-term care in Japan and examined their association with prognoses. Using linked medical insurance claims data and survey data for care-need certification in a large city, we identified participants who started long-term care. Grouping them based on 22 diseases recorded in the past 6 months using fuzzy c-means clustering, we examined the longitudinal association between clusters and death or care-need level deterioration within 2 years. We analyzed 4,648 participants (median age 83 [interquartile range 78-88] years, female 60.4%) between October 2014 and March 2019 and categorized them into (i) musculoskeletal and sensory, (ii) cardiac, (iii) neurological, (iv) respiratory and cancer, (v) insulin-dependent diabetes, and (vi) unspecified subtypes. The results of clustering were replicated in another city. Compared with the musculoskeletal and sensory subtype, the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death was 1.22 (1.05-1.42), 1.81 (1.54-2.13), and 1.21 (1.00-1.46) for the cardiac, respiratory and cancer, and insulin-dependent diabetes subtypes, respectively. The care-need levels more likely worsened in the cardiac, respiratory and cancer, and unspecified subtypes than in the musculoskeletal and sensory subtype. In conclusion, distinct clinical subtypes exist among individuals initiating long-term care.
Asunto(s)
Cuidados a Largo Plazo , Humanos , Femenino , Anciano , Masculino , Japón/epidemiología , Análisis por Conglomerados , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Cuidados a Largo Plazo/estadística & datos numéricos , Pronóstico , Neoplasias/mortalidad , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/clasificaciónRESUMEN
Population-based epidemiological studies on post-acute phase coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19)-related fractures in older adults are lacking. This study aims to examine the risk of incident major osteoporotic fractures following SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals aged ≥50, compared to individuals without COVID-19. It was a retrospective, propensity-score matched, population-based cohort study of COVID-19 patients and non-COVID individuals identified from the electronic database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority from January 2020 to March 2022. The primary outcome was a composite of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, clinical vertebral, and upper limb). COVID-19 patients were 1:1 matched to controls using propensity-score according to age, sex, vaccination status, medical comorbidities and baseline medications. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 429 459 COVID-19 patients were included, 1:1 matched to non-COVID individuals. Upon median follow-up of 11 months, COVID-19 patients had higher risks of major osteoporotic fractures (5.08 vs 3.95 per 1000 persons; HR 1.22 95%CI [1.15-1.31]), hip fractures (2.71 vs 1.94; 1.33 [1.22-1.46]), clinical vertebral fractures (0.42 vs 0.31; 1.29 [1.03-1.62]), and falls (13.83 vs 10.36; 1.28 [1.23-1.33]). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant interaction. In acute (within 30 days) and post-acute phases (beyond 30 days) following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we consistently observed a significant increase in fractures and falls risks. Our study demonstrated increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures after SARS-CoV-2 infection in both acute and post-acute phases in older adults, partly due to increased fall risk. Clinicians should be aware of musculoskeletal health of COVID-19 survivors.
Our study showed that older individuals with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at a higher risk of suffering from major osteoporotic fractures, ie serious bone fractures related to osteoporosis, compared to those not infected. The study analyzed the health records of 429 459 patients aged 50 and older in Hong Kong who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2022. These patients were compared with a matched group without COVID-19, considering age, sex, vaccination status, medical comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Findings indicated that individuals who had contracted COVID-19 experienced a higher risk of major osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures, and clinical vertebral fractures. The risk of falls, a common cause of these fractures, was also higher in the COVID-19 group. This increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures and falls persists both shortly after infection and in the following months, underscoring the lasting impact of COVID-19 on the bone health of older adults. These results support the recommendations for the assessment of bone health and fall risks, and an urgent review of the requirement for interventions to reduce the risk of fragility fractures in older adult COVID-19 survivors.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Fracturas Osteoporóticas , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/complicaciones , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Femenino , Masculino , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Incidencia , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios de CohortesRESUMEN
Concerns have been raised regarding potential weaker vaccine immunogenicity with higher immune suppression for individuals with pre-existing mental disorders. Yet, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations among this vulnerable population are limited. A case-control study was conducted to investigate the risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation and mortality among individuals with mental disorders following one to three doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccinations in Hong Kong. Data were extracted from electronic health records, vaccination and COVID-19 confirmed case records. Conditional logistic regression was applied with adjustment for comorbidities and medication history. Subgroup analyses were performed with stratification: by age (< 65 and ≥ 65) and mental disorders diagnosis (depression, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder). Two doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac significantly reduced COVID-19-related hospitalisation and mortality. Further protection for both outcomes was provided after three doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac. The vaccine effectiveness magnitude of BNT162b2 was generally higher than CoronaVac, but the difference diminished after the third dose. Individuals with mental disorders should be prioritised in future mass vaccination programmes of booster doses or bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. Targeted strategies should be developed to resolve the reasons behind vaccine hesitancy among this population and increase their awareness on the benefits of vaccination.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trastornos Mentales , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Vacunación , HospitalizaciónRESUMEN
Background: Case reports suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection could lead to immune dysregulation and trigger autoimmunity while COVID-19 vaccination is effective against severe COVID-19 outcomes. We aim to examine the association between COVID-19 and development of autoimmune diseases (ADs), and the potential protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination on such an association. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Hong Kong between 1 April 2020 and 15 November 2022. COVID-19 was confirmed by positive polymerase chain reaction or rapid antigen test. Cox proportional hazard regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to estimate the risk of incident ADs following COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccinated population was compared against COVID-19 unvaccinated population to examine the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination on new ADs. Findings: The study included 1,028,721 COVID-19 and 3,168,467 non-COVID individuals. Compared with non-COVID controls, patients with COVID-19 presented an increased risk of developing pernicious anaemia [adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR): 1.72; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.12-2.64]; spondyloarthritis [aHR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.03-1.69)]; rheumatoid arthritis [aHR: 1.29 (95% CI: 1.09-1.54)]; other autoimmune arthritis [aHR: 1.43 (95% CI: 1.33-1.54)]; psoriasis [aHR: 1.42 (95% CI: 1.13-1.78)]; pemphigoid [aHR: 2.39 (95% CI: 1.83-3.11)]; Graves' disease [aHR: 1.30 (95% CI: 1.10-1.54)]; anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome [aHR: 2.12 (95% CI: 1.47-3.05)]; immune mediated thrombocytopenia [aHR: 2.1 (95% CI: 1.82-2.43)]; multiple sclerosis [aHR: 2.66 (95% CI: 1.17-6.05)]; vasculitis [aHR: 1.46 (95% CI: 1.04-2.04)]. Among COVID-19 patients, completion of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine shows a decreased risk of pemphigoid, Graves' disease, anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome, immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, systemic lupus erythematosus and other autoimmune arthritis. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of developing various ADs and the risk could be attenuated by COVID-19 vaccination. Future studies investigating pathology and mechanisms would be valuable to interpreting our findings. Funding: Supported by RGC Collaborative Research Fund (C7154-20GF).
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare incidences of adverse events of special interest (AESI) and delirium in 3 cohorts: after COVID-19 vaccination, prepandemic, and SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test positive. DESIGN: This is a population-based cohort study using electronic medical records linked with vaccination records in Hong Kong. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 17,449 older people with dementia received at least 1 dose of CoronaVac (n = 14,719) or BNT162b2 (n = 2730) between February 23, 2021, and March 31, 2022. Moreover, 43,396 prepandemic and 3592 SARS-CoV-2 test positive patients were also included in this study. METHODS: The incidences of AESI and delirium up to 28 days after vaccination in the vaccinated dementia cohort were compared with the prepandemic and SARS-CoV-2 test positive dementia cohorts by calculating incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Patients who received multiple doses were followed up separately for each dose, up to the third dose. RESULTS: We did not detect an increased risk of delirium and most AESI following vaccination compared to the prepandemic period and those tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. No AESI group nor delirium incidence exceeded 10 per 1000 person-days in vaccinated individuals. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The findings provide evidence for the safe use of COVID-19 vaccines in older patients with dementia. In the short run, benefit appears to outweigh the harm due to vaccine; however, longer follow-up should be continued to identify remote adverse events.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Delirio , Demencia , Humanos , Anciano , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación/efectos adversos , Demencia/epidemiología , Delirio/epidemiología , Delirio/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder have a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent poor outcomes. Few studies have evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among people with substance use disorder. We aimed to estimate the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Fosun-BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) against SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) infection and related hospital admission in this population. METHODS: We did a matched case-control study using electronic health databases in Hong Kong. Individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder between Jan 1, 2016, and Jan 1, 2022, were identified. People aged 18 years and older with SARS-CoV-2 infection from Jan 1 to May 31, 2022, and people with COVID-19-related hospital admission from Feb 16 to May 31, 2022, were included as cases and were matched by age, sex, and previous clinical history with controls from all individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder who attended the Hospital Authority health services: up to three controls for SARS-CoV-2 infection and up to ten controls for hospital admission. Conditional logistical regression was used to evaluate the association between vaccination status (ie, one, two, or three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac) and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission, adjusted for baseline comorbidities and medication use. FINDINGS: Among 57 674 individuals with substance use disorder, 9523 people with SARS-CoV-2 infections (mean age 61·00 years, SD 14·90; 8075 [84·8%] males and 1448 [15·2%] females) were identified and matched to 28 217 controls (mean age 60·99 years, 14·67; 24 006 [85·1%] males and 4211 [14·9%] females), and 843 people with COVID-19-related hospital admissions (mean age 70·48 years, SD 14·68; 754 [89·4%] males and 89 [10·6%] females) were identified and matched to 7459 controls (mean age 70·24 years, 13·87; 6837 [91·7%] males and 622 [8·3%] females). Data on ethnicity were not available. We observed significant vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection for two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination (20·7%, 95% CI 14·0-27·0, p<0·0001) and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 41·5%, 34·4-47·8, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 13·6%, 5·4-21·0, p=0·0015; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 31·3%, 19·8-41·1, p<0·0001), but not for one dose of either vaccine or two doses of CoronaVac. Significant vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission was detected after one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination (35·7%, 3·8-57·1, p=0·032), two-dose vaccination (both BNT162b2 73·3%, 64·3 to 80·0, p<0·0001; both CoronaVac 59·9%, 50·2-67·7, p<0·0001), and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 86·3%, 75·6-92·3, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 73·5% 61·0-81·9, p<0·0001; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 83·7%, 64·6-92·5, p<0·0001), but not after one dose of CoronaVac. INTERPRETATION: For both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, two-dose or three-dose vaccination was protective against COVID-19-related hospital admission and the booster dose provided protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among people with substance use disorder. Our findings confirm the importance of booster doses in this population during the period dominated by the omicron variant. FUNDING: Health Bureau, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Femenino , Masculino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Casos y Controles , SARS-CoV-2 , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/epidemiología , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/terapia , HospitalesRESUMEN
Background COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and mortality. The association between vaccination and risk of cardiovascular complications shortly after SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease remains unknown. Methods and Results A case-control study was conducted with cases defined as patients who had myocardial infarction or stroke within 28 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022 and August 15, 2022. Controls were defined as all other patients who attended any health services and were not cases. Individuals without history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Each case was randomly matched with 10 controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI was estimated using conditional logistic regression. We identified 808 cases matched with 7771 controls among all patients with cardiovascular disease. Results showed that vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection with a dose-response relationship. For BNT162b2, risk decreased from 0.49 (95% CI, 0.29-0.84) to 0.30 (95% CI, 0.20-0.44) and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.08-0.34) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Similar trends were observed for CoronaVac, with risk decreased from 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85) to 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.52) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.21-0.49) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Conclusions Vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac is associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Infarto del Miocardio , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Humanos , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Casos y Controles , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Infarto del Miocardio/epidemiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Vacunación/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Background: COVID-19 vaccines are important for patients with heart failure (HF) to prevent severe outcomes but the safety concerns could lead to vaccine hesitancy. This study aimed to investigate the safety of two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, in patients with HF. Methods: We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using the data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and the Department of Health. The primary outcome was hospitalization for HF and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all hospitalization. We identified patients with a history of HF before February 23, 2021 and developed the outcome event between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 in Hong Kong. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression to evaluate the risks following the first three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Findings: We identified 32,490 patients with HF, of which 3035 were vaccinated and had a hospitalization for HF during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 755; CoronaVac = 2280). There were no increased risks during the 0-13 days (IRR 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.33-1.26]; 0.94 [0.50-1.78]; 0.82 [0.17-3.98]) and 14-27 days (0.73 [0.35-1.52]; 0.95 [0.49-1.84]; 0.60 [0.06-5.76]) after the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2. No increased risks were observed for CoronaVac during the 0-13 days (IRR 0.60 [0.41-0.88]; 0.71 [0.45-1.12]; 1.64 [0.40-6.77]) and 14-27 days (0.91 [0.63-1.32]; 0.79 [0.46-1.35]; 1.71 [0.44-6.62]) after the first, second and third doses. We also found no increased risk of MACE or all hospitalization after vaccination. Interpretation: Our results showed no increased risk of hospitalization for HF, MACE or all hospitalization after receiving BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines in patients with HF. Funding: The project was funded by a Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No. COVID19F01). F.T.T.L. (Francisco T.T. Lai) and I.C.K.W. (Ian C.K. Wong)'s posts were partly funded by the D24H; hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.
RESUMEN
Metformin has been shown to modulate meta-inflammation, an important pathogenesis in knee osteoarthritis (OA). The study aimed to test the association between regular metformin use with total knee replacement (TKR) in patients with diabetes. This is a retrospective study with electronic records retrieved in Hong Kong public primary care. Patients with diabetes aged ≥ 45 who visited during 2007 to 2010, were followed up for a four-year period from 2011 to 2014 to determine the incidence of TKR. Propensity score matching based on age, sex, co-medications and chronic conditions was conducted to adjust for confounding. Cox regression was implemented to examine the association between metformin use and TKR. In total, 196,930 patients were eligible and 93,330 regular metformin users (defined as ≥ 4 prescriptions over the previous year) and non-users were matched. Among 46,665 regular users, 184 TKRs were conducted, 17.1% fewer than that among non-users. Cox regression showed that regular metformin users had a 19%-lower hazard of TKR [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.67 to 0.98, P = 0.033], with a dose-response relationship. Findings suggest a potential protective effect of metformin on knee OA progression and later TKR incidence among diabetic patients.
Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla , Diabetes Mellitus , Metformina , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/efectos adversos , Diabetes Mellitus/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Humanos , Metformina/uso terapéutico , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla/tratamiento farmacológico , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla/epidemiología , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla/cirugía , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
AIMS: Concern about the cardiovascular safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) may lead to vaccine hesitancy. We sought to assess the association between two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in individuals with established CVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified individuals with a history of CVD before 23 February 2021 and a diagnosis of MACE between 23 February 2021 and 31 January 2022 in Hong Kong. MACE was defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and cardiovascular death. Electronic health records from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority were linked to vaccination records from the Department of Health. A self-controlled case-series method was used to evaluate the risk of MACE for 0-13 and 14-27 days after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to compare the risk of MACE between each risk period and the baseline period. A total of 229 235 individuals with CVD were identified, of which 1764 were vaccinated and had a diagnosis of MACE during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 662; CoronaVac = 1102). For BNT162b2, IRRs were 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-1.02] for the first dose and 0.87 (95% CI 0.50-1.52) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.40 (95% CI 0.18-0.93) for the first dose and 1.13 (95% CI 0.70-1.84) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. For CoronaVac, the IRRs were 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.75) for the first dose and, 0.73 (95% CI 0.46-1.16) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90) for the first dose and 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-1.29) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. Consistent results were found in subgroup analyses for different sexes, age groups and different underlying cardiovascular conditions. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed no evidence of an increased risk of MACE after vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with CVD. Future research is required to monitor the risk after the third dose of each vaccine.
Asunto(s)
Vacuna BNT162 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Vacuna BNT162/efectos adversos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/etiología , Humanos , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has defined a list of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for safety surveillance of vaccines. AESI have not been adequately assessed following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer contributing to vaccine hesitancy in this population. We aimed to evaluate the association between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines and the risk of AESI in adults with active cancer or a history of cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a territory-wide cohort study using electronic health records managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and vaccination records provided by the Department of Health. Patients with a cancer diagnosis between January 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021, were included and stratified into two cohorts: active cancer and history of cancer. Within each cohort, patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were 1:1 matched to unvaccinated patients using the propensity score. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AESI 28 days after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: A total of 74,878 patients with cancer were included (vaccinated: 25,789 [34%]; unvaccinated: 49,089 [66%]). Among patients with active cancer, the incidence of AESI was 0.31 and 1.02 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.13 and 0.88 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Among patients with history of cancer, the incidence was 0.55 and 0.89 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.42 and 0.93 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Neither vaccine was associated with a higher risk of AESI for patients with active cancer (BNT162b2: HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.09; CoronaVac: 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.18) or patients with history of cancer (BNT162b2: 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28; CoronaVac: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this territory-wide cohort study of patients with cancer, the incidence of AESI following vaccination with two doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines was low. The findings of this study can reassure clinicians and patients with cancer about the overall safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in patients with cancer, which could increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate in this vulnerable group of patients.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Adulto , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Neoplasias/etiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Importance: COVID-19 has required universities to rapidly develop vaccination policies for students and staff, yet little is known about the preferences of these individuals toward vaccination. Objective: To quantify student and staff preferences for COVID-19 vaccination at a university in Hong Kong. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional online survey study was conducted from July 20 to September 21, 2021, before the announcement of a campus-wide vaccine mandate. A survey of 42â¯451 eligible university students and staff used discrete-choice experiment methods to quantify 7 attributes of COVID-19 vaccination: risk of a mild or moderate adverse event after vaccination, risk of a severe adverse event after vaccination, efficacy against COVID-19 infection, efficacy against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection, duration of protection after vaccination, incentive for completing vaccination, and out-of-pocket costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: A mixed logit regression model was used to estimate the preferences of attributes for COVID-19 vaccines and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) adjusted for background characteristics, role, vaccination, and COVID-19 infection status of family or friends, adverse event status after vaccination among family and friends of participants, and scenario block. Results: Among 42â¯451 eligible university students and staff invited, 3423 individuals completed the survey (mean [SD] age, 27.1 [9.9] years; 2053 [60.0%] women). Participants included 2506 students (73.2%) and 917 staff (26.8%), with a response rate of 8.1%. Quarantine-free travel was preferred (ß = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; mWTP: $235.9; 95% CI, $190.3-$294.2), followed by efficacy against any COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.29-0.32; mWTP: $84.1; 95% CI, $71.8-$100.8), against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27; mWTP: $69.7; 95% CI, $465-$653), and risk of severe adverse events following vaccination (ß = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.21; mWTP: -$66.8; 95% CI, -$81.5 to -$55.3). Participants were less concerned about protection duration (ß = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18; mWTP: $46.0; 95% CI, $38.6-$56.2) and risk of mild to moderate adverse events (ß = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.10; mWTP: -$32.7; 95% CI, -$41.2 to -$26.4). Conclusions and Relevance: Preference of all attributes were significant and were considered important by the participants for vaccine decision-making. Insights drawn could assist policy makers in future vaccination decisions, such as campus vaccine mandate and requirement of a third dose.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Vacunación , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Estudiantes , Universidades , Vacunación/economía , Vacunación/psicología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the autoimmune safety of COVID-19 vaccines may negatively impact vaccine uptake. We aimed to describe the incidence of autoimmune conditions following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination and compare these with age-standardized incidence rates in non-vaccinated individuals. METHODS: This is a descriptive cohort study conducted in public healthcare service settings. Territory-wide longitudinal electronic medical records of Hong Kong Hospital Authority users (≥16 years) were linked with COVID-19 vaccination records between February 23, 2021 and June 30, 2021. We classified participants into first/second dose BNT162b2 groups, first/second dose CoronaVac groups and non-vaccinated individuals for incidence comparison. The study outcomes include hospitalized autoimmune diseases (16 types of immune-mediated diseases across six body systems) within 28 days after first and second dose of vaccination. Age-standardized incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Poisson distribution. RESULTS: This study included around 3.9 million Hong Kong residents, of which 1,122,793 received at least one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2: 579,998; CoronaVac: 542,795), and 721,588 completed two doses (BNT162b2: 388,881; CoronaVac: 332,707). Within 28 days following vaccination, cumulative incidences for all autoimmune conditions were below 9 per 100,000 persons, for both vaccines and both doses. None of the age-standardized incidence rates were significantly higher than the non-vaccinated individuals, except for an observed increased incidence of hypersomnia following the first dose of BNT162b2 (standardized IRR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.10-1.94). CONCLUSIONS: Autoimmune conditions requiring hospital care are rare following mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccination with similar incidence to non-vaccinated individuals. The association between first dose BNT162b2 vaccination and immune-related sleeping disorders requires further research. Population-based robust safety surveillance is essential to detect rare and unexpected vaccine safety events.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Autoinmunes , COVID-19 , Enfermedades Autoinmunes/epidemiología , Enfermedades Autoinmunes/etiología , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Estudios de Cohortes , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Humanos , ARN Mensajero , Vacunación/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested an association between depression and subsequent acute stroke incidence, but few studies have examined any effect modification by sociodemographic factors. In addition, no studies have investigated this association among primary care recipients with hypertension. METHODS: We examined the anonymized records of all public general outpatient visits by patients aged 45+ during January 2007-December 2010 in Hong Kong to extract primary care patients with hypertension for analysis. We took the last consultation date as the baseline and followed them up for 4 years (until 2011-2014) to observe any subsequent acute hospitalization due to stroke. Mixed-effects Cox models (random intercept across 74 included clinics) were implemented to examine the association between depression (ICPC diagnosis or anti-depressant prescription) at baseline and the hazard of acute stroke (ICD-9: 430-437.9). Effect modification by age, sex, and recipient status of social security assistance was examined in extended models with respective interaction terms specified. RESULTS: In total, 396 858 eligible patients were included, with 9099 (2.3%) having depression, and 10 851 (2.7%) eventually hospitalized for stroke. From the adjusted analysis, baseline depression was associated with a 17% increased hazard of acute stroke hospitalization [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.32]. This association was suggested to be even stronger among men than among women (hazard ratio = 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.67). CONCLUSION: Depression is more strongly associated with acute stroke incidence among male than female primary care patients with hypertension. More integrated services are warranted to address their needs.
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Depresión/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Hipertensión/epidemiología , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Atención Primaria de Salud , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Multimorbidity is associated with increased depression risks. Little research examines how physical exercise moderates this association. From an existing cohort of community-dwelling older adults in Hong Kong recruited in 2001-2003, the authors included participants who were successfully interviewed after 14 years (2015-2017). Geriatric depressive symptoms were used as the primary outcome and measured by the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale, while multimorbidity was operationalized using a list of 19 conditions. Subscores of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly measuring light, moderate, and strenuous sport/recreational activities were included as moderators. In total, 1,056 participants were included, of whom 50.7% were multimorbid. Multimorbidity was associated with 12% more geriatric depressive symptoms, but strenuous physical activities were associated with a smaller risk elevation only among multimorbid patients (adjusted relative risk = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.98, 0.99]; p = .001). In conclusion, strenuous sport and recreational activities may attenuate the association between multimorbidity and geriatric depressive symptoms.
Asunto(s)
Depresión , Multimorbilidad , Anciano , Depresión/epidemiología , Ejercicio Físico , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Vida IndependienteRESUMEN
Diabetes among working population brings to society concerns on productivity and social welfare cost, in addition to healthcare burden. While lower socio-economic status has been recognised as a risk factor of diabetes; occupation, compared with other socio-economic status indicators (e.g., education and income), has received less attention. There is some evidence from studies conducted in Europe that occupation is associated with diabetes risk, but less is known in Asia, which has different organisational cultures and management styles from the West. This study examines the association between occupation and diabetes risk in a developed Asian setting, which is experiencing an increasing number of young onset of diabetes and aging working population at the same time. This is a cross-sectional study of working population aged up to 65 with data from a population-based survey collecting demographic, socio-economic, behavioural and metabolic data from Hong Kong residents, through both self-administered questionnaires and clinical health examinations (1,429 participants). Non-skilled occupation was found to be an independent risk factor for diabetes, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.38 (p < 0.001) and adjusted OR of 2.59 (p = 0.022) after adjusting for demographic, behavioural and metabolic risk factors. Older age (adjusted OR = 1.08, p < 0.001), higher body mass index (adjusted OR = 1.23, p < 0.001) and having hypertriglyceridemia (adjusted OR = 1.93, p = 0.033) were also independently associated with diabetes. Non-skilled workers were disproportionately affected by diabetes with the highest age-standardized prevalence (6.3%) among all occupation groups (4.9%-5.0%). This study provides evidence that non-skilled occupation is an independent diabetes risk factor in a developed Asian setting. Health education on improving lifestyle practices and diabetes screening should prioritise non-skilled workers, in particular through company-based and sector-based diabetes screening programmes. Diabetes health service should respond to the special needs of non-skilled workers, including service at non-office hour and practical health advice in light of their work setting.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Vida Independiente , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios Transversales , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Humanos , Ocupaciones , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Background: Multimorbidity, defined as the co-occurrence of ≥2 chronic conditions, is clinically diverse. Such complexity hinders the development of integrated/collaborative care for multimorbid patients. In addition, the universality of multimorbidity patterns is unclear given scarce research comparing multimorbidity profiles across populations. This study aims to derive and compare multimorbidity profiles in Hong Kong (HK, PRC) and Zurich (ZH, Switzerland). Methods: Stratified by sites, hierarchical agglomerative clustering analysis (dissimilarity measured by Jaccard index) was conducted with the objective of grouping inpatients into clinically meaningful clusters based on age, sex, and 30 chronic conditions among 20,000 randomly selected discharged multimorbid inpatients (10,000 from each site) aged ≥ 45 years. The elbow point method based on average within-cluster dissimilarity, complemented with a qualitative clinical examination of disease prevalence, was used to determine the number of clusters. Results: Nine clusters were derived for each site. Both similarities and dissimilarities of multimorbidity patterns were observed. There was one stroke-oriented cluster (3.9% in HK; 6.5% in ZH) and one chronic kidney disease-oriented cluster (13.1% in HK; 11.5% ZH) in each site. Examples of site-specific multimorbidity patterns, on the other hand, included a myocardial infarction-oriented cluster in ZH (2.3%) and several clusters in HK with high prevalence of heart failure (>65%) and chronic pain (>20%). Conclusion: This is the first study using hierarchical agglomerative clustering analysis to profile multimorbid inpatients from two different populations to identify universalities and differences of multimorbidity patterns. Our findings may inform the coordination of integrated/collaborative healthcare services.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Hong Kong-specific criteria have been established in 2019 to assess potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use in older adults and improve the local prescribing quality. The aim of this study was to compare the adaptive versions of the Hong Kong-specific criteria and 2015 Beers criteria for assessing the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in Hong Kong older patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 using the Hospital Authority (HA) database. A total of 489,301 older patients aged 65 years and older visiting general outpatient clinics (GOPCs) during the study period were included in the study. Two categories of PIM use included in the Hong Kong-specific criteria and 2015 Beers criteria, i.e. PIMs independent of diagnoses and PIMs considering specific medical conditions, were adapted to assess the prevalence of PIM use among the study sample. Characteristics of PIM users and the most frequently prescribed PIMs were investigated for each set of the criteria. Factors associated with PIM use were identified using the stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The adaptive Hong Kong-specific criteria could detect a higher prevalence of patients exposed to at least one PIM than that assessed by the adaptive Beers criteria (49.5% vs 47.5%). Meanwhile, the adaptive Hong Kong-specific criteria could identify a higher rate of patients exposed to PIMs independent of diagnoses (48.1% vs 46.8%) and PIMs considering specific medical conditions (7.3% vs 4.9%) compared with that of the adaptive Beers criteria. The most frequently prescribed PIMs detected by the adaptive Beers criteria were all included in the adaptive Hong Kong-specific criteria. The strongest factor associated with PIM use was number of different medications prescribed. Patients with female gender, aged 65 ~ 74 years, a larger number of GOPC visits, and more than six diagnoses were associated with greater risk of PIM use, whereas advancing age was associated with lower risk of PIM use. CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive Hong Kong-specific criteria could detect a higher prevalence of PIM use than the adaptive Beers criteria in older adults visiting GOPCs in Hong Kong. It is necessary to update the prevalence and correlates of PIM use regularly in older adults to monitor the burden of PIM use and identify vulnerable patients who need further interventions.