RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are orally administered pharmacotherapies for mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these drugs among very old (≥80 years), hospitalised patients remains unclear, limiting the risk-benefit assessment of these antivirals in this specific group. This study investigates the effectiveness of these antivirals in reducing mortality among this group of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Using a territory-wide public healthcare database in Hong Kong, a target trial emulation study was conducted with data from 13 642 eligible participants for the molnupiravir trial and 9553 for the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir trial. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Immortal time and confounding bias was minimised using cloning-censoring-weighting approach. Mortality odds ratios were estimated by pooled logistic regression after adjusting confounding biases by stabilised inverse probability weights. RESULTS: Both molnupiravir (HR: 0.895, 95% CI: 0.826-0.970) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (HR: 0.804, 95% CI: 0.678-0.955) demonstrated moderate mortality risk reduction among oldest-old hospitalised patients. No significant interaction was observed between oral antiviral treatment and vaccination status. The 28-day risk of mortality was lower in initiators than non-initiators for both molnupiravir (risk difference: -1.09%, 95% CI: -2.29, 0.11) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (risk difference: -1.71%, 95% CI: -3.30, -0.16) trials. The effectiveness of these medications was observed regardless of the patients' prior vaccination status. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are moderately effective in reducing mortality risk among hospitalised oldest-old patients with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status.
Asunto(s)
Antivirales , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Hospitalización , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Antivirales/administración & dosificación , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Administración Oral , Ritonavir/uso terapéutico , Ritonavir/administración & dosificación , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/epidemiología , Hidroxilaminas/administración & dosificación , Hidroxilaminas/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Citidina/análogos & derivados , Citidina/administración & dosificación , Citidina/uso terapéutico , Leucina/análogos & derivadosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Older individuals with multimorbidity are at an elevated risk of infection and complications from COVID-19. Effectiveness of post-COVID-19 interventions or care models in reducing subsequent adverse outcomes in these individuals have rarely been examined. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of attending general outpatient within 30 days after discharge from COVID-19 on 1-year survival among older adults aged 85 years or above with multimorbidity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study emulating a randomised target trial using electronic health records. SETTING: We used data from the Hospital Authority and the Department of Health in Hong Kong, which provided comprehensive electronic health records, COVID-19 confirmed case data, population-based vaccination records and other individual characteristics for the study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 85 years or above with multimorbidity who were discharged after hospitalisation for COVID-19 between January 2020 and August 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Attending a general outpatient within 30 days of last COVID-19 discharge defined the exposure, compared to no outpatient visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was all-cause mortality within one year. Secondary outcomes included mortality from respiratory, cardiovascular and cancer causes. RESULTS: A total of 6183 eligible COVID-19 survivors were included in the analysis. The all-cause mortality rate following COVID-19 hospitalisation was lower in the general outpatient visit group (17.1 deaths per 100 person-year) compared with non-visit group (42.8 deaths per 100 person-year). After adjustment, primary care consultations within 30 days after discharge were associated with a significantly greater 1-year survival (difference in 1-year survival: 11.2%, 95% CI 8.1% to 14.4%). We also observed significantly better survival from respiratory diseases in the general outpatient visit group (difference in 1-year survival: 6.3%, 95% CI 3.5% to 8.9%). In a sensitivity analysis for different grace period lengths, we found that the earlier participants had a general outpatient visit after COVID-19 discharge, the better the survival. CONCLUSIONS: Timely primary care consultations after COVID-19 hospitalisation may improve survival following COVID-19 hospitalisation among older adults aged 85 or above with multimorbidity. Expanding primary care services and implementing follow-up mechanisms are crucial to support this vulnerable population's recovery and well-being.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Multimorbilidad , Atención Primaria de Salud , Humanos , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/terapia , COVID-19/epidemiología , Femenino , Masculino , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hong Kong/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Extending the dosing interval of a primary series of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been employed to reduce myocarditis risk in adolescents, but previous evaluation of impact on vaccine effectiveness (VE) is limited to risk after second dose. Here, we quantified the impact of the dosing interval based on case notifications and vaccination uptake in Hong Kong from January to April 2022. We estimated that the hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) of infections after the second dose for extended (28 days or more) versus regular (21-27 days) dosing intervals ranged from 0.86 to 0.99 from calendar-time proportional hazards models, and from 0.85 to 0.87 from matching approaches, respectively. Adolescents in the extended dosing groups (including those who did not receive a second dose in the study period) had a higher hazard of infection than those with a regular dosing interval during the intra-dose period (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.07, 2.59; p = 0.02) after the first dose. Implementing an extended dosing interval should consider multiple factors including the degree of myocarditis risk, the degree of protection afforded by each dose, and the extra protection achievable using an extended dosing interval.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate age-specific multimorbidity patterns and morbidity burden on mortality and healthcare expenditure across age groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study between January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017 using electronic health records in Hong Kong: Individuals were stratified by age (< 50, 50-64, 65-79, ≥ 80), and sub-classified by number of morbidities (0, 1, 2, 3, ≥ 4) out of 21 common chronic conditions. Clustering analyses were conducted to identify specific patterns of multimorbidity. Association between the number as well as combinations of morbidities and all-cause mortality and public expenditure was examined. RESULTS: 4,562,832 individuals with a median follow-up of 7 years were included. Mental disorders were the top morbidities among young individuals, while cardiovascular diseases were prevalent in the elderly. An increased number of morbidities was associated with a greater relative risk for mortality and medical expenditure, and this relationship was stronger among younger patients. Compared to individuals in the same age group without morbidity, the hazard ratios (HR; 95% CI) of all-cause mortality in patients aged < 50 and ≥ 80 with two comorbidities 3.81 (3.60-4.03) and 1.38 (1.36-1.40), respectively, which increased to 14.22 (9.87-20.47) and 2.20 (2.13-2.26), respectively, as the number of morbidities increased to ≥ 4. The stroke-hypertension cluster was shown to be associated with the highest HR of mortality 2.48 (2.43-2.53) among all identified clusters arising from the clustering analysis. CONCLUSION: Given the stronger association between multimorbidity and all-cause mortality and greater opportunity costs in younger populations, prevention and management of early-onset multimorbidity are warranted. (248 words).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised individuals are at high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and subsequent severe or fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet they have suboptimal responses to mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. The efficacy of tixagevimab-cilgavimab in reducing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was demonstrated in phase III clinical trials. Nevertheless, real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab-cilgavimab remain limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tixagevimab-cilgavimab among immunocompromised individuals. METHODS: Adults who were immunocompromised or receiving immunosuppressive therapies were included in this target trial emulation using territory-wide electronic health records in Hong Kong. A sequential trial emulation approach was adopted to compare effectiveness and safety outcomes between individuals who received tixagevimab-cilgavimab and individuals who did not. RESULTS: A total of 746 tixagevimab-cilgavimab recipients and 2980 controls were included from 1 May 2022 to 30 November 2022. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection (hazard ratio [HR] 0.708, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.527-0.951) during a median follow-up of 60 days. No significant difference was observed in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation. Zero versus eight COVID-19 mortality cases and zero versus two severe COVID-19 cases were observed in tixagevimab-cilgavimab recipients and controls, respectively. Notably, significant risk reduction in COVID-19 infection was also observed among immunocompromised individuals who had been previously vaccinated with three or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, or had no prior COVID-19 infection history. CONCLUSIONS: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab was effective in reducing COVID-19 infection among immunocompromised patients during the Omicron wave. Findings were consistent among individuals who previously received three or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, or had no previous history of COVID-19 infection.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the difference between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in vaccine effectiveness and safety. METHODS: This target trial emulation study included individuals aged ≥12 during 2022. Propensity score matching was applied to ensure group balance. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the effectiveness outcomes including COVID-19 infection, severity, 28-day hospitalization, and 28-day mortality after infection. Poisson regression was used for safety outcomes including 32 adverse events of special interests between groups. RESULTS: A total of 639,818 and 1804,388 individuals were identified for the 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, respectively. In 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) were 0.844 [0.833-0.856] and 0.749 [0.743-0.755] for COVID-19 infection, 0.692 [0.656-0.731] and 0.582 [0.559-0.605] for hospitalization, 0.566 [0.417-0.769] and 0.590 [0.458-0.76] for severe COVID-19, and 0.563 [0.456-0.697] and 0.457 [0.372-0.561] for mortality for BNT162b2 recipients versus CoronaVac recipients, respectively. Regarding safety, 2-dose BNT162b2 recipients had a significantly higher incidence of myocarditis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI]: 8.999 [1.14-71.017]) versus CoronaVac recipients, but the difference was insignificant in 3-dose comparison (IRR [95% CI]: 2.000 [0.500-7.996]). CONCLUSION: BNT162b2 has higher effectiveness among individuals aged ≥12 against COVID-19-related outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 omicron compared to CoronaVac, with almost 50% lower mortality risk.
Asunto(s)
Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19 , Hospitalización , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vacuna BNT162/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Adolescente , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Adulto Joven , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Niño , Vacunas de Productos InactivadosRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Hipotiroidismo , Enfermedades de la Tiroides , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/complicaciones , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano , Adulto , Hipotiroidismo/epidemiología , Enfermedades de la Tiroides/epidemiología , Hipertiroidismo/epidemiología , Incidencia , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios de Cohortes , Tiroxina/uso terapéutico , Factores de Riesgo , Tiroiditis/epidemiología , Puntaje de Propensión , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19 , Antitiroideos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
The persisting risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the protection against such risk conferred by COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. Here we conducted a retrospective territory-wide cohort study on 1,175,277 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection stratified by their vaccination status and non-infected controls to evaluate the risk of clinical sequelae, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality using a territory-wide public healthcare database with population-based vaccination records in Hong Kong. A progressive reduction in risk of all-cause mortality was observed over one year between patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and controls. Patients with complete vaccination or have received booster dose incurred a lower risk of health consequences including major cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality than unvaccinated or patients with incomplete vaccination 30-90 days after infection. Completely vaccinated and patients with booster dose of vaccines did not incur significant higher risk of health consequences from 271 and 91 days of infection onwards, respectively, whilst un-vaccinated and incompletely vaccinated patients continued to incur a greater risk of clinical sequelae for up to a year following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study provided real-world evidence supporting the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its persistence following infection.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , VacunaciónRESUMEN
Previous studies indicate an increased carditis risk among adolescents following the two-dose messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine. Several jurisdictions have extended the interdose interval between the first and second doses to reduce the risk. However, the effectiveness of such an extension policy remains inconclusive. Using the territory-wide vaccine record-linked electronic health records in Hong Kong, we conducted a nested case-control study from February 23, 2021 to August 15, 2022. Adolescents aged between 12 and 17 who received two-dose BNT162b2 were included for comparing risks between standard interdose interval (21-27 days) versus extended interdose interval ( ≥ 56 days). The carditis cumulative incidence within 28 days following the second dose was calculated. The adjusted odds ratio was estimated from multivariable conditional logistic regression. We identified 49 adolescents with newly diagnosed carditis within 28 days following the second dose. The crude cumulative incidence is 37.41 [95% confidence interval (CI): 27.68-49.46] per million vaccinated adolescents. Compared to the standard interdose interval group, adolescents with an extended interval had a significantly lower risk of carditis [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.34 (95% CI: 0.16-0.73)]. Sensitivity analysis of carditis occurring within 14 days following the second dose yielded a similar estimate [aOR 0.30 (95% CI: 0.13-0.73)]. Extending the interdose interval of the BNT162b2 vaccine from 21 to 27 days to 56 days or longer is associated with 66% lower risk of incident carditis among adolescents. Our findings contribute towards an evidence-based vaccination strategy for a vulnerable population and potentially informs product label updates.
RESUMEN
We reviewed and meta-analyzed 20 observational studies to examine the relationship between sedative-hypnotic use and osteoporotic fractures. We searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science™ for studies that used cohort, case-control, case-crossover, and self-controlled case series designs. We further assessed the quality of each study and performed meta-analyses of association estimates, e.g., odds ratios (ORs). The analysis included 6,084,083 participants and found a slight association between the use of sedative-hypnotics and osteoporotic fractures, with differing strength of associations between different classes of drugs and greater sedative-hypnotics exposure. The pooled estimates ORs for case-control studies were 1.33 (95% CI 0.98-1.80) with benzodiazepines (BZD) and any fractures, 1.32 (95% CI 1.05-1.66) with BZDs and hip fractures, and case-crossover studies were 1.15 (95% CI 0.95-1.41) with BZDs and any fractures, 1.41 (95% CI 1.08-1.85) with Z-drugs and any fractures. The study suggests that more research is needed to aid medical professionals in balancing this potential risk of osteoporotic fractures associated with sedative-hypnotic use against other reported adverse events and anticipated therapy outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Fracturas Osteoporóticas , Humanos , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/inducido químicamente , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/efectos adversos , Benzodiazepinas/efectos adversos , Estudios de Casos y ControlesRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Asma , COVID-19 , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Adulto , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/prevención & control , Hong Kong/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica , Vacunas de Productos Inactivados , Adulto , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Vacuna BNT162 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Eficacia de las Vacunas , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios de Casos y Controles , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/epidemiología , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/terapiaRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Background: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have emerged as promising options for COVID-19 treatment, but direct comparisons of their effectiveness have been limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these two oral antiviral drugs in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this target trial emulation study, we used data from a territory-wide electronic health records database on eligible patients aged ≥18 years infected with COVID-19 who were prescribed either molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir within five days of infection between 16 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 in the non-hospitalised and hospitalised settings in Hong Kong. A sequence trial approach and 1:1 propensity score matching was applied based on age, sex, number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidities, and drug use within past 90 days. Cox regression adjusted with patients' characteristics was used to compare the risk of effectiveness outcomes (all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or ventilatory support and hospitalisation) between groups. Subgroup analyses included age (<70; ≥70 years); sex, Charlson comorbidity index (<4; ≥4), and number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received (0-1; ≥2 doses). Findings: A total of 63,522 non-hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 31,761; molnupiravir: 31,761) and 11,784 hospitalised (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 5892; molnupiravir: 5892) patients were included. In non-hospitalised setting, 336 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 265, 0.83%), 162 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 71, 0.22%; molnupiravir: 91, 0.29%), and 4890 events of hospitalisation (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 1853, 5.83%; molnupiravir: 3037, 9.56%) were observed. Lower risks of all-cause mortality (absolute risk reduction (ARR) at 28 days: 0.61%, 95% CI: 0.50-0.72; HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.56) and hospital admission (ARR at 28 days: 3.73%, 95% CI: 3.31-4.14; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) were observed in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users compared to molnupiravir users. In hospitalised setting, 509 events of all-cause mortality (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 176, 2.99%; molnupiravir: 333, 5.65%), and 50 events of ICU admission or ventilatory support (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: 26, 0.44%; molnupiravir: 24, 0.41%) were observed. Risk of all-cause mortality was lower for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users than for molnupiravir users (ARR at 28 days: 2.66%, 95% CI: 1.93-3.40; HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71). In both settings, there was no difference in the risk of intensive care unit admission or ventilatory support between groups. The findings were consistent across all subgroup's analyses. Interpretation: Our analyses suggest that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality in both non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients. When neither drug is contraindicated, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may be considered the more effective option. Funding: HMRF Research on COVID-19, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government; Collaborative Research Fund, University Grants Committee, the HKSAR Government; and Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, the HKSAR Government; the Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H) funded by the AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.
RESUMEN
It is unknown if vaccination affects the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Therefore, this retrospective cohort study examines the short-term and long-term risks of post-infection CVD among COVID-19 patients with different vaccination status utilizing data from electronic health databases in Hong Kong. Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted with inverse probability of treatment weighting is used to evaluate the risks of incident CVD (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure) and all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Compared with unvaccinated patients, vaccinated patients have a lower risk of CVD and all-cause mortality, and the lowest risk is observed in those who completed three doses of vaccine. Similar patterns in the subgroups of different vaccine platforms, age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and disease severity are observed. These findings highlight a positive dose-response relationship between overall CVD risk reduction and the number of vaccine doses received.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Humanos , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Retrospectivos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , VacunaciónRESUMEN
AIM: To evaluate the long-term associations between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and diabetes complications and mortality, in patients with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: People with diabetes diagnosed with COVID-19 infection (exposed group), from 16 March 2020 to 31 May 2021 from the UK Biobank (UKB cohort; n = 2456), and from 1 April 2020 to 31 May 2022 from the electronic health records in Hong Kong (HK cohort; n = 80 546), were recruited. Each patient was randomly matched with participants with diabetes but without COVID-19 (unexposed group), based on age and sex (UKB, n = 41 801; HK, n = 391 849). Patients were followed for up to 18 months until 31 August 2021 for UKB, and up to 28 months until 15 August 2022 for HK. Characteristics between cohorts were further adjusted with Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting. Long-term association of COVID-19 with multi-organ disease complications and all-cause mortality after 21 days of diagnosis was evaluated by Cox regression. RESULTS: Compared with uninfected participants, patients with COVID-19 infection with diabetes were consistently associated with higher risks of cardiovascular diseases (coronary heart disease [CHD]: hazard ratio [HR] [UKB]: 1.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.0, 2.4], HR [HK]: 1.2 [95% CI: 1.0, 1.5]; and stroke: HR [UKB]: 2.0 [95% CI: 1.1, 3.6], HR [HK]: 1.5 [95% CI: 1.3, 1.8]), microvascular disease (end stage renal disease: HR [UKB]: 2.1 [95% CI: 1.1, 4.0], HR [HK]: 1.2 [95% CI: 1.1, 1.4]) and all-cause mortality (HR [UKB]: 4.6 [95% CI: 3.8, 5.5], HR [HK]: 2.6 [95% CI: 2.5, 2.8]), in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection is associated with long-term increased risks of diabetes complications (especially cardiovascular complications, and mortality) in people with diabetes. Monitoring for signs/symptoms of developing these long-term complications post-COVID-19 infection in the infected patient population of people with diabetes may be beneficial in minimizing their morbidity and mortality.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Complicaciones de la Diabetes , Diabetes Mellitus , Humanos , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/epidemiología , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Complicaciones de la Diabetes/epidemiología , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.