Effectiveness of Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in CKD Patients With COVID-19.

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.

Risk of Incident Thyroid Dysfunction in the Post-Acute Phase of COVID-19: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Hong Kong.

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.

Effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on incidence and treatment strategies of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with chronic liver disease.

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.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in multimorbidity: A territory-wide case-control study.

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.

Risks of incident major osteoporotic fractures following SARS-CoV-2 infection among older individuals: a population-based cohort study in Hong Kong.

Population-based epidemiological studies on post-acute phase COVID-19-related fractures in older adults are lacking. This study aims to examine the risk of incident major osteoporotic fractures following COVID-19 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 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 COVID-19 infection are at a higher risk of suffering from major osteoporotic fractures, i.e. serious bone fractures related to osteoporosis, compared to those not infected. The study analysed 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.

Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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.

Risk of carditis among adolescents after extending the interdose intervals of BNT162b2.

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.

Effectiveness and Respiratory Adverse Events Following Inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with COPD and Asthma: A Chinese Population-Based Study.

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.

Sedative-hypnotics and osteoporotic fractures: A systematic review of observational studies with over six million individuals.

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.

Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 in CKD.

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.

Association between cumulative exposure periods of flupentixol or any antipsychotics and risk of lung cancer.

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.

Effectiveness of molnupiravir vs nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in non-hospitalised and hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a target trial emulation study.

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.

Association between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination and risk of CVD and mortality after COVID-19 infection: A population-based cohort study.

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.

Long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 on diabetes complications and mortality in people with diabetes: Two cohorts in the UK and Hong Kong.

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.

Incidence of diabetes following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection in Hong Kong: A population-based cohort study.

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.

Breast cancer risks following antipsychotic use in women with bipolar disorder versus schizophrenia: A territory-wide nested case-control study spanning two decades.

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.

Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 in older persons: multi-organ complications and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence on long-term associations between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and risks of multi-organ complications and mortality in older population is limited. This study evaluates these associations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The cohorts included patients aged ≥60 year diagnosed with COVID-19 infection (cases), between 16 March 2020 and 31 May 2021 from the UK Biobank; and between 01 April 2020 and 31 May 2022 from the electronic health records in Hong Kong. Each patient was randomly matched with individuals without COVID-19 infection based on year of birth and sex and were followed for up to 18 months until 31 August 2021 for UKB, and up to 28 months until 15 August 2022 for HK cohort. Patients with COVID-19 infection over 6 months after the date of last dose of vaccination and their corresponding controls were excluded from our study. Characteristics between cohorts were further adjusted with Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting. For evaluating long-term association of COVID-19 with multi-organ disease complications and mortality after 21-days of diagnosis, Cox regression was employed. RESULT: 10,759 (UKB) and 165,259 (HK) older adults with COVID-19 infection with matched 291,077 (UKB) and 1,100,394 (HK) non-COVID-19-diagnosed older adults were recruited. Older adults with COVID-19 were associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes [major cardiovascular disease (stroke, heart failure and coronary heart disease): hazard ratio(UKB): 1.4 (95% Confidence interval: 1.1,1.6), HK:1.2 (95% CI: 1.1,1.3)]; myocardial infarction: HR(UKB): 1.8 (95% CI: 1.3,2.4), HK:1.2 (95% CI: 1.0,1.4)]; respiratory outcomes [interstitial lung disease: HR(UKB: 3.4 (95% CI: 2.5,4.5), HK: 4.0 (95% CI: 1.3,12.8); chronic pulmonary disease: HR(UKB): 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3,2.2), HK:1.6 (95% CI: 1.3,2.1)]; neuropsychiatric outcomes [seizure: HR(UKB): 2.6 (95% CI: 1.7,4.1), HK: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2,2.1)]; and renal outcomes [acute kidney disease: HR(UKB): 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1,1.6), HK:1.6 (95% CI: 1.3,2.1)]; and all-cause mortality [HR(UKB): 4.9 (95% CI: 4.4,5.4), HK:2.5 (95% CI: 2.5,2.6)]. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 is associated with long-term risks of multi-organ complications in older adults (aged ≥ 60). Infected patients in this age-group may benefit from appropriate monitoring of signs/symptoms for developing these complications.

Risk of carditis after three doses of vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated (CoronaVac) covid-19 vaccination: a self-controlled cases series and a case-control study.

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).

Efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 clinical outcomes in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Inactivated, whole-virion vaccines have been used extensively in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Its efficacy and effectiveness across regions have not been systematically evaluated. Efficacy refers to how well a vaccine performs in a controlled environment. Effectiveness refers to how well it performs in real world settings. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed published, peer-reviewed evidence on all WHO-approved inactivated vaccines and evaluated their efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic infection, severe clinical outcomes, and severe COVID-19. We searched Pubmed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE (via OVID), Web of Science Core Collection, Web of Science Chinese Science Citation Database, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Findings: The final pool included 28 studies representing over 32 million individuals reporting efficacy or effectiveness estimates of complete vaccination using any approved inactivated vaccine between January 1, 2019 and June 27, 2022. Evidence was found for efficacy and effectiveness against symptomatic infection (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.27, I2 = 28% and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.64, I2 = 98%, respectively) and infection (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.57, I2 = 90% and OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-0.41, I2 = 0%, respectively) for early SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) (Alpha, Delta), and for waning of vaccine effectiveness with more recent VoCs (Gamma, Omicron). Effectiveness remained robust against COVID-related ICU admission (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04-1.08, I2 = 99%) and death (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-2.02, I2 = 96%), although effectiveness estimates against hospitalization (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37-0.53, I2 = 0%) were inconsistent. Interpretation: This study showed evidence of efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for all outcomes, although inconsistent reporting of key study parameters, high heterogeneity of observational studies, and the small number of studies of particular designs for most outcomes undermined the reliability of the findings. Findings highlight the need for additional research to address these limitations so that more definitive conclusions can be drawn to inform SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and vaccination policies. Funding: Health and Medical Research Fund on COVID-19, Health Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

Waning effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospitalization, severe complications, and mortality with two to three doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate waning effectiveness against severe and fatal COVID-19 with two to three doses of CoronaVac/BNT162b2, where data are limited. METHODS: A case-control study included individuals aged ≥18 years, unvaccinated or received two to three doses of CoronaVac/BNT162b2, using electronic healthcare databases in Hong Kong. Those with first COVID-19-related hospitalization, severe complications, or mortality between 1 January and 15 August 2022 were defined as cases and matched with up-to-10 controls by age, sex, index date, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-related outcomes was estimated at different time intervals from second and third-dose vaccination (0-13 up-to 210-240 days) using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities and medications. RESULTS: By 211-240 days after second dose, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization reduced to 46.6% (40.7-51.8%) for BNT162b2 and 36.2% (28.0-43.4%) for CoronaVac, and VE against COVID-19-related mortality were 73.8% (55.9-84.4%) and 76.6% (60.8-86.0%). After third dose, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization decreased from 91.2% (89.5-92.6%) for BNT162b2 and 76.7% (73.7-79.4%) for CoronaVac at 0-13 days, to 67.1% (60.4-72.6%) and 51.3% (44.2-57.5%) at 91-120 days. VE against COVID-19-related mortality for BNT162b2 remained high from 0-13 days [98.2% (95.0-99.3%)] to 91-120 days [94.6% (77.7-98.7%)], and for CoronaVac reduced from 0-13 days [96.7% (93.2-98.4%)] to 91-120 days [86.4% (73.3-93.1%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Significant risk reduction against COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality after CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination was observed for >240 and >120 days after second and third doses compared to unvaccinated, despite significant waning over time. Timely administration of booster doses could provide higher levels of protection.