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.

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.

Risk of acute liver injury following the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use.

BACKGROUND: Elevations in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were reported as adverse events of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users in the EPIC-HR trial. AIM: To quantify the risk and severity of acute liver injury (ALI) associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. METHODS: This self-controlled case-series study was conducted using electronic medical records of patients with confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection between 26th February 2022 and 12th February 2023 in Hong Kong. RESULTS: Among 2 409 848 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period, 153 853 were prescribed with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, of whom 834 (.5%) had incident ALI (moderate: 30.5%; moderate to severe: 18.9%; severe or fatal: 5.8%). Compared with the non-exposure period, risk of ALI increased significantly during the pre-exposure period (IRR = 38.13, 95% CI = 29.29-49.62) and remained elevated during the five-day nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment (IRR = 20.75, 95% CI = 17.06-25.25) and during wash-out period (IRR = 16.27, 95% CI = 13.23-20.01). Compared to the pre-exposure period, risk of ALI was not increased during the five-day nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment period (IRR = .54, 95% CI = .43-.70). Compared to 5469 non-nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with incident ALI, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users had less severe ALI by the severity index (p < .001) and peak INR (1.7 vs. 2.3; p < .001). ALI cases with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use had lower risk of all-cause death (29.1% vs. 39.1%; OR = .64; p < .001) and no increase in risk of liver decompensation (1.0% vs. 1.3%; OR = .62; p = .230) compared to non-users. CONCLUSION: The risk of ALI associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment for COVID-19 was elevated in the pre-exposure period, but not following nirmatrelvir/ritonavir initiation. ALI following nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment were mostly mild and less severe than ALI events in non-nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users.

Fracture risks associated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes patients across eGFR and albuminuria categories: A population-based study in Hong Kong.

AIMS: To evaluate major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risk among type 2 diabetes patients treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) across eGFR and albuminuria categories. METHODS: A population-based cohort of type 2 diabetes patients started on SGLT2i or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) during 2007-2020 was identified from Hong Kong Hospital Authority database. One-to-one propensity score matching was applied to match each SGLT2i user with one DPP4i user. The primary outcomes were 180- and 365-day risks of MOF. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: A total of 28,696 patients (14,348 in each group) were included. Over 180-day follow-up, MOF occurred in 25 (0.17 %) SGLT2i users and 24 (0.17 %) DPP4i users (incidence of 4.07 and 3.63/1,000 person-years, respectively). At 365 days, MOF occurred in 43 (0.30 %) SGLT2i users and 44 (0.31 %) DPP4i users (incidence of 4.16 and 3.64/1,000 person-years, respectively). Risks of MOF were comparable between two groups at both 180 days (HR = 1.13, 95 %CI 0.65-1.98, P = 0.67) and 365 days (HR = 1.15, 95 %CI 0.75-1.75, P = 0.52). Subgroup analyses were consistent across age, sex, eGFR, albuminuria, or KDIGO categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not reveal a statistically significant increase in fracture risk with SGLT2i use compared with DPP4i among type 2 diabetes patients, across eGFR and albuminuria categories.

Risks of stroke, its subtypes and atrial fibrillation associated with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists versus sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors: a real-world population-based cohort study in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on head-to-head comparative risk of stroke between sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA). We compared risk of stroke with its subtypes and incident atrial fibrillation (AF) between them. METHODS: A population-based, retrospective cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes between 2008 and 2020 were identified from the electronic health records of Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Patients who received SGLT2i or GLP-1RA were matched pairwise by propensity score. Risks of stroke and AF were evaluated by hazard ratios (HRs) from the Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: A total of 5840 patients (2920 SGLT2i users; 2920 GLP-1RA users) were included (mean age 55.5 years, 56.1% men, mean HbA1c 8.9% and duration of diabetes 13.7 years). Upon median follow-up of 17 months, there were 111 (1.9%) events of stroke (SGLT2i: 62, 2.1%; GLP-1RA: 49 1.7%). SGLT2i users had comparable risk of all stroke as GLP-1RA users (HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.99-2.17, p = 0.058). SGLT2i users had higher risk of ischemic stroke (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.33, p = 0.044) but similar risk of hemorrhagic stroke compared to GLP-1RA users. Although SGLT2i was associated with lower risk of incident AF (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.79, p = 0.006), risk of cardioembolic stroke was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world study demonstrated that GLP-1RA use was associated with lower risk of ischemic stroke, despite the association between SGLT2i use and lower risk of incident AF. There was no significant difference in hemorrhagic stroke risk. GLP-1RA may be the preferred agent for patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of ischemic stroke.

A Population-Based Study of SGLT2 Inhibitor-Associated Postoperative Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Operations are a major precipitating factor for sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i)-associated diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). This study aimed to investigate the risks of SGLT2i-associated postoperative DKA. METHODS: We analysed a population-based cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent operations during 2015-2020. Patients with SGLT2i prescriptions within 6 months before operations were assigned to the SGLT2i group, while others were assigned to the control group. Inverse probability treatment weighting with propensity scores was used to balance the baseline covariates. Postoperative DKA was defined as DKA within 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: Overall, 147,115 subjects were included (3,419 SGLT2i users; 143,696 controls). Preoperative SGLT2i exposure was associated with increased risks of postoperative DKA (incidence = 6.40/1,000 person-years; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 6.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.57-7.18; p < 0.001). Risk factors of SGLT2i-associated postoperative DKA included emergency operation (IRR 24.56, 95% CI 7.42-81.24; p < 0.001), preoperative HbA1c ≥8% (IRR 3.10, 95% CI 1.31-7.33; p = 0.010) and insulin use (IRR 2.88, 95% CI 1.27-6.51; p = 0.011). SGLT2i users who developed postoperative DKA had worse outcomes (invasive mechanical ventilation, dialysis, infections/sepsis, intensive care, and length of hospitalization; p < 0.05) than those who did not, although SGLT2i users who developed postoperative DKA had better outcomes than non-SGLT2i users who developed postoperative DKA (p < 0.05). The risk of postoperative DKA decreased following the implementation of an automatic electronic health record pop-up alert on perioperative precaution regarding SGLT2i (from IRR 4.06 [95% CI 3.41-4.83] to 2.97 [95% CI 2.41-3.65]; p for interaction = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative SGLT2i use was associated with increased risks of postoperative DKA in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clinicians could optimize patients' outcomes by appropriate prescription of SGLT2i, while watching out for high-risk features. Implementing automatic electronic health record pop-up alerts may reduce the risk of SGLT2i-associated postoperative DKA.

Risk of thyroid dysfunction associated with mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study of 2.3 million vaccine recipients.

BACKGROUND: In view of accumulating case reports of thyroid dysfunction following COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the risks of incident thyroid dysfunction following inactivated (CoronaVac) and mRNA (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines using a population-based dataset. METHODS: We identified people who received COVID-19 vaccination between 23 February and 30 September 2021 from a population-based electronic health database in Hong Kong, linked to vaccination records. Thyroid dysfunction encompassed anti-thyroid drug (ATD)/levothyroxine (LT4) initiation, biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism, incident Graves' disease (GD), and thyroiditis. A self-controlled case series design was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of thyroid dysfunction in a 56-day post-vaccination period compared to the baseline period (non-exposure period) using conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 2,288,239 people received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination (57.8% BNT162b2 recipients and 42.2% CoronaVac recipients). 94.3% of BNT162b2 recipients and 92.2% of CoronaVac recipients received the second dose. Following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.864, 95% CI 0.670-1.114; CoronaVac: IRR 0.707, 95% CI 0.549-0.912), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.716-1.159; CoronaVac: IRR 0.778, 95% CI 0.618-0.981), biochemical picture of hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.872, 95% CI 0.744-1.023; CoronaVac: IRR 0.830, 95% CI 0.713-0.967) or hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.002, 95% CI 0.838-1.199; CoronaVac: IRR 0.963, 95% CI 0.807-1.149), GD, and thyroiditis. Similarly, following the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination, there was no increase in the risks of ATD initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 0.972, 95% CI 0.770-1.227; CoronaVac: IRR 0.879, 95%CI 0.693-1.116), LT4 initiation (BNT162b2: IRR 1.019, 95% CI 0.833-1.246; CoronaVac: IRR 0.768, 95% CI 0.613-0.962), hyperthyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 1.039, 95% CI 0.899-1.201; CoronaVac: IRR 0.911, 95% CI 0.786-1.055), hypothyroidism (BNT162b2: IRR 0.935, 95% CI 0.794-1.102; CoronaVac: IRR 0.945, 95% CI 0.799-1.119), GD, and thyroiditis. Age- and sex-specific subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed consistent neutral associations between thyroid dysfunction and both types of COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Our population-based study showed no evidence of vaccine-related increase in incident hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism with both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac.

Evaluation of Fracture Risk Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Different Oral Anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for fracture risk because of attenuated bone turnover and impaired bone microarchitecture. The comparative effect of warfarin over non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) on incident fractures among patients with type 2 diabetes comorbid with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains to be elucidated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, propensity score-weighted, population-based cohort study of adults with type 2 diabetes and AF who were started on warfarin or NOAC between 2005 and 2019 identified from an electronic database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. The primary outcome was a composite of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, clinical vertebral, proximal humerus, and wrist). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: A total of 15,770 patients with type 2 diabetes comorbid with AF were included (9,288 on NOAC, 6,482 on warfarin). During a median follow-up of 20 months, 551 patients (3.5%) sustained major osteoporotic fractures (201 [2.2%] in the NOAC group, 350 [5.4%] in the warfarin group). The adjusted cumulative incidence was lower among NOAC users than warfarin users (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64, 0.99; P = 0.044). Subgroup analyses showed consistent protective effects against major osteoporotic fractures among NOAC users across sex, age, HbA1c, duration of diabetes, and history of severe hypoglycemia compared with warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: NOAC use was associated with a lower risk of major osteoporotic fractures than warfarin use among patients with type 2 diabetes comorbid with AF. NOAC may be the preferred anticoagulant from the perspective of bone health.

Kidney outcomes associated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors versus glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: A real-world population-based analysis.

Background: Kidney benefits have been demonstrated for both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to compare the impacts of SGLT2i and GLP1RA on the trend of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and other kidney outcomes. Methods: Using a real-world population-based database, the Hong Kong Hospital Authority (HA) database, of patients with type 2 diabetes between January 2008 and December 2020, patients started on SGLT2i were compared with those started on GLP1RA, with one-to-one propensity-score matching. Primary outcome was a composite of sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), incident macroalbuminuria and kidney-related mortality. Secondary outcome was the rate of eGFR decline. Findings: A total of 2551 SGLT2i and 2551 GLP1RA new users were analyzed. At baseline, mean age was 56·2 years, with mean eGFR 78·0 mL/min/1·73m2 and 11·9% having macroalbuminuria. Upon median follow-up of 13 months (IQR: 5-27), SGLT2i users had a lower risk of composite kidney outcomes (HR=0·77, 95%CI 0·62-0·96, p = 0·02), mainly driven by a reduction in ESKD (HR=0·53, p = 0·01). SGLT2i users also tended to have a lower risk of incident macroalbuminuria (HR=0·74, p = 0·05). Subgroup analyses of the benefits of SGLT2i use on composite kidney outcomes did not reveal interaction by age, sex, baseline eGFR/albuminuria status, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and renin-angiotensin-system inhibitor use. Furthermore, SGLT2i users had a slower eGFR decline than GLP1RA users (SGLT2i: -1·19 mL/min/1·73m2/year, GLP1RA: -1·95 mL/min/1·73m2/year, p < 0·01). Interpretation: Our results suggest that SGLT2i might be superior to GLP1RA in reducing kidney outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. Future trials are needed to corroborate our findings. Funding: None.

Risk of acute liver injury following the mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Case reports of severe acute liver injury (ALI) following COVID-19 vaccination have recently been published. We evaluated the risks of ALI following COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 or CoronaVac). METHODS: We conducted a modified self-controlled case series analysis using the vaccination records in Hong Kong with data linkage to electronic medical records from a territory-wide healthcare database. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for ALI outcome in the 56-day period following first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to the non-exposure period were estimated and compared to the ALI risk in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 2,343,288 COVID-19 vaccine recipients who were at risk, 4,677 patients developed ALI for the first time between 23rd February 2021 to 30th September 2021. The number of ALI cases within 56 days after the first and second dose of vaccination were 307 and 521 (335 and 334 per 100,000 person-years) for BNT162b2, and 304 and 474 (358 and 403 per 100,000 person-years) for CoronaVac, respectively, compared to 32,997 ALI cases per 100,000 person-years among patients within 56 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared to the non-exposure period, no increased risk was observed in the 56-day risk period for first (IRR 0.800; 95% CI 0.680-0.942) and second (IRR 0.944; 95% CI 0.816-1.091) dose of BNT162b2, or first (IRR 0.689; 95% CI 0.588-0.807) and second (IRR 0.905; 95% CI 0.781-1.048) dose of CoronaVac. There were no severe or fatal cases of ALI following COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an increased risk of ALI associated with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination. Based on all current available evidence from previous studies and our study, the benefit of mass vaccination far outweighs the ALI risk from vaccination. LAY SUMMARY: There have been some recent reports that COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with acute liver injury. In our study, we found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increased the risk of acute liver injury, which was much more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination. Hence, our study provides further data indicating that the benefits of mass COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks.

Cardiovascular benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes, interaction with metformin and role of erythrocytosis: a self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have proven cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This self-controlled case series study aims to evaluate whether metformin use and SGLT2i-associated erythrocytosis influence its cardiovascular benefits. METHODS: T2D patients with metformin and/or SGLT2i prescriptions between 2015 and 2020 were identified from the Hong Kong population. Study outcomes were composite cardiovascular diseases (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF), stroke, and erythrocytosis. Risk periods were patient-time divided into four mutually exclusive windows: (i) 'baseline period' of metformin use without SGLT2i; (ii) pre-SGLT2i period; (iii) exposure to SGLT2i without metformin; and (iv) exposure to the drug combination. Another SCCS model was applied to evaluate the association between erythrocytosis and cardiovascular outcomes regarding SGLT2i exposure. Four mutually exclusive risk periods included (i) SGLT2i exposure with erythrocytosis; (ii) SGLT2i exposure without erythrocytosis; (iii) absence of SGLT2i exposure with erythrocytosis; and (iv) absence of SGLT2i exposure without erythrocytosis. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) of events at different risk periods were estimated using conditional Poisson regression model. RESULTS: Among 20,861 patients with metformin and/or SGLT2i prescriptions, 2575 and 1700 patients with events of composite CVD and erythrocytosis were identified, respectively. Compared to metformin use without SGLT2i, SGLT2i initiation was associated with lower risks of composite CVD, CHD, and HHF-regardless of the presence (CVD: IRR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.37-0.51; CHD: IRR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.37-0.53; HHF: IRR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.40; all p < 0.001) and absence of concomitant metformin (CVD: IRR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.48; CHD: IRR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.59; HHF: IRR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.09-0.31; all p < 0.001); while SGLT2i was neutral on stroke risk. Compared to metformin-SGLT2i combination, exposure to SGLT2i alone was associated with comparable risks of all cardiovascular outcomes (all p > 0.05). Incidence rates of erythrocytosis at baseline, SGLT2i without and with metformin use periods were 0.75, 3.06 and 3.27 per 100 person-years, respectively. SGLT2i users who developed erythrocytosis had lower risk of HHF (IRR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-0.99, p = 0.049) than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world data suggested that SGLT2i-associated cardiovascular benefits were not attenuated by metformin use. Further studies will delineate the role of erythrocytosis as a surrogate marker of SGLT2i-associated cardiovascular benefit in reducing HHF.

Adverse events of special interest and mortality following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Hong Kong: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Safety monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is crucial during mass vaccination rollout to inform the choice of vaccines and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Considering the scant evidence directly comparing the safety profiles of mRNA and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, this territory-wide cohort study aims to compare the incidence of various adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and all-cause mortality between CoronaVac (inactivated vaccine) and BNT162b2 (mRNA-based vaccine). Our results can help vaccine recipients make an informed choice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A retrospective, population-based cohort of individuals who had received at least 1 dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac from 23 February to 9 September 2021 in Hong Kong, and had data linkage to the electronic medical records of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, were included. Those who had received mixed doses were excluded. Individuals were observed from the date of vaccination (first or second dose) until mortality, second dose vaccination (for first dose analysis), 21 days after vaccination, or 30 September 2021, whichever came first. Baseline characteristics of vaccinated individuals were balanced between groups using propensity score weighting. Outcome events were AESIs and all-cause mortality recorded during 21 days of post-vaccination follow-up after each dose, except anaphylaxis, for which the observation period was restricted to 2 days after each dose. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of AESIs and mortality comparing between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients were estimated after each dose using Poisson regression models. Among 2,333,379 vaccinated individuals aged 18 years or above, the first dose analysis included 1,308,820 BNT162b2 and 955,859 CoronaVac recipients, while the second dose analysis included 1,116,677 and 821,560 individuals, respectively. The most frequently reported AESI among CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients was thromboembolism (first dose: 431 and 290 per 100,000 person-years; second dose: 385 and 266 per 100,000 person-years). After the first dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.08, p = 0.703) and mortality (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.63-1.48, p = 0.868) associated with CoronaVac were generally comparable to those for BNT162b2, except for Bell palsy (IRR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.12-3.41, p = 0.018), anaphylaxis (IRR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.79, p = 0.012), and sleeping disturbance or disorder (IRR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.89, p = 0.006). After the second dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.87-1.08, p = 0.545) and mortality (IRR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.40, p = 0.516) were comparable between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients, with no significant differences observed for specific AESIs. The main limitations of this study include residual confounding due to its observational nature, and the possibility of its being underpowered for some AESIs with very low observed incidences. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that the incidences of AESIs (cumulative incidence rate of 0.06%-0.09%) and mortality following the first and second doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination were very low. The safety profiles of the vaccines were generally comparable, except for a significantly higher incidence rate of Bell palsy, but lower incidence rates of anaphylaxis and sleeping disturbance or disorder, following first dose CoronaVac versus BNT162b2 vaccination. Our results could help inform the choice of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines, mainly administered in low- and middle-income countries with large populations, in comparison to the safety of mRNA vaccines. Long-term surveillance on the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines should continue.

Impact of a delayed second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on risks of all-cause mortality, emergency department visit, and unscheduled hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Safety after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine remains to be elucidated, especially among individuals reporting adverse events after their first dose. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a delayed second dose on all-cause mortality and emergency services. METHODS: A territory-wide, retrospective cohort of people who had completed two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (CoronaVac) vaccine between February 23 and July 3, 2021, in Hong Kong was analyzed, with linkage to electronic health records retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Vaccine recipients were classified as receiving a second dose within recommended intervals (21-28 days for BNT162b2; 14-28 days for CoronaVac) or delayed. Study outcomes were all-cause mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, and unscheduled hospitalizations within 28 days after the second dose of vaccination. RESULTS: Among 417,497 BNT162b2 and 354,283 CoronaVac second dose recipients, 3.8% and 28.5% received the second dose beyond the recommended intervals (mean 34.4 and 31.8 days), respectively. During the study period, there were < 5 daily new cases of COVID-19 infections in the community. Delaying the second dose was not associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.185, 95% CI 0.478-2.937, P = 0.714), risk of ED visit (HR = 0.966, 95% CI 0.926-1.008, P = 0.113), and risk of unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 0.956, 95% CI 0.878-1.040, P = 0.294) compared to that within the recommended interval for CoronaVac recipients. No statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR = 4.438, 95% CI 0.951-20.701, P = 0.058), ED visit (HR = 1.037, 95% CI 0.951-1.130, P = 0.411), and unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 1.054, 95% CI 0.867-1.281, P = 0.597) were identified between people who received a second dose of BNT162b2 within and beyond the recommended intervals. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association between delayed second dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac and all-cause mortality, ED visit, and unscheduled hospitalization was observed in the present cohort. Regardless of the recommended or delayed schedule for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, a second dose of both vaccines should be administered to obtain better protection against infection and serious disease. The second dose should be administered within the recommended interval following the manufacturer's product information, until further studies support the benefits of delaying vaccination outweighing the risks.

The comparative effects of metabolic surgery, SGLT2i, or GLP-1RA in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: New antidiabetic agents (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor [SGLT2i] and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist [GLP-1RA]) and metabolic surgery have protective effects on metabolic syndromes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the changes of metabolic parameters and costs among patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes undergoing metabolic surgery and initiating new antidiabetic agents over 12 months. SETTING: Hong Kong Hospital Authority database from 2006-2017. METHODS: This is a population-wide retrospective cohort study consisting of 2616 patients (1810 SGLT2i, 528 GLP-1RA, 278 metabolic surgery). Inverse probability treatment weighting of propensity score was applied to balance baseline covariates of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes who underwent metabolic surgery, or initiated SGLT2i or GLP-1RA. Metabolic parameters and direct medical costs were measured and compared from baseline to 12 months in metabolic surgery, SGLT2i, and GLP-1RA groups. RESULTS: Patients in all 3 groups had improved metabolic parameters over a 12-month period. Patients with metabolic surgery achieved significantly better outcomes in BMI (-5.39, -.56, -.40 kg/m2, P < .001), % total weight loss (15.16%, 1.34%, 1.63%, P < .001), systolic (-2.21, -.59, 1.28 mm Hg, P < .001) and diastolic (-1.16, .50, -.13 mm Hg, P < .001) blood pressure, HbA1c (-1.80%, -.77%, -.80%, P < .001), triglycerides (-.64, -.11, -.09 mmol/L, P < .001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (3.08, -1.37, -.41 mL/min/1.73m2, P < .001) after 12 months compared with patients with SGLT2i and GLP1-RA. Although the metabolic surgery group incurred the greatest direct medical costs (US$33,551, US$10,945, US$10,627, P < .001), largely due to the surgery itself and related hospitalization, the total monthly direct medical expenditure of metabolic surgery group became lower than that of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA groups at 7 months. CONCLUSION: Beneficial weight loss and metabolic outcomes at 12 months were observed in all 3 groups, among which the metabolic surgery group showed the most remarkable effects but incurred the greatest medical costs. However, studies with a longer follow-up period are warranted to show long-term outcomes.

Safety of Inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Among Patients Treated for Hypothyroidism: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Background: Thyroiditis and Graves' disease have been reported after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. We evaluated the risks of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination among patients treated for hypothyroidism. Methods: In this retrospective population-based cohort study of Hong Kong Hospital Authority electronic health records with the Department of Health vaccination records linkage, levothyroxine (LT4) users were categorized into unvaccinated, vaccinated with BNT162b2 (mRNA vaccine), or CoronaVac (inactivated vaccine) between February 23, 2021, and September 9, 2021. Study outcomes were dosage reduction or escalation in LT4, emergency department (ED) visit, unscheduled hospitalization, adverse events of special interest (AESI) according to the World Health Organization's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, and all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting for propensity score was applied to balance baseline patient characteristics among the three groups. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were observed from the index date until the occurrence of study outcome, death, or censored on September 30, 2021, whichever came first. Results: In total, 47,086 LT4 users were identified (BNT162b2: n = 12,310; CoronaVac: n = 11,353; and unvaccinated: n = 23,423). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risks of LT4 dosage reduction (BNT162b2: HR = 0.971 [confidence interval; CI 0.892-1.058]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.968 [CI 0.904-1.037]) or escalation (BNT162b2: HR = 0.779 [CI 0.519-1.169]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.715 [CI 0.481-1.062]). Besides, COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with a higher risk of ED visits (BNT162b2: HR = 0.944 [CI 0.700-1.273]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.851 [CI 0.647-1.120]) or unscheduled hospitalization (BNT162b2: HR = 0.905 [CI 0.539-1.520]; CoronaVac: HR = 0.735 [CI 0.448-1.207]). There were two (0.016%) deaths and six (0.062%) AESI recorded for BNT162b2 recipients, and one (0.009%) and three (0.035%) for CoronaVac recipients, respectively. Conclusions: BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination is not associated with unstable thyroid status or an increased risk of adverse outcomes among patients treated for hypothyroidism in general. These reassuring data should encourage them to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for protection from potentially worse COVID-19-related outcomes.