Risk factors for and pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy according to disease severity: A nationwide cohort study with validation of the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: We identified risk factors and outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy in a universally tested population according to disease severity and validated information on SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy in national health registers in Denmark. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cohort study using data from national registers and medical records including all pregnancies between March 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. We compared women with a validated positive SARS-CoV-2 test during pregnancy with non-infected pregnant women. Risk factors and pregnancy outcomes were assessed by Poisson and Cox regression models and stratified according to disease severity defined by hospital admission status and admission reason (COVID-19 symptoms or other). Using medical record data on actual period of pregnancy, we calculated predictive values of the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in pregnancy in the registers. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 1819 (1.6%) of 111 185 pregnancies. Asthma was associated with infection (relative risk [RR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.07). Risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease requiring hospital admission were high body mass index (median ratio 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.09), asthma (RR 7.47, 95% CI 3.51-15.90) and gestational age at the time of infection (gestational age 28-36 vs < 22: RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.75-7.10). SARS-CoV-2-infected women more frequently had hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.04-1.64), early pregnancy loss (aHR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00-1.88), preterm delivery before gestational age 28 (aHR 2.31, 95% CI 1.01-5.26), iatrogenically preterm delivery before gestational age 37 (aHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.19) and small-for-gestational age children (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05-1.54). The associations were stronger among women admitted to hospital for any reason. The validity of the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in relation to pregnancy in the registers compared with medical records showed a negative predictive value of 99.9 (95% CI 99.9-100.0) and a positive predictive value of 82.1 (95% CI 80.4-83.7). CONCLUSIONS: Women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy were at increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, early pregnancy loss, preterm delivery and having children small for gestational age. The validity of Danish national registers was acceptable for identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy in Denmark-characteristics and outcomes after confirmed infection in pregnancy: A nationwide, prospective, population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the risk factors for and consequences of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during pregnancy is essential to guide clinical care. Previous studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy have been among hospitalized patients, which may have exaggerated risk estimates of severe outcomes because all cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pregnant population were not included. The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for and outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy independent of severity of infection in a universally tested population, and to identify risk factors for and outcomes after severe infection requiring hospital admission. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective population-based cohort study in Denmark using data from the Danish National Patient Register and Danish Microbiology Database and prospectively registered data from medical records. We included all pregnancies between March 1 and October 31, 2020 and compared women with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during pregnancy to non-infected pregnant women. Cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy were both identified prospectively and through register linkage to ensure that all cases were identified and that cases were pregnant during infection. Main outcome measures were pregnancy, delivery, maternal, and neonatal outcomes. Severe infection was defined as hospital admission due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. RESULTS: Among 82 682 pregnancies, 418 women had SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, corresponding to an incidence of 5.1 per 1000 pregnancies, 23 (5.5%) of which required hospital admission due to COVID-19. Risk factors for infection were asthma (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95% CI 1.41-3.41) and being foreign born (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.70-2.64). Risk factors for hospital admission due to COVID-19 included obesity (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.00-7.51), smoking (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.58-13.90), infection after gestational age (GA) 22 weeks (GA 22-27 weeks: OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.16-12.29; GA 28-36 weeks: OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.60-14.12), and having asthma (OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.39-14.79). We found no difference in any obstetrical or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 in 20 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy required admission to hospital due to COVID-19. Risk factors for admission comprised obesity, smoking, asthma, and infection after GA 22 weeks. Severe adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy were rare.

All-cause mortality and location of death in patients with established cardiovascular disease before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown: a Danish Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: On 13 March 2020, the Danish authorities imposed extensive nationwide lockdown measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and reallocated limited healthcare resources. We investigated mortality rates, overall and according to location, in patients with established cardiovascular disease before, during, and after these lockdown measures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified a dynamic cohort comprising all Danish citizens with cardiovascular disease (i.e. a history of ischaemic heart disease, ischaemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, or peripheral artery disease) alive on 2 January 2019 and 2020. The cohort was followed from 2 January 2019/2020 until death or 16/15 October 2019/2020. The cohort comprised 340 392 and 347 136 patients with cardiovascular disease in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The overall, in-hospital, and out-of-hospital mortality rate in 2020 before lockdown was significantly lower compared with the same period in 2019 [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) CI 0.87-0.95; IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02; and IRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.93, respectively]. The overall mortality rate during and after lockdown was not significantly different compared with the same period in 2019 (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.02). However, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower and out-of-hospital mortality rate higher during and after lockdown compared with the same period in 2019 (in-hospital, IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96; out-of-hospital, IRR 1.04, 95% CI1.01-1.08). These trends were consistent irrespective of sex and age. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower and out-of-hospital mortality rate higher during lockdown compared with the same period in the preceding year, irrespective of age and sex.

Association of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Use With COVID-19 Diagnosis and Mortality.

IMPORTANCE: It has been hypothesized that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may make patients more susceptible to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to worse outcomes through upregulation of the functional receptor of the virus, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether use of ACEI/ARBs was associated with COVID-19 diagnosis and worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: To examine outcomes among patients with COVID-19, a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish national administrative registries was conducted. Patients with COVID-19 from February 22 to May 4, 2020, were identified using ICD-10 codes and followed up from day of diagnosis to outcome or end of study period (May 4, 2020). To examine susceptibility to COVID-19, a Cox regression model with a nested case-control framework was used to examine the association between use of ACEI/ARBs vs other antihypertensive drugs and the incidence rate of a COVID-19 diagnosis in a cohort of patients with hypertension from February 1 to May 4, 2020. EXPOSURES: ACEI/ARB use was defined as prescription fillings 6 months prior to the index date. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In the retrospective cohort study, the primary outcome was death, and a secondary outcome was a composite outcome of death or severe COVID-19. In the nested case-control susceptibility analysis, the outcome was COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: In the retrospective cohort study, 4480 patients with COVID-19 were included (median age, 54.7 years [interquartile range, 40.9-72.0]; 47.9% men). There were 895 users (20.0%) of ACEI/ARBs and 3585 nonusers (80.0%). In the ACEI/ARB group, 18.1% died within 30 days vs 7.3% in the nonuser group, but this association was not significant after adjustment for age, sex, and medical history (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.67-1.03]). Death or severe COVID-19 occurred in 31.9% of ACEI/ARB users vs 14.2% of nonusers by 30 days (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89-1.23]). In the nested case-control analysis of COVID-19 susceptibility, 571 patients with COVID-19 and prior hypertension (median age, 73.9 years; 54.3% men) were compared with 5710 age- and sex-matched controls with prior hypertension but not COVID-19. Among those with COVID-19, 86.5% used ACEI/ARBs vs 85.4% of controls; ACEI/ARB use compared with other antihypertensive drugs was not significantly associated with higher incidence of COVID-19 (adjusted HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.80-1.36]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Prior use of ACEI/ARBs was not significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with hypertension or with mortality or severe disease among patients diagnosed as having COVID-19. These findings do not support discontinuation of ACEI/ARB medications that are clinically indicated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk of major cardiovascular events according to educational level before and after the initial COVID-19 public lockdown: a nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, decreasing rates of hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease raised concerns for undertreatment, particularly for vulnerable groups. We investigated how the initial COVID-19 public lockdown, impacted the risk of being hospitalised with a major cardiovascular event (MCE: myocardial infarction/stroke/heart failure) according to educational level. METHODS: We grouped all Danish residents according to educational attainment level (low, medium, high) and age (40-59, 60-69, ≥70 years). In each group, we calculated the age-standardised and sex standardised risk of MCE hospitalisation in the initial COVID-19 lockdown-period (13 March 2020-3 May 2020) and in the corresponding calendar period in 2019. We calculated age-standardised and sex-standardised risks to investigate whether the COVID-19 lockdown had a differential effect on MCE incidence according to educational level. RESULTS: In the period in 2019, 2700 Danish residents were hospitalised with MCE, compared with only 2290 during the lockdown. During lockdown, the risk of hospitalisation for MCE decreased among residents aged ≥70 with low education (risk difference (RD) -46.2 (-73.2; -19.2) per 100,000) or medium education (RD -23.2 (-50.8; 4.3) per 100 000), but not among residents with high education (RD 5.1 (-32.3; 42.5), per 100 000). The risk of hospitalisation for MCE did not decrease significantly for the younger age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 lockdown is associated with a reduced incidence for MCE, especially among low educated, elderly residents. This raises concern for undertreatment that without clinical awareness and action may widen the educational gap in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Cardiovascular comorbidities as predictors for severe COVID-19 infection or death.

AIMS: Pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have been proposed to identify patients at higher risk of adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, but existing evidence is conflicting. Thus, it is unclear whether pre-existing CVDs are independently important predictors for severe COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a nationwide Danish cohort of hospital-screened COVID-19 patients aged ≥40, we investigated if pre-existing CVDs predict the 30-day risk of (i) composite outcome of severe COVID-19 and (ii) all-cause mortality. We estimated 30-day risks using a Cox regression model including age, sex, each CVD comorbidity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-asthma, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. To illustrate CVD comorbidities' importance, we evaluated the predicted risks of death and severe infection, for each sex, along ages 40-85. In total, 4090 COVID-19 hospital-screened patients were observed as of 26 August 2020; 22.1% had ≥1 CVD, 23.7% had severe infection within 30 days and 12.6% died. Predicted risks of both outcomes at age 75 among men with single CVD comorbidities did not differ in clinically meaningful amounts compared with men with no comorbidities risks for the composite outcome of severe infection; women with heart failure (28.2%; 95% CI 21.1-37.0%) or atrial fibrillation (30.0%; 95% CI: 24.2-36.9%) showed modest increases compared with women with no comorbidities (24.0%; 95% CI: 21.4-26.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results showing only modest effects of CVDs on increased risks of poor COVID-19 outcomes are important in allowing public health authorities and clinicians to provide more tailored guidance to cardiovascular patients, who have heretofore been grouped together as high risk due to their disease status.

Association Between Male Sex and Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-A Danish Nationwide, Register-based Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Male sex has been associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. We examined the association between male sex and severe COVID-19 infection and if an increased risk remains after adjustment for age and comorbidities. METHODS: Nationwide register-based follow-up study of COVID-19 patients in Denmark until 16 May 2020. Average risk ratio comparing 30-day composite outcome of all-cause death, severe COVID-19 diagnosis or intensive care unit (ICU) admission for men versus women standardized to the age and comorbidity distribution of all patients were derived from multivariable Cox regression. Included covariates were age, hypertension, diagnoses including obesity, alcohol, sleep apnea, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic heart disease (IHD), heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke, peripheral artery disease, cancer, liver, rheumatic, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESULTS: Of 4842 COVID-19 patients, 2281 (47.1%) were men. Median age was 57 [25%-75% 43-73] for men versus 52 [38-71] for women (P < .001); however, octogenarians had equal sex distribution. Alcohol diagnosis, diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, prior MI and IHD (all P < .001) as well as AF, stroke, and HF (all P = .01) were more often seen in men, and so was CKD (P = .03). Obesity diagnosis (P < .001) were more often seen in women. Other comorbidity differences were insignificant (P > .05). The fully adjusted average risk ratio was 1.63 [95% CI, 1.44-1.84]. CONCLUSIONS: Men with COVID-19 infection have >50% higher risk of all-cause death, severe COVID-19 infection, or ICU admission than women. The excess risk was not explained by age and comorbidities.

New-onset atrial fibrillation: incidence, characteristics, and related events following a national COVID-19 lockdown of 5.6 million people.

AIM: To determine the incidence, patient characteristics, and related events associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during a national COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using nationwide Danish registries, we included all patients, aged 18-90 years, receiving a new-onset AF diagnosis during the first 3 months of 2019 and 2020. The main comparison was between patients diagnosed during lockdown (12 March 12-1 April 2020) and patients diagnosed in the corresponding period 1 year previously. We found a lower incidence of new-onset AF during the 3 weeks of lockdown compared with the corresponding weeks in 2019 [incidence rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the 3 weeks: 0.66 (0.56-0.78), 0.53 (0.45-0.64), and 0.41 (0.34-0.50)]. There was a 47% drop in total numbers (562 vs. 1053). Patients diagnosed during lockdown were younger and with a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score, while history of cancer, heart failure, and vascular disease were more prevalent. During lockdown, 30 (5.3%) patients with new-onset AF suffered an ischaemic stroke and 15 (2.7%) died, compared with 45 (4.3%) and 14 (1.3%) patients during the corresponding 2019 period, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of a related event (ischaemic stroke or all-cause death) during lock-down compared with the corresponding weeks was 1.41 (95% CI 0.93-2.12). CONCLUSIONS: Following a national lockdown in Denmark, a 47% drop in registered new-onset AF cases was observed. In the event of prolonged or subsequent lockdowns, the risk of undiagnosed AF patients developing complications could potentially translate into poorer outcomes in patients with AF during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Incidence of New-Onset and Worsening Heart Failure Before and After the COVID-19 Epidemic Lockdown in Denmark: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The Danish government ordered a public lockdown on March 12, 2020, because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We investigated the immediate consequences of such a lockdown for patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Using the Danish nationwide administrative databases, we investigated the incidence of new-onset HF and hospitalizations for worsening HF before and after the lockdown (January 1 to March 11 versus March 12 to March 31) in 2020 versus 2019. We also investigated the mortality for all patients with HF and in COVID-19-infected patients with HF. RESULTS: Rates of new-onset HF between January 1 and March 11 were comparable for 2020 and 2019 (1.83 versus 1.78 per 10 000 person-years; P=0.19), while hospitalizations for worsening HF were slightly higher in 2020 versus 2019 (1.04 versus 0.93 per 1000 person-years; P=0.02). In the lockdown period, rates of new-onset HF diagnoses (1.26 versus 2.25 per 1000 person-years) and of hospitalizations for worsening HF (0.63 versus 0.99 per 1000 person-years) were significantly lower in 2020 versus 2019 (P for both, <0.0001). Mortality was similar before and after the national lockdown for the population with HF. We observed 90 HF patients with diagnosed COVID-19 infection, of whom 37% (95% CI, 23%-50%) died within 15 days. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients hospitalized with worsening HF or diagnosed with new-onset HF was markedly reduced after lockdown but has not yet impacted mortality in HF patients at a population-based level. However, these data raise concerns for a potential undertreatment of HF currently that may impact prognosis in the longer term.