Prognostic implications of serial high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing among patients with COVID-19: A Danish nationwide registry-based cohort study.

Background: Although troponin elevation is associated with worse outcomes among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), prognostic implications of serial troponin testing are lacking. We investigated the association between serial troponin measurements and adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: Using Danish registries, we identified COVID-19 patients with a high-sensitivity troponin measurement followed by a second measurement within 1-24 h. All measurements during follow-up were also utilized in subsequent time-varying analyses. We assessed all-cause mortality associated with the absence/presence of myocardial injury (≥1 troponin measurement >99th percentile upper reference limit) and absence/presence of dynamic troponin changes (>20% relative change if first measurement elevated, >50% relative change if first measurement normal). Results: Of 346 included COVID-19 patients, 56% had myocardial injury. Overall, 20% had dynamic troponin changes. In multivariable Cox regression models, myocardial injury was associated with all-cause mortality (HR = 2.56, 95%CI = 1.46-4.51), as were dynamic troponin changes (HR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.04-2.64). We observed a low incidence of myocardial infarction (4%) and invasive coronary procedures (4%) among patients with myocardial injury. Conclusions: Myocardial injury and dynamic troponin changes determined using serial high-sensitivity troponin testing were associated with poor prognosis among patients with COVID-19. The risk of developing myocardial infarction requiring invasive management during COVID-19 hospitalization was low.

Glycated haemoglobin levels among 3295 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with and without diabetes, and risk of severe infection, admission to an intensive care unit and all-cause mortality.

AIM: To determine the risk of adverse outcomes across the spectrum of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Danish nationwide registries were used to study the association between HbA1c levels and 30-day risk of all-cause mortality and the composite of severe COVID-19 infection, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and all-cause mortality. The study population comprised patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (3 March 2020 to 31 December 2020) with a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and an available HbA1c ≤ 6 months before the first positive PCR test. All patients had at least 30 days of follow-up. Among patients with diabetes, HbA1c was categorized as <48 mmol/mol, 48 to 53 mmol/mol, 54 to 58 mmol/mol, 59 to 64 mmol/mol (reference) and >64 mmol/mol. Among patients without diabetes, HbA1c was stratified into <31 mmol/mol, 31 to 36 mmol/mol (reference), 37 to 41 mmol/mol and 42 to 47 mmol/mol. Thirty-day standardized absolute risks and standardized absolute risk differences are reported. RESULTS: We identified 3295 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an available HbA1c (56.2% male, median age 73.9 years), of whom 35.8% had diabetes. The median HbA1c was 54 and 37 mmol/mol among patients with and without diabetes, respectively. Among patients with diabetes, the standardized absolute risk difference of the composite outcome was higher with HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol (12.0% [95% confidence interval {CI} 3.3% to 20.8%]) and HbA1c > 64 mmol/mol (15.1% [95% CI 6.2% to 24.0%]), compared with HbA1c 59 to 64 mmol/mol (reference). Among patients without diabetes, the standardized absolute risk difference of the composite outcome was greater with HbA1c < 31 mmol/mol (8.5% [95% CI 0.5% to 16.5%]) and HbA1c 42 to 47 mmol/mol (6.7% [95% CI 1.3% to 12.1%]), compared with HbA1c 31 to 36 mmol/mol (reference). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 and HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol or HbA1c > 64 mmol/mol had a higher associated risk of the composite outcome. Similarly, among patients without diabetes, varying HbA1c levels were associated with higher risk of the composite outcome.

The association between cardiovascular disease admission rates and the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown and reopening of a nation: a Danish nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: To investigate the admission rates of cardiovascular diseases, overall and according to subgroups, and subsequent mortality rates during the coronavirus disease 2019 societal lockdown (12 March 2020) and reopening phase (15 April 2020) in Denmark. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified patients with a first-time acute cardiovascular admission in two periods: (i) 2 January-16 October 2019 and (ii) 2 January-15 October 2020. Weekly incidence rates of a first-time cardiovascular admission, overall and according to subtypes, in the two periods were calculated. The incidence rate of first-time cardiovascular admissions overall was significantly lower during the first weeks of lockdown in 2020 compared with a similar period in 2019 but increased after the gradual reopening of the Danish society. A similar trend was observed for all subgroups of cardiovascular diseases. The mortality rate among patients admitted after March 12 was not significantly different in 2020 compared with 2019 [mortality rate ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.06)]. CONCLUSION: In Denmark, we observed a substantial decrease in the rate of acute cardiovascular admissions, overall and according to subtypes, during the first weeks of lockdown. However, after the gradual reopening of the Danish society, the admission rates for acute cardiovascular diseases increased and returned to rates similar to those observed in 2019. The mortality rate in patients admitted with cardiovascular diseases during lockdown was similar to that of patients during the same period in 2019.

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.

Incidence of infective endocarditis during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) has increased in recent decades. Societal lockdown including reorganization of the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic may influence the incidence of IE. This study sets out to investigate the incidence of IE during the Danish national lockdown. METHODS: In this nationwide cohort study, patients admitted with IE in either one of two periods A) A combined period of 1 January to 7 May for 2018 and 2019, or B) 1 January to 6 May 2020, were identified using Danish nationwide registries. Weekly incidence rates of IE admissions for the 2018/2019-period and 2020-period were computed and incidence rate ratios (IRR) for 2020-incidence vs 2018/2019-incidence were calculated using Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 208 (67.3% men, median age 74.1 years) and 429 (64.1% men, median age 72.7 years) patients were admitted with IE in 2020 and 2018/2019, respectively. No significant difference in incidence rates were found comparing the 2020-period and 2018/2019-period (IRR: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.82-1.14). The overall incidence rate pre-lockdown (week 1-10: 1 January to 11 March 2020) was 14.2 IE cases per 100,000 person years (95% CI: 12.0-16.9) as compared with 11.4 IE cases per 100,000 person years (95% CI: 9.1-14.1) during lockdown (week 11-18: 12 March to 6 May 2020) corresponding to an IRR of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.60-1.06) and thus no significant difference pre- versus post-lockdown. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide cohort study, no significant difference in the incidence of IE admissions during the national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic was found.

Association Between Prescribed Ibuprofen and Severe COVID-19 Infection: A Nationwide Register-Based Cohort Study.

Recommendations regarding ibuprofen use in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been conflicting. We examined the risk of severe COVID-19 between ibuprofen-prescribed and non-ibuprofen patients with COVID-19 in a nationwide register-based study of patients with COVID-19 in Denmark between the end of February 2020 and May 16, 2020. Patients with heart failure (n = 208), < 30 years (n = 575), and prescribed other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 57) were excluded. Patients with ibuprofen prescription claims between January 1, 2020, and before COVID-19 diagnosis or April 30, 2020 (last available prescription) were compared with patients without ibuprofen prescription claims. Outcome was a 30-day composite of severe COVID-19 diagnosis with acute respiratory syndrome, intensive care unit admission, or death. Absolute risks and average risk ratios comparing outcome for ibuprofen vs. non-ibuprofen patients standardized to the age, sex, and comorbidity distribution of all patients were derived from multivariable Cox regression. Among 4,002 patients, 264 (6.6%) had ibuprofen prescription claims before COVID-19. Age, sex, and comorbidities were comparable between the two study groups. Standardized absolute risks of the composite outcome for ibuprofen-prescribed vs. non-ibuprofen patients were 16.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.1-20.6) vs. 17.0% (95% CI 16.0-18.1), P = 0.74. The standardized average risk ratio for ibuprofen-prescribed vs. non-ibuprofen patients was 0.96 (95% CI 0.72-1.23). Standardized absolute risks of the composite outcome for patients with ibuprofen prescription claims > 14 days before COVID-19 vs. ≤ 14 days of COVID-19 were 17.1% (95% CI 12.3-22.0) vs. 14.3% (95% CI 7.1-23.1). In conclusion, in this nationwide study, there was no significant association between ibuprofen prescription claims and severe COVID-19.

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.

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.