Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
N Engl J Med ; 388(23): 2113-2115, 2023 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2317697
2.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 2022 Sep 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314121

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Several case reports of Graves' disease (GD) occurrence after COVID-19 vaccination were recently published and possibly related to the autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA). The aim of our study was to evaluate possible distinctive features in the presentation and clinical course of patients with GD occurring early (within 4 weeks) after COVID-19 vaccination who attended our Endocrine Unit in 2021. DESIGN: Patients with first episode of GD attending a tertiary endocrine center between January 1st and December 31st 2021 were included. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients with first episode of GD were seen in 2021: 20 (31.2%) of them had onset within 4 weeks following vaccine administration. Compared to the other 44 patients, the 20 patients with post-vaccine early-onset (PoVEO) GD were older (median age: 51 years vs 35 years, p = 0.003) and more likely male (40.0% vs 13.6%, p = 0.018). At diagnosis, the biochemical and immune profiles were similar between the two groups. However, at 3 months after starting methimazole, PoVEO GD patients had significantly lower TRAb titer and were taking lower doses of methimazole than the other GD patients. None in the PoVEO group had sustained fT3 elevation. CONCLUSIONS: This relatively large series suggests that in 2021, PoVEO GD may be a new nosological entity representing one third of patients evaluated for new-onset GD in our center. Distinctive features included older age at onset, higher male prevalence and a better initial biochemical and immunological response to treatment. Further studies are warranted to clinically and biochemically differentiate these cases from sporadically occurred GD.

3.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 11(5): 362-374, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2295278

ABSTRACT

Over the past 100 years, many major breakthroughs and discoveries have occurred in relation to vitamin D research. These developments include the cure of rickets in 1919, the discovery of vitamin D compounds, advances in vitamin D molecular biology, and improvements in our understanding of endocrine control of vitamin D metabolism. Furthermore, recommended daily allowances for vitamin D have been established and large clinical trials of vitamin D, aimed at clarifying the effect of Vitamin D in the prevention of multiple diseases, have been completed. However, disappointingly, these clinical trials have not fulfilled the expectations many had 10 years ago. In almost every trial, various doses and routes of administration did not show efficacy of vitamin D in preventing fractures, falls, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, asthma, and respiratory infections. Although concerns about side-effects of long-term high-dose treatments, such as hypercalcaemia and nephrocalcinosis, have been around for four decades, some trials from the past 5 years have had new and unexpected adverse events. These adverse events include increased fractures, falls, and hospitalisations in older people (aged >65 years). Several of these clinical trials were powered appropriately for a primary outcome but did not include dose response studies and were underpowered for secondary analyses. Furthermore, more attention should be paid to the safety of high doses of vitamin D supplementation, particularly in older people. In addition, despite universal recommendations by osteoporosis societies for combining calcium supplements with vitamin D there remains insufficient data about their efficacy and effect on fracture risk in the highest risk groups. More trials are needed for people with severe vitamin D deficiency (ie, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D <25nmol/L [10ng/mL]). In this Personal View, we summarise and discuss some of the major discoveries and controversies in the field of vitamin D.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Fractures, Bone , Osteoporosis , Vitamin D Deficiency , Humans , Aged , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamins/therapeutic use , Fractures, Bone/epidemiology , Fractures, Bone/prevention & control , Osteoporosis/complications , Vitamin D Deficiency/drug therapy , Dietary Supplements
4.
J Rural Health ; 2022 Jun 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2227604

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Rural communities are among the most underserved and resource-scarce populations in the United States. However, there are limited data on COVID-19 outcomes in rural America. This study aims to compare hospitalization rates and inpatient mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected persons stratified by residential rurality. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) assesses 1,033,229 patients from 44 US hospital systems diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 2020 and June 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were utilization of supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events or hospital readmission. The analytic approach estimates 90-day survival in hospitalized patients and associations between rurality, hospitalization, and inpatient adverse events while controlling for major risk factors using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and mixed-effects logistic regression. FINDINGS: Of 1,033,229 diagnosed COVID-19 patients included, 186,882 required hospitalization. After adjusting for demographic differences and comorbidities, urban-adjacent and nonurban-adjacent rural dwellers with COVID-19 were more likely to be hospitalized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.21 and aOR 1.29, CI 1.24-1.1.34) and to die or be transferred to hospice (aOR 1.36, CI 1.29-1.43 and 1.37, CI 1.26-1.50), respectively. All secondary outcomes were more likely among rural patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization, inpatient mortality, and other adverse outcomes are higher among rural persons with COVID-19, even after adjusting for demographic differences and comorbidities. Further research is needed to understand the factors that drive health disparities in rural populations.

5.
PLoS One ; 18(1): e0279968, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2197132

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While COVID-19 vaccines reduce adverse outcomes, post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection remains problematic. We sought to identify community factors impacting risk for breakthrough infections (BTI) among fully vaccinated persons by rurality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US adults sampled between January 1 and December 20, 2021, from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). Using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-Proportional Hazards models adjusted for demographic differences and comorbid conditions, we assessed impact of rurality, county vaccine hesitancy, and county vaccination rates on risk of BTI over 180 days following two mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations between January 1 and September 21, 2021. Additionally, Cox Proportional Hazards models assessed the risk of infection among adults without documented vaccinations. We secondarily assessed the odds of hospitalization and adverse COVID-19 events based on vaccination status using multivariable logistic regression during the study period. RESULTS: Our study population included 566,128 vaccinated and 1,724,546 adults without documented vaccination. Among vaccinated persons, rurality was associated with an increased risk of BTI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.64, for urban-adjacent rural and 1.65, 1.42-1.91, for nonurban-adjacent rural) compared to urban dwellers. Compared to low vaccine-hesitant counties, higher risks of BTI were associated with medium (1.07, 1.02-1.12) and high (1.33, 1.23-1.43) vaccine-hesitant counties. Compared to counties with high vaccination rates, a higher risk of BTI was associated with dwelling in counties with low vaccination rates (1.34, 1.27-1.43) but not medium vaccination rates (1.00, 0.95-1.07). Community factors were also associated with higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons without a documented vaccination. Vaccinated persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period had significantly lower odds of hospitalization and adverse events across all geographic areas and community exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that community factors are associated with an increased risk of BTI, particularly in rural areas and counties with high vaccine hesitancy. Communities, such as those in rural and disproportionately vaccine hesitant areas, and certain groups at high risk for adverse breakthrough events, including immunosuppressed/compromised persons, should continue to receive public health focus, targeted interventions, and consistent guidance to help manage community spread as vaccination protection wanes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Breakthrough Infections , Vaccination
6.
Nutrients ; 14(15)2022 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1957406

ABSTRACT

It is unclear whether vitamin D benefits inpatients with COVID-19. Objective: To examine the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19 outcomes. Design: Cohort study. Setting: National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database. Patients: 158,835 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and a sub-cohort with severe disease (n = 81,381) hospitalized between 1 January 2020 and 31 July 2021. Methods: We identified vitamin D prescribing using codes for vitamin D and its derivatives. We created a sub-cohort defined as having severe disease as those who required mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), had hospitalization >5 days, or hospitalization ending in death or hospice. Using logistic regression, we adjusted for age, sex, race, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and urban/rural residence, time period, and study site. Outcomes of interest were death or transfer to hospice, longer length of stay, and mechanical ventilation/ECMO. Results: Patients treated with vitamin D were older, had more comorbidities, and higher BMI compared with patients who did not receive vitamin D. Vitamin D treatment was associated with an increased odds of death or referral for hospice (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.10: 95% CI 1.05-1.14), hospital stay >5 days (AOR 1.78: 95% CI 1.74-1.83), and increased odds of mechanical ventilation/ECMO (AOR 1.49: 95% CI 1.44-1.55). In the sub-cohort of severe COVID-19, vitamin D decreased the odds of death or hospice (AOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94), but increased the odds of hospital stay longer >5 days (AOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.87-2.21) and mechanical ventilation/ECMO (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.21). Limitations: Our findings could reflect more aggressive treatment due to higher severity. Conclusion: Vitamin D treatment was associated with greater odds of extended hospitalization, mechanical ventilation/ECMO, and death or hospice referral.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamins
7.
Elife ; 112022 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1761118

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to rage around the world. At the same time, despite strong public health measures and high vaccination rates in some countries, a post-COVID-19 syndrome has emerged which lacks a clear definition, prevalence, or etiology. However, fatigue, dyspnea, brain fog, and lack of smell and/or taste are often characteristic of patients with this syndrome. These are evident more than a month after infection, and are labeled as Post-Acute Sequelae of CoV-2 (PASC) or commonly referred to as long-COVID. Metabolic dysfunction (i.e., obesity, insulin resistance, and diabetes mellitus) is a predisposing risk factor for severe acute COVID-19, and there is emerging evidence that this factor plus a chronic inflammatory state may predispose to PASC. In this article, we explore the potential pathogenic metabolic mechanisms that could underly both severe acute COVID-19 and PASC, and then consider how these might be targeted for future therapeutic approaches.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Disease Susceptibility , Energy Metabolism , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Disease Management , Glucose/metabolism , Glucose Intolerance , Humans , Insulin Resistance , Islets of Langerhans/metabolism , Liver/metabolism , Metabolic Syndrome/epidemiology , Metabolic Syndrome/etiology , Metabolic Syndrome/metabolism , Metabolic Syndrome/therapy , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , T-Lymphocytes/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/metabolism , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
9.
Am J Clin Nutr ; 114(3): 831-832, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1402335
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL