Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 53
Filter
1.
Diabetes Care ; 2023 Jun 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20245211

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and determine whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with T1D development. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: All Danish residents age <30 years free of diabetes from 2015 to 2021 were included. Individuals were followed from 1 January 2015 or birth until the development of T1D, the age of 30, the end of the study (31 December 2021), emigration, development of type 2 diabetes, onset of any cancer, initiation of immunomodulating therapy, or development of any autoimmune disease. We compared the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of T1D using Poisson regression models. We matched each person with a SARS-CoV-2 infection with three control persons and used a cause-specific Cox regression model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: Among 2,381,348 individuals, 3,579 cases of T1D occurred. The adjusted IRRs for T1D in each quarter of 2020 and 2021 compared with 2015-2019 were as follows: January-March 2020, 1.03 (95% CI 0.86; 1.23); January-March 2021, 1.01 (0.84; 1.22), April-June 2020, 0.98 (0.80; 1.20); April-June 2021, 1.34 (1.12; 1.61); July-September 2020, 1.13 (0.94; 1.35); July-September 2021, 1.21 (1.01; 1.45); October-December 2020, 1.09 (0.91; 1.31); and October-December 2021, 1.18 (0.99; 1.41). We identified 338,670 individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and matched them with 1,004,688 control individuals. A SARS-2-CoV infection was not significantly associated with the risk of T1D development (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.60; 1.35]). CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in T1D incidence during April-June 2021 compared with April-June 2015-2019, but this could not be attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

2.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2023 May 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2311113

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in mortality and/or severe acute respiratory syndrome between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor- (SSRI) users and non-SSRI users up to 60 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription PCR test. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including all Danish residents above the age of eighteen with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test from 26 February, 2020 to 5 October, 2021. The follow-up period was 60 days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was severe acute respiratory syndrome. Exposure of interest was SSRI use. Differences between SSRI users and non-users were examined with Cox regression. RESULTS: Altogether, 286,447 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were identified, and 7113 met the criteria for SSRI use. SSRI users had a mean age of 50.4 years, and 34% were males. Non-SSRI users had a mean age of 41.4 years, and 50% were males. Similar vaccination frequency was observed among the two groups. Sertraline was the most commonly used SSRI, followed by citalopram and escitalopram. We found 255 deaths among SSRI users (3.6%) and 2872 deaths among non-SSRI users (1.0%). SSRI use was significantly associated with increased mortality, with a hazard ratio of 1.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 -1.50; p 0.015), even when adjusting for age, sex, vaccination status, and comorbidities. DISCUSSION: We found significantly higher mortality when comparing SSRI users to non-SSRI users within 60 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Even when considering possible residual confounding, a positive effect of SSRI intake seems highly unlikely. Our study therefore speaks against the hypothesis of repurposing SSRI drugs for COVID-19 treatment.

4.
Eur J Epidemiol ; 38(5): 523-531, 2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2249546

ABSTRACT

A substantial part of mortality during the COVID-19-pandemic occurred among nursing home residents which caused alarm in many countries. We investigate nursing home mortality in relation to the expected mortality prior to the pandemic. This nationwide register-based study included all 135,501 Danish nursing home residents between 2015 until October 6, 2021. All-cause mortality rates were calculated using a standardization method on sex and age distribution of 2020. Survival probability and lifetime lost for 180 days was calculated using Kaplan Meier estimates. Of 3,587 COVID-19 related deaths, 1137 (32%) occurred among nursing home residents. The yearly all-cause mortality rates per 100,000 person-years in 2015, 2016, and 2017 were 35,301 (95% CI: 34,671-35,943), 34,801 (95% CI: 34,180-35,432), and 35,708 (95% CI: 35,085-36,343), respectively. Slightly elevated mortality rates per 100,000 person-years were seen in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 of 38,268 (95% CI: 37,620-38,929), 36,956 (95% CI: 36,323-37,600), 37,475 (95% CI: 36,838-38,122), and 38,536 (95% CI: 37,798-39,287), respectively. For SARS-CoV-2-infected nursing home residents, lifetime lost difference was 42 days (95% CI: 38-46) in 2020 versus non-infected in 2018. Among vaccinated in 2021, lifetime lost difference was 25 days (95% CI: 18-32) for SARS-CoV-2-infected versus non-infected. Even though a high proportion of COVID-19 fatalities took place in nursing homes and SARS-CoV-2-infection increased the risk of individual death, the annual mortality was only slightly elevated. For future epidemics or pandemics reporting numbers of fatal cases in relation to expected mortality is critical.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Homes for the Aged , Mortality , Nursing Homes , Humans , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Denmark/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Eur J Pediatr ; 2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2238463

ABSTRACT

There is a considerable burden of children being hospitalized due to infectious diseases worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity to examine effects of worldwide efforts to control spread of infection. We aimed to investigate overall age-specific hospitalizations due to viral and bacterial infections and diseases triggered by respiratory tract infections during and after lockdown. This nationwide register-based observational study included children from 29 days to 17 years old hospitalized in all Danish pediatric emergency departments during the years 2015-2021. Main outcomes were ICD-10 diagnoses for infectious diseases and infection triggered illnesses. Fluctuations in hospitalization events were explored using figures with weekly events per 100,000. Total events followed a predictable pattern during 2015-2019. In 2020-2021, there was a drop in hospital encounters after lockdowns and surge after reopenings. In 2021, there was a surge of hospital encounters in the late summer due to respiratory syncytial virus infections and asthmatic bronchitis mostly in infants from 29 days to 2 years. For the infectious diseases, there was a dramatic decrease in events after lockdowns and immediate increase in cases that followed the same pattern of previous years after reopenings. Bacterial infections, like urinary tract infections, sepsis, and meningitis followed a steady pattern throughout all calendar-years. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide efforts to minimize infectious disease spread like lockdowns have a preventative and period lasting effect but reopenings/reunions result in surges of infectious diseases. This might be due to children not getting immunized steadily thereby increasing the pool of possible hosts for potential viral infections. WHAT IS KNOWN: • There is a seasonal fluctuation in viral/respiratory infections in children with higher infection rates in the winter and lower rates in the summer. • RSV infection is a major source of concern. WHAT IS NEW: • Major lockdowns and reopenings disrupt the seasonal fluctuations which can result in high surges in infections that increases the burden of children emergency departments and the risk of serious complications.

6.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 2022 Apr 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2239934

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisation in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with matched controls, and in patients with RA according to DMARD treatment. METHODS: Danish nationwide matched cohort study from January to October 2021. Patients with RA were identified in the DANBIO register and matched 1:20 with individuals from the general population on age, sex, and vaccination status. Primary and secondary outcomes were COVID-19 hospitalisation (Danish National Patient Register) and first-time positive SARS-CoV2 PCR test (Danish COVID-19 Surveillance Register), respectively. Stratified by vaccination status, incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 person years (PY) and comorbidity-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) in cause-specific Cox models were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In total, 28 447 unvaccinated patients and 568 940 comparators had Irs for COVID-19 hospitalisation of 10.4 (8.0-13.4) and 4.7 (4.3-5.1) per 1000 PY, respectively (aHR 1.88, 1.44-2.46). When fully vaccinated, corresponding Irs were 0.9 (0.5-1.6) and 0.5 (0.4-0.6) per 1000 PY (aHR 1.94, 1.03-3.66). Unvaccinated RA patients had an aHR of 1.22 (1.09-1.57) for testing positive for SARS-CoV2 and 1.09 (0.92-1.14) among vaccinated. Vaccinated rituximab-treated patients had increased crude IR of COVID-19 hospitalisation compared with conventional DMARD treated patients. CONCLUSION: The incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisation was increased for both unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with RA compared with controls. Importantly, the parallel decreasing risk for patients with RA suggests a comparable relative benefit of vaccination in most patients.

8.
J Infect Dis ; 226(1): 6-10, 2022 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1992200

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess whether influenza vaccination has an impact on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A cohort of 46 112 healthcare workers were tested for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and filled in a survey on COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization, and influenza vaccination. RESULTS: The risk ratio of hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 for influenza vaccinated compared with unvaccinated participants was 1.00 for the seasonal vaccination in 2019/2020 (confidence interval, .56-1.78, P = 1.00). Likewise, no clinical effect of influenza vaccination on development of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was found. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings indicate that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
9.
BMJ Open ; 12(6): e056393, 2022 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1968299

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between behavioural factors and incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: Case-control web-based questionnaire study. SETTING: Questionnaire data were collected in the Capital Region of Denmark in December 2020 when limited restrictions were in place, while the number of daily SARS-CoV-2 cases increased rapidly. PARTICIPANTS: 8913 cases of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with two groups of controls: (1) 34 063 individuals with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test from the same date (negative controls, NCs) and 2) 25 989 individuals who had never been tested for a SARS-CoV-2 infection (untested controls, UC). Controls were matched on sex, age, test date and municipality. EXPOSURE: Activities during the 14 days prior to being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or during the same period for matched controls and precautions taken during the entire pandemic. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Response rate was 41.4% (n=93 121). Using public transportation, grocery shopping (IRR: NC: 0.52; UC: 0.63) and outdoor sports activities (NC: 0.75; UC: 0.96) were not associated with increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most precautions, for example, using hand sanitizer (NC: 0.79; UC: 0.98), physical distancing (NC: 0.79; UC: 0.82) and avoiding handshakes (NC: 0.74; UC: 0.77), were associated with a lower rate of infection. Activities associated with many close contacts, especially indoors, increased rate of infection. Except for working from home, all types of occupation were linked to increased rate of infection. CONCLUSIONS: In a community setting with moderate restrictions, activities such as using public transportation and grocery shopping with the relevant precautions were not associated with an increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exposures and activities where safety measures are difficult to maintain might be important risk factors for infection. These findings may help public health authorities tailor their strategies for limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Risk Factors , Pandemics , Case-Control Studies
10.
BMJ open ; 12(6), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1887644

ABSTRACT

Objective To study the association between behavioural factors and incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design Case–control web-based questionnaire study. Setting Questionnaire data were collected in the Capital Region of Denmark in December 2020 when limited restrictions were in place, while the number of daily SARS-CoV-2 cases increased rapidly. Participants 8913 cases of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with two groups of controls: (1) 34 063 individuals with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test from the same date (negative controls, NCs) and 2) 25 989 individuals who had never been tested for a SARS-CoV-2 infection (untested controls, UC). Controls were matched on sex, age, test date and municipality. Exposure Activities during the 14 days prior to being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or during the same period for matched controls and precautions taken during the entire pandemic. Main outcomes and measures SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence rate ratios (IRR). Results Response rate was 41.4% (n=93 121). Using public transportation, grocery shopping (IRR: NC: 0.52;UC: 0.63) and outdoor sports activities (NC: 0.75;UC: 0.96) were not associated with increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most precautions, for example, using hand sanitizer (NC: 0.79;UC: 0.98), physical distancing (NC: 0.79;UC: 0.82) and avoiding handshakes (NC: 0.74;UC: 0.77), were associated with a lower rate of infection. Activities associated with many close contacts, especially indoors, increased rate of infection. Except for working from home, all types of occupation were linked to increased rate of infection. Conclusions In a community setting with moderate restrictions, activities such as using public transportation and grocery shopping with the relevant precautions were not associated with an increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exposures and activities where safety measures are difficult to maintain might be important risk factors for infection. These findings may help public health authorities tailor their strategies for limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

11.
Scand J Surg ; 111(2): 14574969221089387, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1820091

ABSTRACT

AIM: To investigate how a nationwide lockdown influences the incidence of appendicitis. BACKGROUND: Communitive infectious diseases may play a role in the pathogenesis of appendicitis as indicated by a seasonal variation in the incidence rate. The spread of communitive infectious diseases has decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown; thus, we have an opportunity to study the incidence rate of appendicitis in an environment with less impact from common community infections. METHODS: The study is a nationwide register-based cohort study of the entire Danish population of 5.8 million. The difference in the incidence of appendicitis in a population subjugated to a controlled lockdown with social distancing (study group) was compared to a population not subjugated to a controlled lockdown and social distancing (reference group). RESULTS: The relative risk of appendicitis during the lockdown was 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-1.03, p = 0.131). The relative risk of complicated appendicitis during the lockdown was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.49-0.93, p = 0.02). The incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis was not significantly different during the national lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: During the national lockdown of Denmark due to the COVID-19 pandemic the incidence of complicated appendicitis was reduced significantly compared to previous years, indicating that infectious disease might be a factor in the pathogenesis of appendicitis with complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04407117).


Subject(s)
Appendicitis , COVID-19 , Appendicitis/complications , Appendicitis/epidemiology , Appendicitis/surgery , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Incidence , Pandemics
12.
Am Heart J Plus ; 14: 100131, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1797309

ABSTRACT

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.

13.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 11(6): e024140, 2022 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731380

ABSTRACT

Background Little is known about how COVID-19 influenced engagement of citizen responders dispatched to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by a smartphone application. The objective was to describe and analyze the Danish Citizen Responder Program and bystander interventions (both citizen responders and nondispatched bystanders) during the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. Methods and Results All OHCAs from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020, with citizen responder activation in 2 regions of Denmark were included. We compared citizen responder engagement for OHCA in the nonlockdown period (January 1, 2020, to March 10, 2020, and April 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020) with the lockdown period (March 11, 2020, to April 20, 2020). Data are displayed in the order lockdown versus nonlockdown period. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation rates did not differ in the 2 periods (99% versus 92%; P=0.07). Bystander defibrillation (9% versus 14%; P=0.4) or return-of-spontaneous circulation (23% versus 23%; P=1.0) also did not differ. A similar amount of citizen responders accepted alarms during the lockdown (6 per alarm; interquartile range, 6) compared with the nonlockdown period (5 per alarm; interquartile range, 5) (P=0.05). More citizen responders reported performing chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation during lockdown compared with nonlockdown (79% versus 59%; P=0.0029), whereas fewer performed standardized cardiopulmonary resuscitation, including ventilations (19% versus 38%; P=0.0061). Finally, during lockdown, more citizen responders reported being not psychologically affected by attending an OHCA compared with nonlockdown period (68% versus 56%; P<0.0001). Likewise, fewer reported being mildly affected during lockdown (26%) compared with nonlockdown (35%) (P=0.003). Conclusions The COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark was not associated with decreased bystander-initiated resuscitation in OHCAs attended by citizen responders.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Medical Services/statistics & numerical data , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Communicable Disease Control , Denmark/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Retrospective Studies
14.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(1): 1-7, 2022 01 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621583

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Households are high-risk settings for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is likely associated with the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. We therefore aimed to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 exposure within households and COVID-19 severity. METHODS: We performed a Danish, nationwide, register-based, cohort study including laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from 22 February 2020 to 6 October 2020. Household exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as having 1 individual test positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the household. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between "critical COVID-19" within and between households with and without secondary cases. RESULTS: From 15 063 multiperson households, 19 773 SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were included; 11 632 were categorized as index cases without any secondary household cases; 3431 as index cases with secondary cases, that is, 22.8% of multiperson households; and 4710 as secondary cases. Critical COVID-19 occurred in 2.9% of index cases living with no secondary cases, 4.9% of index cases with secondary cases, and 1.3% of secondary cases. The adjusted hazard ratio for critical COVID-19 among index cases vs secondary cases within the same household was 2.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-3.34), 2.27 (95% CI, 1.77-2.93) for index cases in households with no secondary cases vs secondary cases, and 1.1 (95% CI, .93-1.30) for index cases with secondary cases vs index cases without secondary cases. CONCLUSIONS: We found no increased hazard ratio of critical COVID-19 among household members of infected SARS-CoV-2 index cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Cohort Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Humans
15.
BMJ ; 375: e068665, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583188

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and myocarditis or myopericarditis. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 4 931 775 individuals aged 12 years or older, followed from 1 October 2020 to 5 October 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, myocarditis or myopericarditis, was defined as a combination of a hospital diagnosis of myocarditis or pericarditis, increased troponin levels, and a hospital stay lasting more than 24 hours. Follow-up time before vaccination was compared with follow-up time 0-28 days from the day of vaccination for both first and second doses, using Cox proportional hazards regression with age as an underlying timescale to estimate hazard ratios adjusted for sex, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. RESULTS: During follow-up, 269 participants developed myocarditis or myopericarditis, of whom 108 (40%) were 12-39 years old and 196 (73%) were male. Of 3 482 295 individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), 48 developed myocarditis or myopericarditis within 28 days from the vaccination date compared with unvaccinated individuals (adjusted hazard ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 2.00); absolute rate 1.4 per 100 000 vaccinated individuals within 28 days of vaccination (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.8)). Adjusted hazard ratios among female participants only and male participants only were 3.73 (1.82 to 7.65) and 0.82 (0.50 to 1.34), respectively, with corresponding absolute rates of 1.3 (0.8 to 1.9) and 1.5 (1.0 to 2.2) per 100 000 vaccinated individuals within 28 days of vaccination, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio among 12-39 year olds was 1.48 (0.74 to 2.98) and the absolute rate was 1.6 (1.0 to 2.6) per 100 000 vaccinated individuals within 28 days of vaccination. Among 498 814 individuals vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (Moderna), 21 developed myocarditis or myopericarditis within 28 days from vaccination date (adjusted hazard ratio 3.92 (2.30 to 6.68); absolute rate 4.2 per 100 000 vaccinated individuals within 28 days of vaccination (2.6 to 6.4)). Adjusted hazard ratios among women only and men only were 6.33 (2.11 to 18.96) and 3.22 (1.75 to 5.93), respectively, with corresponding absolute rates of 2.0 (0.7 to 4.8) and 6.3 (3.6 to 10.2) per 100 000 vaccinated individuals within 28 days of vaccination, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio among 12-39 year olds was 5.24 (2.47 to 11.12) and the absolute rate was 5.7 (3.3 to 9.3) per 100 000 vaccinated individuals within 28 days of vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with a significantly increased risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis in the Danish population, primarily driven by an increased risk among individuals aged 12-39 years, while BNT162b2 vaccination was only associated with a significantly increased risk among women. However, the absolute rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination was low, even in younger age groups. The benefits of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination should be taken into account when interpreting these findings. Larger multinational studies are needed to further investigate the risks of myocarditis or myopericarditis after vaccination within smaller subgroups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Myocarditis/etiology , Pericarditis/etiology , Vaccination/adverse effects , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , BNT162 Vaccine/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Child , Cohort Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Myocarditis/epidemiology , Pericarditis/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Troponin/blood , Young Adult
16.
Diabetes Obes Metab ; 24(3): 499-510, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1570592

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Aged , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Microbiol Spectr ; 9(2): e0090421, 2021 10 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1476401

ABSTRACT

Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but being seronegative is observed in 1 to 9%. We aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with being seronegative following PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study, we screened health care workers (HCW) in the Capital Region of Denmark for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We performed three rounds of screening from April to October 2020 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method targeting SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies. Data on all participants' PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were captured from national registries. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate the probability of being seronegative and the related risk factors, respectively. Of 36,583 HCW, 866 (2.4%) had a positive PCR before or during the study period. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 866 HCW was 42 (31 to 53) years, and 666 (77%) were female. After a median of 132 (range, 35 to 180) days, 21 (2.4%) of 866 were seronegative. In a multivariable model, independent risk factors for being seronegative were self-reported asymptomatic or mild infection hazard ratio (HR) of 6.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 17; P < 0.001) and body mass index (BMI) of ≥30, HR 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.8; P = 0.039). Only a few (2.4%) HCW were not seropositive. Asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges. IMPORTANCE Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but negative serology is observed in 1 to 9%. We found that asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Denmark , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Phosphoproteins/immunology , Polymerase Chain Reaction , RNA, Viral/analysis , Seroconversion , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
20.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 60(SI): SI59-SI67, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462480

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD); in patients with RA treated with specific DMARDs; and the incidence of severe COVID-19 infection among hospitalized patients with RA. METHODS: A nationwide cohort study from Denmark between 1 March and 12 August 2020. The adjusted incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization was estimated for patients with RA; spondyloarthritis including psoriatic arthritis; connective tissue disease; vasculitides; and non-IRD individuals. Further, the incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization was estimated for patients with RA treated and non-treated with TNF-inhibitors, HCQ or glucocorticoids, respectively. Lastly, the incidence of severe COVID-19 infection (intensive care, acute respiratory distress syndrome or death) among hospital-admitted patients was estimated for RA and non-IRD sp - individudals. RESULTS: Patients with IRD (n = 58 052) had an increased partially adjusted incidence of hospitalization with COVID-19 compared with the 4.5 million people in the general population [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.86] with strongest associations for patients with RA (n = 29 440, HR 1.72, 95% CI: 1.29, 2.30) and vasculitides (n = 4072, HR 1.82, 95% CI: 0.91, 3.64). There was no increased incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization associated with TNF-inhibitor, HCQ nor glucocorticoid use. COVID-19 admitted patients with RA had a HR of 1.43 (95% CI: 0.80, 2.53) for a severe outcome. CONCLUSION: Patients with IRD were more likely to be admitted with COVID-19 than the general population, and COVID-19 admitted patients with RA could be at higher risk of a severe outcome. Treatment with specific DMARDs did not affect the risk of hospitalization.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Rheumatic Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , Aged , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Cohort Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Rheumatic Diseases/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL