Work exposure and associated risk of hospitalisation with pneumonia and influenza: A nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia and influenza are major health concerns and constitute a high economic burden. However, few data are available on the associated risk of pneumonia and influenza and work exposure on a large population scale. AIM: This study aimed to examine the associated risk of pneumonia and influenza by type of work exposure. METHODS: By cross-linking administrative Danish registries, we classified people in 10 different profession types. The main outcome was hospitalisation with pneumonia or influenza. A multivariable Poisson regression analysis was used to assess the associated incidence rate ratio (IRR) of being hospitalised with pneumonia or influenza by type of profession. RESULTS: A total of 1,327,606 people added risk time to the analyses. In a multivariable model, work in day care, public transportation, sewers and nursing home care was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation with pneumonia compared to work within public administration: IRR=1.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.28), IRR=1.21 (95% CI 1.09-1.34), IRR=1.61 (95% CI 1.19-2.19) and IRR=1.10 (95% CI 1.03-1.18), respectively. In a multivariable analysis, people working within public transportation were associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation with influenza compared to people working within public administration: IRR=2.54 (95% CI 1.79-3.58). CONCLUSIONS: Working in day care, public transportation, sewers and nursing home care increased the associated risk of hospitalisation with pneumonia, and working within public transportation increased the associated risk of being hospitalised with influenza compared to working within public administration.

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.

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.

Consequences of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) lockdown on infection-related hospitalizations among the pediatric population in Denmark.

It remains unknown how Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) prevention measures implemented on March 12, 2020, have affected the rate of pediatric infection-related hospitalizations in Denmark. Therefore, we investigated the rate of pediatric infection-related hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a retrospective cohort design and included all Danish children < 18 years. Infection-related hospitalizations were assessed during study periods in 2020 vs. 2018/2019, and we computed incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Poisson regression. In the 2020 study period, 3093 children were hospitalized with an infection, while the corresponding figures for 2018 and 2019 study periods were 4824 and 3830, respectively. When comparing the 2020 to the 2018/2019 study period prior to nationwide lockdown, we observed a decline in infection-related hospitalizations (12.68 (95% CI, 12.22-13.16) vs. 15.49 (95% CI, 15.12-15.86) per 1000 person-years). We further observed decreased IRRs, especially during the lockdown period (week 11: 0.64 (95% CI, 0.55-0.75); week 12: 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.33); week 13: 0.13 (95% CI, 0.10-0.19)).Conclusion: The rate of pediatric infection-related hospitalizations in Denmark declined during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared to that in 2018/2019, with a 36% decline during initiation of the nationwide lockdown period. What is Known: • Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries have implemented mitigation strategies such as lockdown of non-critical business functions. Most of these strategies have previously been proven effective on interruption of infection transmission. • It remains unclear how the mitigation strategies have affected the rate of pediatric infection-related hospitalizations. What is New: • Insight on how COVID-19 prevention measures have affected the frequency of infection-related hospitalization. • Valuable knowledge on how to act in potential future pandemics.

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.

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.

Incidence of acute coronary syndrome during national lock-down: Insights from nationwide data during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Urgent recognition and treatment are needed in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), however this may be difficult during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a national lock-down. We aimed to examine the incidence of ACS after national lock-down. METHODS: The Danish government announced national lock-down on March 11, 2020 and first phase of reopening was announced on April 6. Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified first-time ACS admissions in (1) January 1 to May 7, 2017-2019, and (2) January 1, 2020 to May 6, 2020. Incidence rates of ACS admissions per week for the 2017 to 2019 period and the 2020 period were computed and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were computed using Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of ACS admissions were 8,204 (34.6% female, median age 68.3 years) and 2,577 (34.0% female, median age 68.5 years) for the 2017 to 2019- and 2020 period, respectively. No significant differences in IRRs were identified for weeks 1 to 9 (January 1 to March 4) for 2020 compared with week 1 to 9 for 2017 to 2019. In 2020, significant lower IRRs were identified for week 10 (March 5 to 11) IRR = 0.71 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.58 to 0.87), week 11 (12 to 18 March) IRR = 0.68 (0.56 to 0.84), and week 14 (April 2 to April 8) IRR = 0.79 (0.65 to 0.97). No significant differences in IRRs were identified for week 15 to 18 (April 9 to May 6). In subgroup analysis, we identified that the main result was driven by male patients, and patients ≥60 years. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic with an established national lock-down we identified a significant decline around 30% in the incidence of ACS admissions. Along with the reopening of society, ACS admissions were stabilized at levels equal to previous years.

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.