Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
Clin Epidemiol ; 14: 369-384, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1760056

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Characterizing Health Associated Risks and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD. Patients and Methods: We conducted a descriptive retrospective database study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub. We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19, and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services. Results: We aggregated over 22,000 unique characteristics describing patients with COVID-19. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts and are readily available online. Globally, we observed similarities in the USA and Europe: more women diagnosed than men but more men hospitalized than women, most diagnosed cases between 25 and 60 years of age versus most hospitalized cases between 60 and 80 years of age. South Korea differed with more women than men hospitalized. Common comorbidities included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever. Symptom data availability was more common in hospitalized cohorts than diagnosed. Conclusion: We constructed a global, multi-centre view to describe trends in COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. By characterising baseline variability in patients and geography, our work provides critical context that may otherwise be misconstrued as data quality issues. This is important as we perform studies on adverse events of special interest in COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.

2.
Value Health ; 25(5): 773-784, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1683399

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: As healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach. METHODS: Key databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer. RESULTS: Overall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Pandemics
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(12): e057632, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583090

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To characterise patients with and without prevalent hypertension and COVID-19 and to assess adverse outcomes in both inpatients and outpatients. DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a retrospective cohort study using 15 healthcare databases (primary and secondary electronic healthcare records, insurance and national claims data) from the USA, Europe and South Korea, standardised to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model. Data were gathered from 1 March to 31 October 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Two non-mutually exclusive cohorts were defined: (1) individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 (diagnosed cohort) and (2) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 (hospitalised cohort), and stratified by hypertension status. Follow-up was from COVID-19 diagnosis/hospitalisation to death, end of the study period or 30 days. OUTCOMES: Demographics, comorbidities and 30-day outcomes (hospitalisation and death for the 'diagnosed' cohort and adverse events and death for the 'hospitalised' cohort) were reported. RESULTS: We identified 2 851 035 diagnosed and 563 708 hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Hypertension was more prevalent in the latter (ranging across databases from 17.4% (95% CI 17.2 to 17.6) to 61.4% (95% CI 61.0 to 61.8) and from 25.6% (95% CI 24.6 to 26.6) to 85.9% (95% CI 85.2 to 86.6)). Patients in both cohorts with hypertension were predominantly >50 years old and female. Patients with hypertension were frequently diagnosed with obesity, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes. Compared with patients without hypertension, patients with hypertension in the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort had more hospitalisations (ranging from 1.3% (95% CI 0.4 to 2.2) to 41.1% (95% CI 39.5 to 42.7) vs from 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) to 15.9% (95% CI 14.9 to 16.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) to 18.5% (95% CI 15.7 to 21.3) vs from 0.2% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.2) to 11.8% (95% CI 10.8 to 12.8)). Patients in the COVID-19 hospitalised cohort with hypertension were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ranging from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 65.6% (95% CI 62.5 to 68.7) vs from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 54.7% (95% CI 50.5 to 58.9)), arrhythmia (ranging from 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) to 45.8% (95% CI 42.6 to 49.0) vs from 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) to 36.8% (95% CI 32.7 to 40.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 1.8% (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2) to 25.1% (95% CI 23.0 to 27.2) vs from 0.7% (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) to 10.9% (95% CI 10.4 to 11.4)) than patients without hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients with hypertension were more likely to suffer severe outcomes, hospitalisations and deaths compared with those without hypertension.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 39(12): 1455-1463, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1460525

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have not been at the forefront of decision making regarding the adoption of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Instead, policymakers have prioritised rapid action in response to the pandemic emergency, with no assessment of value for money. As COVID-19 vaccination coverage increases and healthcare systems begin to recover, HTA agencies will be expected to assess technologies for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the key challenges when assessing therapeutic and diagnostic technologies for COVID-19, from the perspective of HTA agencies, and identify whether there is a case for novel HTA methods and/or processes to address them. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach, by conducting an online survey of HTA agencies, to collect data about the challenges faced when assessing or planning to assess diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for COVID-19. The online survey was followed by a 'roundtable' workshop of HTA agencies' representatives to discuss the results and to elaborate on their responses. RESULTS: We received 21 completed surveys (response rate of 45%) and 11 of the respondents joined the roundtable discussion. Five themes emerged from the responses: assessing clinical effectiveness (44%), assessing cost effectiveness (19%), practical (19%), political (11%), and decision making (11%) challenges. At the roundtable, attendees elaborated on the challenges and identified two additional themes: how HTA agencies have responded to the pandemic to date, and how their role might change over time. CONCLUSION: HTA agencies face both methodological and logistical challenges when assessing or planning to assess technologies for COVID-19. An interim best-practice HTA framework to address the key challenges would be valuable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev ; 30(10): 1884-1894, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1450633

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, standardized to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model. Three cohorts of patients with a history of cancer were included: (i) diagnosed with COVID-19, (ii) hospitalized with COVID-19, and (iii) hospitalized with influenza in 2017 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%-18% and 1%-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza (n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent. IMPACT: This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Databases, Factual , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev ; 30(10): 1884-1894, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317085

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, standardized to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model. Three cohorts of patients with a history of cancer were included: (i) diagnosed with COVID-19, (ii) hospitalized with COVID-19, and (iii) hospitalized with influenza in 2017 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%-18% and 1%-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza (n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent. IMPACT: This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Databases, Factual , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
7.
Int J Obes (Lond) ; 45(11): 2347-2357, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1315585

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status. RESULTS: We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8-40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0-33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity. CONCLUSION: We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Obesity/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Spain/epidemiology , United Kingdom/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
8.
BMJ ; 373: n1038, 2021 05 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1223582

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort study. SETTING: Hospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea. PARTICIPANTS: 303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19. RESULTS: Of the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from <5 (<2%) patients in China to 2165 (85.1%) in Spain), azithromycin (from 15 (4.9%) in China to 1473 (57.9%) in Spain), combined lopinavir and ritonavir (from 156 (<2%) in the VA-OMOP US to 2,652 (34.9%) in South Korea and 1285 (50.5%) in Spain), and umifenovir (0% in the US, South Korea, and Spain and 238 (78.3%) in China). Use of adjunctive drugs varied greatly, with the five most used treatments being enoxaparin, fluoroquinolones, ceftriaxone, vitamin D, and corticosteroids. Hydroxychloroquine use increased rapidly from March to April 2020 but declined steeply in May to June and remained low for the rest of the year. The use of dexamethasone and corticosteroids increased steadily during 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple drugs were used in the first few months of the covid-19 pandemic, with substantial geographical and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed drugs. Antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids were often used as adjunctive treatments. Research is needed on the comparative risk and benefit of these treatments in the management of covid-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/methods , Drug Repositioning/methods , Administrative Claims, Healthcare/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Ceftriaxone/therapeutic use , Child , Child, Preschool , China/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Drug Combinations , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Female , Fluoroquinolones/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Inpatients , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Safety , Spain/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Young Adult
9.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 60(SI): SI37-SI50, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135892

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. METHODS: A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization. RESULTS: We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%). CONCLUSION: Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.


Subject(s)
Autoimmune Diseases/mortality , Autoimmune Diseases/virology , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Influenza, Human/mortality , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Prognosis , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
10.
J Comp Eff Res ; 9(18): 1243-1246, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-958161

ABSTRACT

The race to find an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still on, with only two treatment options currently authorized for emergency use and/or recommended for patients hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms: low-dose dexamethasone and remdesivir. The USA decision to stockpile the latter has resulted in widespread condemnation and in similar action being taken by some other countries. In this commentary we discuss whether stockpiling remdesivir is justified in light of the currently available evidence.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , International Cooperation , Internationality , Strategic Stockpile/methods , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
11.
medRxiv ; 2020 Nov 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955714

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid COVID-19, but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterised 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalisation with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort study. SETTING: Electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (NYC, United States [US]), Optum [US], Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (US), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalisation Linked Data (SIDIAP-H) (Spain), and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (US) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) (South Korea). PARTICIPANTS: All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalised between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalised with influenza in 2017-2018 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30-day complications during hospitalisation and death. RESULTS: We studied 133,589 patients diagnosed and 48,418 hospitalised with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. The majority of participants were female (60.5% to 65.9%) and aged ≥50 years. The most prevalent autoimmune conditions were psoriasis (3.5 to 32.5%), rheumatoid arthritis (3.9 to 18.9%), and vasculitis (3.3 to 17.6%). Amongst hospitalised patients, Type 1 diabetes was the most common autoimmune condition (4.8% to 7.5%) in US databases, rheumatoid arthritis in HIRA (18.9%), and psoriasis in SIDIAP-H (26.4%).Compared to 70,660 hospitalised with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2% to 4.3% versus 6.3% to 24.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with autoimmune diseases had high rates of respiratory complications and 30-day mortality following a hospitalization with COVID-19. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality. Future studies should investigate predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune diseases. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Patients with autoimmune conditions may be at increased risk of COVID-19 infection andcomplications.There is a paucity of evidence characterising the outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with prevalent autoimmune conditions. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Most people with autoimmune diseases who required hospitalisation for COVID-19 were women, aged 50 years or older, and had substantial previous comorbidities.Patients who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had prevalent autoimmune diseases had higher prevalence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes as compared to those with prevalent autoimmune diseases who were diagnosed with COVID-19.A variable proportion of 6% to 25% across data sources died within one month of hospitalisation with COVID-19 and prevalent autoimmune diseases.For people with autoimmune diseases, COVID-19 hospitalisation was associated with worse outcomes and 30-day mortality compared to admission with influenza in the 2017-2018 season.

12.
Res Social Adm Pharm ; 17(1): 1903-1907, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-759318

ABSTRACT

Across the globe, pharmacists on the frontline continue to fight COVID-19 and its continuously evolving physical, mental, and economic consequences armed by their knowledge, professionalism, and dedication. Their need for credible scientific evidence to inform their practice has never been more urgent. Despite the exponentially increasing number of publications since the start of the pandemic, questions remain unanswered, and more are created, than have been resolved by the increasing number of publications. A panel of leading journal editors was convened by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Pharmacy Practice Research Special Interest Group to discuss the current status of COVID-19 related research, provide their recommendations, and identify focal points for pharmacy practice, social pharmacy, and education research moving forward. Key priorities identified spanned a wide range of topics, reflecting the need for good quality research to inform practice and education. The panel insisted that a foundation in theory and use of rigorous methods should continue forming the basis of inquiry and its resultant papers, regardless of topic area. From assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of COVID-19 therapies and vaccines to assessing different models of pharmaceutical services and education delivery, these priorities will ensure that our practice is informed by the best quality scientific evidence at this very challenging time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pharmaceutical Services/organization & administration , Pharmacists/organization & administration , Pharmacy Research/organization & administration , Humans , Professional Role , Professionalism
13.
Value Health ; 23(11): 1409-1422, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-745982

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To review published economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched Medline (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), EconLit (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (Ovid), and Health Technology Assessment (Ovid). The search was last rerun on July 5, 2020. Citation tracking and reference checking were used. Only full economic evaluations published as peer-reviewed articles in the last 10 years were included. Studies were quality assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence economic evaluation checklist. RESULTS: Overall, 782 records were identified, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were mostly conducted in high-income countries. All were model-based. Seven (50%) were cost-utility analyses, 4 (28.6%) were cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 (14.3%) were cost-consequences analyses, and 1 (7.1%) was a cost-benefit analysis. Strategies including antiviral treatment were found to be either cost-saving or cost-effective, at the study-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Empirical treatment was more cost-effective than test-guided treatment for young adults but less so for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral treatment for managing pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses that have very high case fatality rate, similar to COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be cost-effective either as a standalone intervention or part of a multifaceted strategy. Investing in the development of such curative treatments and promptly evaluating their cost-effectiveness, relative to other strategies in use at the time of their introduction should be the focus going forward to inform resource allocation decisions particularly in low- and middle-income countries.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/economics , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Disease Outbreaks , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Technology Assessment, Biomedical
14.
Res Social Adm Pharm ; 17(1): 1920-1924, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-664000

ABSTRACT

Countries around the globe have responded to pandemic preparedness and developed strategies to cope with the COVID-19 crisis. In this context, the role of healthcare professionals is of paramount importance. Pharmacists are playing a vital role in dealing, preparedness, prevention, protection, promoting access to medicines and to improve health outcomes during this crisis. In this context, "Drive-thru" pharmacy services improve access to medicines while ensuring the preventive measures suggested by the World Health Organization. This commentary provides an overview of opportunities and challenges related to the implementation of "drive-thru pharmacy services" and their role in improving public health during this crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Community Pharmacy Services/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility , Pharmacists/organization & administration , Humans , Professional Role , Public Health
15.
Res Social Adm Pharm ; 17(1): 1950-1953, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-245652

ABSTRACT

As the world edges towards relaxing the lockdown measures taken to control the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), governments have started putting in place a variety of measures to avoid a second peak in the number of infections. The implementation of and adherence to such measures will be key components of any successful lockdown exit strategy. Ranging from expanded testing and widespread use of technology to building the public's trust in the post COVID-19 world, there is a role for pharmacists to play. In this commentary, these measures and the potential contribution of pharmacists to their successful implementation are outlined and discussed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pharmacists/standards , Professional Role , Quarantine/standards , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Pharmacists/psychology , Professional Role/psychology , Quarantine/methods , Quarantine/psychology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL