Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 60(SI): SI25-SI36, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462486

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain if the use of hydroxychloroquine(HCQ)/cloroquine(CLQ) and other conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and rheumatic diseases per se may be associated with COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: This case-control study nested within a cohort of cDMARD users was conducted in the Lombardy, Veneto, Tuscany and Lazio regions and Reggio Emilia province. Claims databases were linked to COVID-19 surveillance registries. The risk of COVID-19-related outcomes was estimated using a multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis comparing HCQ/CLQ vs MTX, vs other cDMARDs and vs non-use of these drugs. The presence of rheumatic diseases vs their absence in a non-nested population was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 1275 patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 were matched to 12 734 controls. Compared with recent use of MTX, no association between HCQ/CLQ monotherapy and COVID-19 hospitalization [odds ratio (OR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.69, 1.00)] or mortality [OR 1.19 (95% CI 0.85, 1.67)] was observed. A lower risk was found when comparing HCQ/CLQ use with the concomitant use of other cDMARDs and glucocorticoids. HCQ/CLQ was not associated with COVID-19 hospitalization as compared with non-use. An increased risk for recent use of either MTX monotherapy [OR 1.19 (95% CI 1.05, 1.34)] or other cDMARDs [OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.08, 1.36)] vs non-use was found. Rheumatic diseases were not associated with COVID-19-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: HCQ/CLQ use in rheumatic patients was not associated with a protective effect against COVID-19-related outcomes. The use of other cDMARDs was associated with an increased risk when compared with non-use and, if concomitantly used with glucocorticoids, also vs HCQ/CLQ, probably due to immunosuppressive action.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Population Surveillance , Rheumatic Diseases/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
3.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 60(SI): SI25-SI36, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1185985

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain if the use of hydroxychloroquine(HCQ)/cloroquine(CLQ) and other conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and rheumatic diseases per se may be associated with COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: This case-control study nested within a cohort of cDMARD users was conducted in the Lombardy, Veneto, Tuscany and Lazio regions and Reggio Emilia province. Claims databases were linked to COVID-19 surveillance registries. The risk of COVID-19-related outcomes was estimated using a multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis comparing HCQ/CLQ vs MTX, vs other cDMARDs and vs non-use of these drugs. The presence of rheumatic diseases vs their absence in a non-nested population was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 1275 patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 were matched to 12 734 controls. Compared with recent use of MTX, no association between HCQ/CLQ monotherapy and COVID-19 hospitalization [odds ratio (OR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.69, 1.00)] or mortality [OR 1.19 (95% CI 0.85, 1.67)] was observed. A lower risk was found when comparing HCQ/CLQ use with the concomitant use of other cDMARDs and glucocorticoids. HCQ/CLQ was not associated with COVID-19 hospitalization as compared with non-use. An increased risk for recent use of either MTX monotherapy [OR 1.19 (95% CI 1.05, 1.34)] or other cDMARDs [OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.08, 1.36)] vs non-use was found. Rheumatic diseases were not associated with COVID-19-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: HCQ/CLQ use in rheumatic patients was not associated with a protective effect against COVID-19-related outcomes. The use of other cDMARDs was associated with an increased risk when compared with non-use and, if concomitantly used with glucocorticoids, also vs HCQ/CLQ, probably due to immunosuppressive action.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Population Surveillance , Rheumatic Diseases/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
4.
Epidemiol Prev ; 44(5-6 Suppl 2): 51-59, 2020.
Article in Italian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1068124

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: the Covid-19 pandemic has provoked a huge of clinical and epidemiological research initiatives, especially in the most involved countries. However, this very large effort was characterized by several methodological weaknesses, both in the field of discovering effective treatments (with too many small and uncontrolled trials) and in the field of identifying preventable risks and prognostic factors (with too few large, representative and well-designed cohorts or case-control studies). OBJECTIVES: in response to the fragmented and uncoordinated research production on Covid-19, the   italian Association of Epidemiology (AIE) stimulated the formation of a working group (WG) with the aims of identifying the most important gaps in knowledge and to propose a structured research agenda of clinical and epidemiological studies considered at high priority on Covid-19, including recommendations on the preferable methodology. METHODS: the WG was composed by 25 subjects, mainly epidemiologists, statisticians, and other experts in specific fields, who have voluntarily agreed to the proposal. The agreement on a list of main research questions and on the structure of the specific documents to be produced were defined through few meetings and cycles of document exchanges. RESULTS: twelve main research questions on Covid-19 were identified, covering aetiology, prognosis, interventions, follow-up and impact on general and specific populations (children, pregnant women). For each of them, a two-page form was developed, structured in: background, main topics, methods (with recommendations on preferred study design and warnings for bias prevention) and an essential bibliography. CONCLUSIONS: this research agenda represents an initial contribution to direct clinical and epidemiological research efforts on high priority topics with a focus on methodological aspects. Further development and refinements of this agenda by Public Health Authorities are encouraged.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Epidemiologic Research Design , Pandemics , Research , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Child , Epidemiology/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Prognosis , Societies, Scientific , Therapeutic Equipoise
5.
Clin Epidemiol ; 12: 1337-1346, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992953

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 case fatality rate in hospitalized patients varies across countries and studies. Reliable estimates, specific for age, sex, and comorbidities, are needed to monitor the epidemic, to compare the outcome in different settings, and to correctly design trials for COVID-19 interventions. The aim of this study was to provide population-based survival curves of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort study was conducted in three areas of Northern Italy, heavily affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection (Lombardy and Veneto Regions, and Reggio Emilia province), using a loco-regional COVID-19 surveillance system, linked to hospital discharge databases. We included all patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal/throat swab samples who were hospitalized from 21 February to 21 April 2020. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated at 14 and 30 days for death in any setting, stratifying by age, sex, and the Charlson Index. RESULTS: Overall, 42,926 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were identified. Patients' median age was 69 years (IQR: 57-79), 62.6% were males, and 6.0% had a Charlson Index ≥3. Survival curves showed that 22.0% (95% CI 21.6-22.4) of patients died within 14 days and 27.6% (95% CI 27.2-28.1) within 30 days from hospitalization. Survival was higher in younger patients and in females. The negative impact of comorbidities on survival was more pronounced in younger age groups. CONCLUSION: The high fatality rate observed in the study (28% at 30 days) suggests that studies should focus on death as primary endpoint during a follow-up of at least one month.

6.
Int J Cardiol ; 329: 266-269, 2021 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-971117

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has strikingly high mortality rate with hypercoagulability state being part of the imputed mechanisms. We aimed to compare the rates of in hospital mortality in propensity score matched cohorts of COVID-19 patients in chronic anticoagulation versus those that were not. METHODS: In this population-based study in the Veneto Region, we retrospectively reviewed all patients aged 65 years or older, with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. We compared, after propensity score matching, those who received chronic anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation with those who did not. RESULTS: Overall, 4697 COVID-19 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria, and the propensity score matching yielded 559 patients per arm. All-cause mortality rate ratio was significantly higher among non-anticoagulated patients (32.2% vs 26.5%, p = 0.036). On time to event analysis, all-cause mortality was found lower among anticoagulated patients, although the estimate was not statistically significant. (HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.65-1.01, p = 0.054). CONCLUSION: Among elderly patients with COVID-19, those on chronic oral anticoagulant treatment for atrial fibrillation seem to be at lower risk of all-cause mortality compared to their propensity score matched non-anticoagulated counterpart. This finding needs to be confirmed in further studies.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/complications , Population Surveillance , Propensity Score , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Administration, Oral , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cause of Death/trends , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Rate/trends , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Thromboembolism/etiology
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD006207, 2020 11 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-934984

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.


Subject(s)
Hand Hygiene , Masks , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/prevention & control , Virus Shedding , Bias , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Epidemics , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/transmission , Influenza, Human/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/transmission , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/epidemiology , Virus Diseases/transmission
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL