Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 40
Filter
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 273, 2022 Mar 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1770488

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) impacts disadvantaged groups most. Lifestyle factors are also associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. To inform COVID-19 policy and interventions, we explored effect modification of socioeconomic-status (SES) on associations between lifestyle and COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using data from UK-Biobank, a large prospective cohort of 502,536 participants aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010, we assigned participants a lifestyle score comprising nine factors. Poisson regression models with penalised splines were used to analyse associations between lifestyle score, deprivation (Townsend), and COVID-19 mortality and severe COVID-19. Associations between each exposure and outcome were examined independently before participants were dichotomised by deprivation to examine exposures jointly. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic/health factors. RESULTS: Of 343,850 participants (mean age > 60 years) with complete data, 707 (0.21%) died from COVID-19 and 2506 (0.76%) had severe COVID-19. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between lifestyle score and COVID-19 mortality but limited evidence for nonlinearity between lifestyle score and severe COVID-19 and between deprivation and COVID-19 outcomes. Compared with low deprivation, participants in the high deprivation group had higher risk of COVID-19 outcomes across the lifestyle score. There was evidence for an additive interaction between lifestyle score and deprivation. Compared with participants with the healthiest lifestyle score in the low deprivation group, COVID-19 mortality risk ratios (95% CIs) for those with less healthy scores in low versus high deprivation groups were 5.09 (1.39-25.20) and 9.60 (4.70-21.44), respectively. Equivalent figures for severe COVID-19 were 5.17 (2.46-12.01) and 6.02 (4.72-7.71). Alternative SES measures produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Unhealthy lifestyles are associated with higher risk of adverse COVID-19, but risks are highest in the most disadvantaged, suggesting an additive influence between SES and lifestyle. COVID-19 policy and interventions should consider both lifestyle and SES. The greatest public health benefit from lifestyle focussed COVID-19 policy and interventions is likely to be seen when greatest support for healthy living is provided to the most disadvantaged groups.


Subject(s)
Biological Specimen Banks , COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Life Style , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Class , United Kingdom/epidemiology
2.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319878

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Whether infection with SARS-CoV-2 leads to excess risk of requiring hospitalization or intensive care in persons with diabetes has not been reported, nor have risk factors in diabetes associated with increased risk for these outcomes.Methods: We included 44,639 and 411,976 adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes alive on Jan 1, 2020, and compared them to controls matched for age, sex, and county of residence (n=204,919 and 1,948,900). Standardized rates of hospitalizations, admissions to intensive care and death were estimated and hazard ratios were calculated using Cox regression analyses.Findings: There were 10,486 hospitalizations and 1,416 admissions into intensive care. A total of 1,175 patients with diabetes and 1,820 matched controls died from COVID-19, of these 53·2% had been hospitalized and 10·7% had been in intensive care. Patients with type 2 diabetes, compared to controls, displayed a hazard ratio (HR) of 2·22, 95%CI 2·13-2·32) of being hospitalized, which decreased to HR 1·40, 95%CI 1·34-1·47) after adjustment for sociodemographic factors, pharmacological treatment and comorbidities, had higher risk for admission to intensive care (HR 2·49, 95%CI 2·22-2·79, decreasing to 1·42, 95%CI 1·25-1·62 after adjustment, and increased risk for death (HR 2·19, 95%CI 2·03-2·36, adjusted 1·50, 95%CI 1·39-1·63). HR for hospitalization for type 1 diabetes was 2·10, 95%CI 1·72-2·57), decreasing to 1·25, 95%CI 0·3097-1·62) after adjustment· Patients with diabetes type 1 were twice as likely to require intensive care for COVID-19, however, not after adjustment (HR 1·49, 95%CI 0·75-2·92), and more likely to die (HR 2·90, 95% CI 1·6554-5·47), but not independently of other factors (HR 1·38, 95% CI 0·64-2·99). Among people with diabetes, elevated glycated hemoglobin levels were associated with higher risk for most outcomes.Interpretation: In this nationwide study, type 2 diabetes was independently associated with increased risk of hospitalization, admission to intensive care and death for COVID-19, whereas type 1 diabetes was not independently associated with excess risk for any outcome.Funding Statement: This work was supported by grants from: the Swedish state under an agreement concerning research and education of doctors [ALFGBG-717211];the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation [2018- 0366];the Swedish Research Council [2013-05187, VRREG 2019-00193, 2020-05792]Declaration of Interests: Professor Eliasson reports personal fees (expert panels, lectures) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Navamedic, NovoNordisk, RLS Global, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, all outside the submitted work. NN declare that they have no conflict of interest. MG reports personal fees (scientific advisory boards, lectures) from Gilead Sciences, GSK/ViiV, MSD, Biogen, Amgen, Novocure, Novo Nordic and research grants from Gilead Sciences, all outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose. Ethics Approval Statement: The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the study.

3.
PLoS Med ; 18(11): e1003828, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596033

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways are changing to incorporate support and appropriate follow-up for people to achieve remission of type 2 diabetes, but there is limited understanding of the prevalence of remission in current practice or patient characteristics associated with remission. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We carried out a cross-sectional study estimating the prevalence of remission of type 2 diabetes in all adults in Scotland aged ≥30 years diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and alive on December 31, 2019. Remission of type 2 diabetes was assessed between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. We defined remission as all HbA1c values <48 mmol/mol in the absence of glucose-lowering therapy (GLT) for a continuous duration of ≥365 days before the date of the last recorded HbA1c in 2019. Multivariable logistic regression in complete and multiply imputed datasets was used to examine characteristics associated with remission. Our cohort consisted of 162,316 individuals, all of whom had at least 1 HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at or after diagnosis of diabetes and at least 1 HbA1c recorded in 2019 (78.5% of the eligible population). Over half (56%) of our cohort was aged 65 years or over in 2019, and 64% had had type 2 diabetes for at least 6 years. Our cohort was predominantly of white ethnicity (74%), and ethnicity data were missing for 19% of the cohort. Median body mass index (BMI) at diagnosis was 32.3 kg/m2. A total of 7,710 people (4.8% [95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7 to 4.9]) were in remission of type 2 diabetes. Factors associated with remission were older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.48 [95% CI 1.34 to 1.62] P < 0.001) for people aged ≥75 years compared to 45 to 54 year group), HbA1c <48 mmol/mol at diagnosis (OR 1.31 [95% CI 1.24 to 1.39] P < 0.001) compared to 48 to 52 mmol/mol), no previous history of GLT (OR 14.6 [95% CI 13.7 to 15.5] P < 0.001), weight loss from diagnosis to 2019 (OR 4.45 [95% CI 3.89 to 5.10] P < 0.001) for ≥15 kg of weight loss compared to 0 to 4.9 kg weight gain), and previous bariatric surgery (OR 11.9 [95% CI 9.41 to 15.1] P < 0.001). Limitations of the study include the use of a limited subset of possible definitions of remission of type 2 diabetes, missing data, and inability to identify self-funded bariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that 4.8% of people with type 2 diabetes who had at least 1 HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%) after diagnosis of diabetes and had at least 1 HbA1c recorded in 2019 had evidence of type 2 diabetes remission. Guidelines are required for management and follow-up of this group and may differ depending on whether weight loss and remission of diabetes were intentional or unintentional. Our findings can be used to evaluate the impact of future initiatives on the prevalence of type 2 diabetes remission.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin A/metabolism , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Odds Ratio , Prevalence , Remission Induction , Scotland/epidemiology
4.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(5): 293-303, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531930

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, hyperglycaemia is an independent risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Associations between pre-infection prescription for glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes have been postulated but only investigated in small studies and limited to a few agents. We investigated whether there are associations between prescription of different classes of glucose-lowering drugs and risk of COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a nationwide observational cohort study done with data from the National Diabetes Audit for people with type 2 diabetes and registered with a general practice in England since 2003. Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of COVID-19-related mortality in people prescribed each class of glucose-lowering drug, with covariate adjustment with a propensity score to address confounding by demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors. FINDINGS: Among the 2 851 465 people with type 2 diabetes included in our analyses, 13 479 (0·5%) COVID-19-related deaths occurred during the study period (Feb 16 to Aug 31, 2020), corresponding to a rate of 8·9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 8·7-9·0). The adjusted HR associated with recorded versus no recorded prescription was 0·77 (95% CI 0·73-0·81) for metformin and 1·42 (1·35-1·49) for insulin. Adjusted HRs for prescription of other individual classes of glucose-lowering treatment were as follows: 0·75 (0·48-1·17) for meglitinides, 0·82 (0·74-0·91) for SGLT2 inhibitors, 0·94 (0·82-1·07) for thiazolidinediones, 0·94 (0·89-0·99) for sulfonylureas, 0·94 (0·83-1·07) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, 1·07 (1·01-1·13) for DPP-4 inhibitors, and 1·26 (0·76-2·09) for α-glucosidase inhibitors. INTERPRETATION: Our results provide evidence of associations between prescription of some glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality, although the differences in risk are small and these findings are likely to be due to confounding by indication, in view of the use of different drug classes at different stages of type 2 diabetes disease progression. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no clear indication to change prescribing of glucose-lowering drugs in people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Hypoglycemic Agents/adverse effects , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Cohort Studies , England , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models
5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292404

ABSTRACT

Background: The pathophysiology and trajectory of multiorgan involvement in post-COVID-19 syndrome is uncertain. Methods: : A prospective, multicenter, longitudinal, cohort study involving post-COVID-19 patients enrolled in-hospital or early post-discharge (visit 1) and re-evaluated 28-60 days post-discharge (visit 2). Multisystem investigations included chest computed tomography with pulmonary and coronary angiography, cardiovascular and renal magnetic resonance imaging, digital electrocardiography, and multisystem biomarkers. The primary outcome was the adjudicated likelihood of myocarditis. Results: : 161 patients (mean age 55 years, 43% female) and 27 controls with similar age, sex, ethnicity, and vascular risk factors were enrolled from 22 May 2020 to 2 July 2021 and had a primary outcome evaluation. Compared to controls, at 28-60 days post-discharge, patients with COVID-19 had persisting evidence of cardio-renal involvement, systemic inflammation, and hemostasis pathway activation. Myocarditis was adjudicated as being not likely (n=17;10%), unlikely (n=56;35%), probable (n=67;42%) or very likely (n=21;13%). Acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 3.40 (1.13, 11.84);p=0.038) and low hemoglobin A1c (0.26 (0.07, 0.87);p=0.035) were multivariable associates of adjudicated myocarditis. During convalescence, compared to controls, COVID-19 was associated with worse health-related quality of life (EQ5D-5L) (p<0.001), illness perception (p<0.001), anxiety and depression (p<0.001), physical activity (p<0.001) and predicted maximal oxygen utilization (ml/kg/min) (p<0.001). These measures were associated with adjudicated myocarditis. Conclusions: : The illness trajectory of COVID-19 includes persisting cardio-renal inflammation, lung damage and hemostasis activation. Adjudicated myocarditis occurred in one in eight hospitalized patients and was associated with impairments in health status, physical and psychological wellbeing during community convalescence. Public registration : ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT04403607.

6.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 96(10): 2587-2597, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1450188

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the associations between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and thromboembolism including myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A self-controlled case-series study was conducted covering the whole of Scotland's general population. The study population comprised individuals with confirmed (positive test) COVID-19 and at least one thromboembolic event between March 2018 and October 2020. Their incidence rates during the risk interval (5 days before to 56 days after the positive test) and the control interval (the remaining periods) were compared intrapersonally. RESULTS: Across Scotland, 1449 individuals tested positive for COVID-19 and experienced a thromboembolic event. The risk of thromboembolism was significantly elevated over the whole risk period but highest in the 7 days following the positive test (incidence rate ratio, 12.01; 95% CI, 9.91 to 14.56) in all included individuals. The association was also present in individuals not originally hospitalized for COVID-19 (incidence rate ratio, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.83 to 5.85). Risk of MI, stroke, PE, and DVT were all significantly higher in the week following a positive test. The risk of PE and DVT was particularly high and remained significantly elevated even 56 days following the test. CONCLUSION: Confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated with early elevations in risk with MI, ischemic stroke, and substantially stronger and prolonged elevations with DVT and PE both in hospital and community settings. Clinicians should consider thromboembolism, especially PE, among people with COVID-19 in the community.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Thromboembolism/etiology , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , Case-Control Studies , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis , Risk Factors , Scotland , Thromboembolism/diagnosis
7.
BMC Med ; 18(1): 160, 2020 05 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388759

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding of the role of ethnicity and socioeconomic position in the risk of developing SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited. We investigated this in the UK Biobank study. METHODS: The UK Biobank study recruited 40-70-year-olds in 2006-2010 from the general population, collecting information about self-defined ethnicity and socioeconomic variables (including area-level socioeconomic deprivation and educational attainment). SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England were linked to baseline UK Biobank data. Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to assess risk ratios (RRs) between the exposures and dichotomous variables for being tested, having a positive test and testing positive in hospital. We also investigated whether ethnicity and socioeconomic position were associated with having a positive test amongst those tested. We adjusted for covariates including age, sex, social variables (including healthcare work and household size), behavioural risk factors and baseline health. RESULTS: Amongst 392,116 participants in England, 2658 had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 948 tested positive (726 in hospital) between 16 March and 3 May 2020. Black and south Asian groups were more likely to test positive (RR 3.35 (95% CI 2.48-4.53) and RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.75-3.36) respectively), with Pakistani ethnicity at highest risk within the south Asian group (RR 3.24 (95% CI 1.73-6.07)). These ethnic groups were more likely to be hospital cases compared to the white British. Adjustment for baseline health and behavioural risk factors led to little change, with only modest attenuation when accounting for socioeconomic variables. Socioeconomic deprivation and having no qualifications were consistently associated with a higher risk of confirmed infection (RR 2.19 for most deprived quartile vs least (95% CI 1.80-2.66) and RR 2.00 for no qualifications vs degree (95% CI 1.66-2.42)). CONCLUSIONS: Some minority ethnic groups have a higher risk of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK Biobank study, which was not accounted for by differences in socioeconomic conditions, baseline self-reported health or behavioural risk factors. An urgent response to addressing these elevated risks is required.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Biological Specimen Banks , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Status Disparities , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS Virus , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Residence Characteristics/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , United Kingdom/epidemiology
8.
Curr Obes Rep ; 10(3): 282-289, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1349364

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To collate the best evidence from several strands-epidemiological, genetic, comparison with historical data and mechanistic information-and ask whether obesity is an important causal and potentially modifiable risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Several hundred studies provide powerful evidence that body mass index (BMI) is a strong linear risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes, with recent studies suggesting ~5-10% higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalisation per every kg/m2 higher BMI. Genetic data concur with hazard ratios increasing by 14% per every kg/m2 higher BMI. BMI to COVID-19 links differ markedly from prior BMI-infection associations and are further supported as likely causal by multiple biologically plausible pathways. Excess adiposity appears to be an important, modifiable risk factor for adverse COVID-19 outcomes across all ethnicities. The pandemic is also worsening obesity levels. It is imperative that medical systems worldwide meet this challenge by upscaling investments in obesity prevention and treatments.


Subject(s)
Body Mass Index , COVID-19/epidemiology , Obesity/epidemiology , Pandemics , Severity of Illness Index , Adiposity , Comorbidity , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Endocrinol Diabetes Metab ; 4(4): e00287, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1306644

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: To investigate type 2 diabetes as a risk factor for COVID-19 death following hospital admission in Kuwait. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data from a central hospital that cared for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Kuwait. We investigated the association between type 2 diabetes, with COVID-19 mortality using multiply imputed logistic regression and calculated the population attributable fraction. RESULTS: A total of 5333 patients were admitted with COVID-19, of whom 244 died (4.6%). Diabetes prevalence was 24.8%, but 53.7% of those who died had diabetes. After adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and other comorbidities, diabetes was associated with death (OR 1.70 [95% CI 1.23, 2.34]) and admission to the intensive care unit more than 3 days after initial admission (OR 1.78 [95% CI 1.17, 2.70]). Assuming causality, the population attributable fraction for type 2 diabetes in COVID-19 death was 19.6% (95% CI 10.8, 35.6). CONCLUSION: Type 2 diabetes is a strong risk factor for COVID-19 death in the Middle East. Given the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the Middle East, as well as many Western countries, the public health implications are considerable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/mortality , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Inpatients , Intensive Care Units , Kuwait/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Risk
11.
Endocrinol Diabetes Metab ; 4(4): e00283, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1306643

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine risk of being SARS-CoV-2 positive and severe infection (associated with hospitalization/mortality) in those with family history of diabetes. METHODS: We used UK Biobank, an observational cohort recruited between 2006 and 2010. We compared the risk of being SARS-CoV-2 positive and severe infection for those with family history of diabetes (mother/father/sibling) against those without. RESULTS: Of 401,268 participants in total, 13,331 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 2282 had severe infection by end of January 2021. In unadjusted models, participants with ≥2 family members with diabetes were more likely to be SARS-CoV-2 positive (risk ratio-RR 1.35; 95% confidence interval-CI 1.24-1.47) and severe infection (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04-1.59), compared to those without. The excess risk of being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 was attenuated but significant after adjusting for demographics, lifestyle factors, multimorbidity and presence of cardiometabolic conditions. The excess risk for severe infection was no longer significant after adjusting for demographics, lifestyle factors, multimorbidity and presence of cardiometabolic conditions, and was absent when excluding incident diabetes. CONCLUSION: The totality of the results suggests that good lifestyle and not developing incident diabetes may lessen risks of severe infections in people with a strong family of diabetes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Life Style , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biological Specimen Banks , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
12.
J Thromb Haemost ; 19(10): 2533-2538, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304122

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common, life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 risk-prediction models include a history of VTE. However, it is unclear whether remote history (>9 years previously) of VTE also confers increased risk of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible association between VTE and COVID-19 severity, independent of other risk factors. METHODS: Cohort study of UK Biobank participants recruited between 2006 and 2010. Baseline data, including history of VTE, were linked to COVID-19 test results, COVID-19-related hospital admissions, and COVID-19 deaths. The risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death was compared for participants with a remote history VTE versus without. Poisson regression models were run univariately then adjusted stepwise for sociodemographic, lifestyle, and comorbid covariates. RESULTS: After adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders and comorbid conditions, remote history of VTE was associated with nonfatal community (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.54, p = .039), nonfatal hospitalized (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06-2.17, p = .024) and severe (hospitalized or fatal) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.89, p = .025) COVID-19. Associations with remote history of VTE were stronger among men (severe COVID-19: RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.14-2.42, p = .009) than for women (severe COVID-19: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66-1.74, p = .786). CONCLUSION: Our findings support inclusion of remote history of VTE in COVID-19 risk-prediction scores, and consideration of sex-specific risk scores.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Venous Thrombosis , Aged , Biological Specimen Banks , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology
13.
Diabet Med ; 38(9): e14616, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249409

ABSTRACT

The National Diabetes Audit (NDA) collates and analyses data on the quality and variation in clinical care and outcomes for people with diabetes. It also provides opportunities to assess trends, determinants, and outcomes of diabetes to help guide clinical and public health priorities. COHORT: Between 1 January 2003 and 31 March 2020, a total of 5,280,885 people diagnosed with diabetes were included in at least one NDA data collection. To this date, median follow-up was 12 and 8 years for people with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes respectively. Comparisons with the 2019/20 Quality and Outcomes Framework show it included 98% of adults in England and Wales with diagnosed type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Data include demographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, deprivation), risk factors (HbA1c , blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, smoking status) diabetic and cardiovascular complications and deaths. SECONDARY ANALYSIS: Secondary analyses have included comparisons of HbA1c and blood pressure measurements in cohorts with similar characteristics to the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study; COVID-19 related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and incidence of type 2 diabetes following admission to intensive care units. FUTURE PLANS: Commissioned NDA reports will continue to inform service development in England and Wales. The same data, with or without linkages to other external datasets, are also a rich resource for clinically orientated research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Audit , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Pressure , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/physiopathology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/physiopathology , England/epidemiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Health Care , Treatment Outcome , Wales/epidemiology , Young Adult
14.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 4: 100105, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1220951

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whether infection with SARS-CoV-2 leads to excess risk of requiring hospitalization or intensive care in persons with diabetes has not been reported, nor have risk factors in diabetes associated with increased risk for these outcomes. METHODS: We included 44,639 and 411,976 adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes alive on Jan 1, 2020, and compared them to controls matched for age, sex, and county of residence (n=204,919 and 1,948,900). Age- and sex-standardized rates for COVID-19 related hospitalizations, admissions to intensive care and death, were estimated and hazard ratios were calculated using Cox regression analyses. FINDINGS: There were 10,486 hospitalizations and 1,416 admissions into intensive care. A total of 1,175 patients with diabetes and 1,820 matched controls died from COVID-19, of these 53•2% had been hospitalized and 10•7% had been in intensive care. Patients with type 2 diabetes, compared to controls, displayed an age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 2•22, 95%CI 2•13-2•32) of being hospitalized for COVID-19, which decreased to HR 1•40, 95%CI 1•34-1•47) after further adjustment for sociodemographic factors, pharmacological treatment and comorbidities, had higher risk for admission to ICU due to COVID-19 (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2•49, 95%CI 2•22-2•79, decreasing to 1•42, 95%CI 1•25-1•62 after adjustment, and increased risk for death due to COVID-19 (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2•19, 95%CI 2•03-2•36, complete adjustment 1•50, 95%CI 1•39-1•63). Age- and sex-adjusted HR for COVID-19 hospitalization for type 1 diabetes was 2•10, 95%CI 1•72-2•57), decreasing to 1•25, 95%CI 0•3097-1•62) after adjustment• Patients with diabetes type 1 were twice as likely to require intensive care for COVID-19, however, not after adjustment (HR 1•49, 95%CI 0•75-2•92), and more likely to die (HR 2•90, 95% CI 1•6554-5•47) from COVID-19, but not independently of other factors (HR 1•38, 95% CI 0•64-2•99). Among patients with diabetes, elevated glycated hemoglobin levels were associated with higher risk for most outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In this nationwide study, type 2 diabetes was independently associated with increased risk of hospitalization, admission to intensive care and death for COVID-19. There were few admissions into intensive care and deaths in type 1 diabetes, and although hazards were significantly raised for all three outcomes, there was no independent risk persisting after adjustment for confounding factors.

18.
Occup Environ Med ; 2020 Dec 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066928

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate severe COVID-19 risk by occupational group. METHODS: Baseline UK Biobank data (2006-10) for England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England (16 March to 26 July 2020). Included participants were employed or self-employed at baseline, alive and aged <65 years in 2020. Poisson regression models were adjusted sequentially for baseline demographic, socioeconomic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors to assess risk ratios (RRs) for testing positive in hospital or death due to COVID-19 by three occupational classification schemes (including Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 2000). RESULTS: Of 120 075 participants, 271 had severe COVID-19. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.43, 95% CI 5.52 to 10.00), social and education workers (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.82) and other essential workers (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.45) had a higher risk of severe COVID-19. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.70, 95% CI 4.87 to 15.55), social care (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.14) and transport workers (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.00) had the highest risk within the broader groups. Compared with white non-essential workers, non-white non-essential workers had a higher risk (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.62) and non-white essential workers had the highest risk (RR 8.34, 95% CI 5.17 to 13.47). Using SOC 2000 major groups, associate professional and technical occupations, personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had a higher risk, compared with managers and senior officials. CONCLUSIONS: Essential workers have a higher risk of severe COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for national and organisational policies and practices that protect and support workers with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19.

19.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(2): 82-93, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-989524

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to ascertain the cumulative risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes and compare it with that of people without diabetes, and to investigate risk factors for and build a cross-validated predictive model of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 among people with diabetes. METHODS: In this cohort study, we captured the data encompassing the first wave of the pandemic in Scotland, from March 1, 2020, when the first case was identified, to July 31, 2020, when infection rates had dropped sufficiently that shielding measures were officially terminated. The participants were the total population of Scotland, including all people with diabetes who were alive 3 weeks before the start of the pandemic in Scotland (estimated Feb 7, 2020). We ascertained how many people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in this period from the Electronic Communication of Surveillance in Scotland database (on virology), the RAPID database of daily hospitalisations, the Scottish Morbidity Records-01 of hospital discharges, the National Records of Scotland death registrations data, and the Scottish Intensive Care Society and Audit Group database (on critical care). Among people with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19, diabetes status was ascertained by linkage to the national diabetes register, Scottish Care Information Diabetes. We compared the cumulative incidence of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with and without diabetes using logistic regression. For people with diabetes, we obtained data on potential risk factors for fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 from the national diabetes register and other linked health administrative databases. We tested the association of these factors with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes, and constructed a prediction model using stepwise regression and 20-fold cross-validation. FINDINGS: Of the total Scottish population on March 1, 2020 (n=5 463 300), the population with diabetes was 319 349 (5·8%), 1082 (0·3%) of whom developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 by July 31, 2020, of whom 972 (89·8%) were aged 60 years or older. In the population without diabetes, 4081 (0·1%) of 5 143 951 people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19. As of July 31, the overall odds ratio (OR) for diabetes, adjusted for age and sex, was 1·395 (95% CI 1·304-1·494; p<0·0001, compared with the risk in those without diabetes. The OR was 2·396 (1·815-3·163; p<0·0001) in type 1 diabetes and 1·369 (1·276-1·468; p<0·0001) in type 2 diabetes. Among people with diabetes, adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes duration and type, those who developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 were more likely to be male, live in residential care or a more deprived area, have a COVID-19 risk condition, retinopathy, reduced renal function, or worse glycaemic control, have had a diabetic ketoacidosis or hypoglycaemia hospitalisation in the past 5 years, be on more anti-diabetic and other medication (all p<0·0001), and have been a smoker (p=0·0011). The cross-validated predictive model of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes had a C-statistic of 0·85 (0·83-0·86). INTERPRETATION: Overall risks of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 were substantially elevated in those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared with the background population. The risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19, and therefore the need for special protective measures, varies widely among those with diabetes but can be predicted reasonably well using previous clinical history. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Population Surveillance , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Critical Care/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Scotland/epidemiology , Young Adult
20.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother ; 8(2): 165-178, 2022 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-990614

ABSTRACT

AIMS: This meta-analysis provides summary odds ratio (OR) estimates for associations between treatment with (vs. without) renin-angiotensin system blockers and risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (CoViD-19) severity (including case-fatality) in patients with hypertension, and in all patients (irrespective of hypertension). METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and SSRN were searched (2 May 2020 to 12 August 2020) for non-randomized observational CoViD-19 studies. Event/patient numbers were extracted, comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) treatment (and each separately), to treatment with neither drug, for the outcomes: (i) likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection; (ii) CoViD-19 severity [including hospitalization, intensive therapy unit (ITU), ventilation]; (iii) case-fatality. The risk of bias was assessed (ROBINS-I). Random-effects meta-analysis estimates were pooled. Eighty-six studies including 459 755 patients (103 317 with hypertension), were analysed. In patients with hypertension, ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment was not associated with a greater likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 60 141 patients (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99-1.14), hospitalization in 5925 patients (OR 0.90, 0.62-1.31), ITU in 7218 patients (OR 1.06, 0.73-1.56), ventilation (or ITU/ventilation/death) in 13 163 patients (OR 0.91, 0.72-1.15) or case-fatality in 18 735 patients with 2893 deaths (OR 0.75, 0.61-0.92). CONCLUSION: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs appear safe in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be discontinued.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020186996.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , COVID-19 , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , Humans , Renin-Angiotensin System , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL