Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 30
Filter
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(5): e2314393, 2023 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2324595

ABSTRACT

Importance: Diabetes and COVID-19 are both global pandemics, and type 2 diabetes is a common comorbidity in patients with acute COVID-19 and is proven to be a key determinant of COVID-19 prognosis. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are oral antiviral medications recently approved for nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, following demonstration of their efficacies in reducing adverse outcomes of the disease; it is crucial to clarify whether both oral antiviral medications are efficacious in a population consisting exclusively of patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in a contemporary population-based cohort comprising exclusively nonhospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed using population-based electronic medical record data for patients in Hong Kong with type 2 diabetes and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 26 and October 23, 2022. Each patient was followed up until death, outcome event, crossover of oral antiviral treatment, or end of the observational period (October 30, 2022), whichever came first. Outpatient oral antiviral users were divided into molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment groups, respectively, and nontreated control participants were matched through 1:1 propensity score matching. Data analysis was performed on March 22, 2023. Exposures: Molnupiravir (800 mg twice daily for 5 days) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg nirmatrelvir and 100 mg ritonavir twice daily for 5 days, or 150 mg nirmatrelvir and 100 mg ritonavir for patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min per 1.73 m2). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization. The secondary outcome was in-hospital disease progression. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with Cox regression. Results: This study identified 22 098 patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19. A total of 3390 patients received molnupiravir and 2877 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in the community setting. After application of exclusion criteria followed by 1:1 propensity score matching, this study comprised 2 groups. One group included 921 molnupiravir users (487 men [52.9%]), with a mean (SD) age of 76.7 (10.8) years, and 921 control participants (482 men [52.3%]), with a mean (SD) age of 76.6 (11.7) years. The other group included 793 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users (401 men [50.6%]), with a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (11.5) years, and 793 control participants (395 men [49.8%]), with a mean (SD) age of 71.9 (11.6) years. At a median follow-up of 102 days (IQR, 56-225 days), molnupiravir use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]; P < .001) and in-hospital disease progression (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.35-0.69]; P < .001) compared with nonuse. At a median follow-up of 85 days (IQR, 56-216 days), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.80]; P < .001) and a nonsignificantly lower risk of in-hospital disease progression (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.59-1.44]; P = .73) compared with nonuse. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that both molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir oral antiviral medications were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes. Further studies in specific populations, such as individuals in residential care homes and individuals with chronic kidney disease, are suggested.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Aged , Humans , Male , Antiviral Agents , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Disease Progression , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Outpatients , Retrospective Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Female
2.
Lancet Psychiatry ; 10(6): 403-413, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2315452

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder have a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent poor outcomes. Few studies have evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among people with substance use disorder. We aimed to estimate the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Fosun-BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) against SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) infection and related hospital admission in this population. METHODS: We did a matched case-control study using electronic health databases in Hong Kong. Individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder between Jan 1, 2016, and Jan 1, 2022, were identified. People aged 18 years and older with SARS-CoV-2 infection from Jan 1 to May 31, 2022, and people with COVID-19-related hospital admission from Feb 16 to May 31, 2022, were included as cases and were matched by age, sex, and previous clinical history with controls from all individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder who attended the Hospital Authority health services: up to three controls for SARS-CoV-2 infection and up to ten controls for hospital admission. Conditional logistical regression was used to evaluate the association between vaccination status (ie, one, two, or three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac) and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission, adjusted for baseline comorbidities and medication use. FINDINGS: Among 57 674 individuals with substance use disorder, 9523 people with SARS-CoV-2 infections (mean age 61·00 years, SD 14·90; 8075 [84·8%] males and 1448 [15·2%] females) were identified and matched to 28 217 controls (mean age 60·99 years, 14·67; 24 006 [85·1%] males and 4211 [14·9%] females), and 843 people with COVID-19-related hospital admissions (mean age 70·48 years, SD 14·68; 754 [89·4%] males and 89 [10·6%] females) were identified and matched to 7459 controls (mean age 70·24 years, 13·87; 6837 [91·7%] males and 622 [8·3%] females). Data on ethnicity were not available. We observed significant vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection for two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination (20·7%, 95% CI 14·0-27·0, p<0·0001) and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 41·5%, 34·4-47·8, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 13·6%, 5·4-21·0, p=0·0015; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 31·3%, 19·8-41·1, p<0·0001), but not for one dose of either vaccine or two doses of CoronaVac. Significant vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission was detected after one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination (35·7%, 3·8-57·1, p=0·032), two-dose vaccination (both BNT162b2 73·3%, 64·3 to 80·0, p<0·0001; both CoronaVac 59·9%, 50·2-67·7, p<0·0001), and three-dose vaccination (all BNT162b2 86·3%, 75·6-92·3, p<0·0001; all CoronaVac 73·5% 61·0-81·9, p<0·0001; BNT162b2 booster after two-dose CoronaVac 83·7%, 64·6-92·5, p<0·0001), but not after one dose of CoronaVac. INTERPRETATION: For both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, two-dose or three-dose vaccination was protective against COVID-19-related hospital admission and the booster dose provided protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among people with substance use disorder. Our findings confirm the importance of booster doses in this population during the period dominated by the omicron variant. FUNDING: Health Bureau, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Substance-Related Disorders , Female , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , BNT162 Vaccine , Case-Control Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Vaccine Efficacy , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Substance-Related Disorders/therapy , Hospitals
3.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 12(9): e029291, 2023 05 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2306127

ABSTRACT

Background COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and mortality. The association between vaccination and risk of cardiovascular complications shortly after SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease remains unknown. Methods and Results A case-control study was conducted with cases defined as patients who had myocardial infarction or stroke within 28 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022 and August 15, 2022. Controls were defined as all other patients who attended any health services and were not cases. Individuals without history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Each case was randomly matched with 10 controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI was estimated using conditional logistic regression. We identified 808 cases matched with 7771 controls among all patients with cardiovascular disease. Results showed that vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection with a dose-response relationship. For BNT162b2, risk decreased from 0.49 (95% CI, 0.29-0.84) to 0.30 (95% CI, 0.20-0.44) and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.08-0.34) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Similar trends were observed for CoronaVac, with risk decreased from 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85) to 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.52) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.21-0.49) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Conclusions Vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac is associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases , Myocardial Infarction , Stroke , Humans , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , BNT162 Vaccine , Case-Control Studies , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Stroke/epidemiology , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/prevention & control , Vaccination/adverse effects
4.
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association ; 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2293347

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare incidences of adverse events of special interest (AESI) and delirium in three cohorts: after COVID-19 vaccination, pre-pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test positive. DESIGN This is a population-based cohort study using electronic medical records linked with vaccination records in Hong Kong. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 17,449 older people with dementia received at least one dose of CoronaVac (n=14,719) or BNT162b2 (n=2730) between 23 February 2021 and 31 March 2022. 43,396 pre-pandemic and 3592 SARS-CoV-2 test positive patients were also included in this study. METHODS The incidences of AESI and delirium up to 28 days after vaccination in the vaccinated dementia cohort were compared with the pre-pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 test positive dementia cohorts by calculating incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Patients who received multiple doses were followed up separately for each dose, up to the third dose. RESULTS We did not detect an increased risk of delirium and most AESI following vaccination compared to the pre-pandemic period and those tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. No AESI group nor delirium incidence exceeded 10 per 1000 person-days in vaccinated individuals. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The findings provide evidence for the safe use of COVID-19 vaccines in older patients with dementia. In the short run, benefit appears to outweigh the harm due to vaccine, however, longer follow-up should be continued to identify remote adverse events.

6.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother ; 2023 Mar 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2287768

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism with a greater risk for female patients. This study aims to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AF and the sex differences. METHODS AND RESULTS: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with AF, using the territory-wide electronic medical records from the Hospital Authority and vaccination records from the Department of Health in Hong Kong. Patients with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or bleeding in the inpatient setting between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 were included. A nested case-control analysis was also conducted with each case randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression was used in the SCCS analysis and conditional logistic regression was used in nested case-control analysis to assess the risks and all analyses were stratified by sex and type of vaccines. Among 51 158 patients with AF, we identified an increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after the first dose of BNT162b2 in SCCS analysis during 0-13 days (incidence rate ratio 6.60[95% CI 1.51-28.77]) and 14-27 days (6.53[95% CI 1.31-32.51]), and nested case-control analysis during 0-13 days (adjusted odds ratio 6.21 [95% CI 1.14-33.91]) and 14-27 days (5.52 [95% CI 1.12-27.26]) only in female patients. The increased risk in female patients following the first dose of CoronaVac was only detected during 0-13 days (3.88 [95% CI 1.67-9.03]) in the nested case-control analysis. No increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was identified in male patients and no increased risk of bleeding was detected in all patients with AF for both vaccines. An increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 was also observed in both females (17.42 [95% CI 5.08-59.73]) and males (6.63 [95% CI 2.02-21.79]). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 vaccination was only increased in female patients with AF. However, as the risk after COVID-19 was even higher, proactive uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is recommended to prevent the potential severe outcomes after infection.

7.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 23(6): 683-695, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2246376

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Viral rebound after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment has implications for the clinical management and isolation of patients with COVID-19. We evaluated an unselected, population-wide cohort to identify the incidence of viral burden rebound and associated risk factors and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study of hospitalised patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 in Hong Kong, China, for an observation period from Feb 26 to July 3, 2022 (during the omicron BA.2.2 variant wave). Adult patients (age ≥18 years) admitted 3 days before or after a positive COVID-19 test were selected from medical records held by the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong. We included patients with non-oxygen-dependent COVID-19 at baseline receiving either molnupiravir (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (nirmatrelvir 300 mg with ritonavir 100 mg twice a day for 5 days), or no oral antiviral treatment (control group). Viral burden rebound was defined as a reduction in cycle threshold (Ct) value (≥3) on quantitative RT-PCR test between two consecutive measurements, with such decrease sustained in an immediately subsequent Ct measurement (for those patients with ≥3 Ct measurements). Logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors for viral burden rebound, and to assess associations between viral burden rebound and a composite clinical outcome of mortality, intensive care unit admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation initiation, stratified by treatment group. FINDINGS: We included 4592 hospitalised patients with non-oxygen-dependent COVID-19 (1998 [43·5%] women and 2594 [56·5%] men). During the omicron BA.2.2 wave, viral burden rebound occurred in 16 of 242 patients (6·6% [95% CI 4·1-10·5]) receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, 27 of 563 (4·8% [3·3-6·9]) receiving molnupiravir, and 170 of 3787 (4·5% [3·9-5·2]) in the control group. The incidence of viral burden rebound did not differ significantly across the three groups. Immunocompromised status was associated with increased odds of viral burden rebound, regardless of antiviral treatment (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: odds ratio [OR] 7·37 [95% CI 2·56-21·26], p=0·0002; molnupiravir: 3·05 [1·28-7·25], p=0·012; control: 2·21 [1·50-3·27], p<0·0001). Among patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, the odds of viral burden rebound were higher in those aged 18-65 years (vs >65 years; 3·09 [1·00-9·53], p=0·050), those with high comorbidity burden (score >6 on the Charlson Comorbidity Index; 6·02 [2·09-17·38], p=0·0009), and those concomitantly taking corticosteroids (7·51 [1·67-33·82], p=0·0086); whereas the odds were lower in those who were not fully vaccinated (0·16 [0·04-0·67], p=0·012). In patients receiving molnupiravir, those aged 18-65 years (2·68 [1·09-6·58], p=0·032) or on concomitant corticosteroids (3·11 [1·23-7·82], p=0·016) had increased odds of viral burden rebound. We found no association between viral burden rebound and occurrence of the composite clinical outcome from day 5 of follow-up (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir: adjusted OR 1·90 [0·48-7·59], p=0·36; molnupiravir: 1·05 [0·39-2·84], p=0·92; control: 1·27 [0·89-1·80], p=0·18). INTERPRETATION: Viral burden rebound rates are similar between patients with antiviral treatment and those without. Importantly, viral burden rebound was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes. FUNDING: Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Adult , Male , Humans , Female , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Viral Load
9.
Lancet ; 400(10359): 1213-1222, 2022 10 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184592

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the real-world effectiveness of oral antivirals against the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two oral antiviral drugs among community-dwelling COVID-19 outpatients in Hong Kong. METHODS: In this observational study, we used data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority to identify an unselected, territory-wide cohort of non-hospitalised patients with an officially registered diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 26 and June 26, 2022, during the period in which the omicron subvariant BA.2.2 was dominant in Hong Kong. We used a retrospective cohort design as primary analysis, and a case-control design as sensitivity analysis. We identified patients with COVID-19 who received either molnupiravir (800 mg twice daily for 5 days) or nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (nirmatrelvir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily for 5 days, or nirmatrelvir 150 mg and ritonavir 100 mg if estimated glomerular filtration rate was 30-59 mL/min per 1·73 m2). Outpatient oral antiviral users were matched with controls using propensity score (1:10) according to age, sex, date of SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and vaccination status. Study outcomes were death, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and in-hospital disease progression (in-hospital death, invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by Cox regression for the primary analysis, and odds ratios in oral antiviral users compared with non-users by logistic regression for the sensitivity analysis. FINDINGS: Among 1 074 856 non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19, 5383 received molnupiravir and 6464 received nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir in the community setting. Patients were followed up for a median of 103 days in the molnupiravir group and 99 days in the nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir group. Compared with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir users, those on molnupiravir were older (4758 [85·9%] vs 4418 [88.7%] aged >60 years) and less likely to have been fully vaccinated (1850 [33·4%] vs 800 [16·1%]). Molnupiravir use was associated with lower risks of death (HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·61-0·95]) and in-hospital disease progression (0·57 [0·43-0·76]) than non-use was, whereas risk of hospitalisation was similar in both groups (0·98 [0·89-1·06]). Nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir use was associated with lower risks of death (0·34 [0·22-0·52]), hospitalisation (0·76 [0·67-0·86]), and in-hospital disease progression (0·57 [0·38-0·87]) than non-use was. We consistently found reduced risks of mortality and hospitalisation associated with early oral antiviral use among older patients. The findings from the case-control analysis broadly supported those from the primary analysis. INTERPRETATION: During Hong Kong's wave of SARS-CoV-2 omicron subvariant BA.2.2, among non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19, early initiation of novel oral antivirals was associated with reduced risks of mortality and in-hospital disease progression. Nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir use was additionally associated with a reduced risk of hospitalisation. FUNDING: Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Cytidine/analogs & derivatives , Disease Progression , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxylamines , Independent Living , Retrospective Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Nat Med ; 29(3): 579-582, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2185965

ABSTRACT

We tracked the effective reproduction number (Rt) of the predominant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant Omicron BF.7 in Beijing in November-December 2022 by fitting a transmission dynamic model parameterized with real-time mobility data to (i) the daily number of new symptomatic cases on 1-11 November (when China's zero-COVID interventions were still strictly enforced) and (ii) the proportion of individuals who participated in online polls on 10-22 December and self-reported to have been test-positive since 1 November. After China's announcement of 20 measures to transition from zero-COVID, we estimated that Rt increased to 3.44 (95% credible interval (CrI): 2.82-4.14) on 18 November and the infection incidence peaked on 11 December. We estimated that the cumulative infection attack rate (IAR; that is, proportion of the population infected since 1 November) in Beijing was 75.7% (95% CrI: 60.7-84.4) on 22 December 2022 and 92.3% (95% CrI: 91.4-93.1) on 31 January 2023. Surveillance programs should be rapidly set up to monitor the evolving epidemiology and evolution of SARS-CoV-2 across China.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Beijing/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Policy
11.
The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific ; : 100630, 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2095737

ABSTRACT

Summary Background COVID-19 vaccines are important for patients with heart failure (HF) to prevent severe outcomes but the safety concerns could lead to vaccine hesitancy. This study aimed to investigate the safety of two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, in patients with HF. Methods We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using the data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and the Department of Health. The primary outcome was hospitalization for HF and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all hospitalization. We identified patients with a history of HF before February 23, 2021 and developed the outcome event between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 in Hong Kong. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression to evaluate the risks following the first three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Findings We identified 32,490 patients with HF, of which 3035 were vaccinated and had a hospitalization for HF during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 755;CoronaVac = 2280). There were no increased risks during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.33–1.26];0.94 [0.50–1.78];0.82 [0.17–3.98]) and 14–27 days (0.73 [0.35–1.52];0.95 [0.49–1.84];0.60 [0.06–5.76]) after the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2. No increased risks were observed for CoronaVac during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.60 [0.41–0.88];0.71 [0.45–1.12];1.64 [0.40–6.77]) and 14–27 days (0.91 [0.63–1.32];0.79 [0.46–1.35];1.71 [0.44–6.62]) after the first, second and third doses. We also found no increased risk of MACE or all hospitalization after vaccination. Interpretation Our results showed no increased risk of hospitalization for HF, MACE or all hospitalization after receiving BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines in patients with HF. Funding The project was funded by a Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No. COVID19F01). F.T.T.L. (Francisco T.T. Lai) and I.C.K.W. (Ian C.K. Wong)'s posts were partly funded by the D24H;hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

12.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(12): 1681-1693, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1996735

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on the effectiveness of oral antivirals in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are urgently needed. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical and virological outcomes associated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use in hospitalised patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during a pandemic wave dominated by the omicron BA.2 subvariant. METHODS: We analysed data from a territory-wide retrospective cohort of patients in Hong Kong who were hospitalised with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 26 and April 26, 2022. Data were extracted from the Hospital Authority, the Department of Health, and the Hong Kong Death Registry. Patients were eligible for inclusion if their admission date was within 3 days before or after confirmation of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Those who were admitted to hospital more than 5 days after symptom onset, were younger than 18 years, had a history of oral antiviral use before admission, required supplemental oxygen on admission, had drug-related contraindications to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use, or had severe renal or severe liver impairment were excluded. Patients who received the oral antivirals molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were matched with controls using propensity-score matching in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes included a composite outcome of disease progression (all-cause mortality, initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], intensive care unit [ICU] admission, or the need for oxygen therapy) and each of these individual disease progression outcomes, and time to reaching a low viral burden (RT-PCR cycle threshold value ≥30). For each event outcome, crude incidence rates were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox regression models. FINDINGS: We identified 40 776 patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period, with a mean follow-up of 41·3 days (total 925 713 person-days). After exclusions and propensity-score matching, we included 1856 molnupiravir recipients and 1856 matched controls, and 890 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and 890 matched controls. A lower risk of all-cause mortality was observed in molnupiravir recipients (crude incidence rate per 10 000 person-days 19·98 events [95% CI 16·91-23·45]) versus matched controls (38·07 events [33·85-42·67]; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·40-0·59], p<0·0001) and in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients (10·28 events [7·03-14·51]) versus matched controls (26·47 events [21·34-32·46]; HR 0·34 [0·23-0·50], p<0·0001). Oral antiviral recipients also had lower risks of the composite disease progression outcome (molnupiravir HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·52-0·69], p<0·0001; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 0·57 [0·45-0·72], p<0·0001) and need for oxygen therapy (molnupiravir 0·69 [0·57-0·83], p=0·0001; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 0·73 [0·54-0·97], p=0·032) compared with controls. Time to achieving a low viral burden was significantly shorter among oral antiviral recipients than matched controls (molnupiravir HR 1·38 [95% CI 1·15-1·64], p=0·0005; nirmatrelvir-ritonavir 1·38 [1·07-1·79], p=0·013). Significant differences in initiation of IMV and ICU admission were not found. INTERPRETATION: During a wave of SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.2, initiation of novel oral antiviral treatments in hospitalised patients not requiring oxygen therapy on admission showed substantial clinical benefit. Our findings support the early use of oral antivirals in this population of patients. FUNDING: Health and Medical Research Fund (Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region). TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Humans , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 Testing , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Disease Progression , Oxygen
13.
J Hematol Oncol ; 15(1): 66, 2022 05 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951281

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has defined a list of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for safety surveillance of vaccines. AESI have not been adequately assessed following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer contributing to vaccine hesitancy in this population. We aimed to evaluate the association between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines and the risk of AESI in adults with active cancer or a history of cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a territory-wide cohort study using electronic health records managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and vaccination records provided by the Department of Health. Patients with a cancer diagnosis between January 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021, were included and stratified into two cohorts: active cancer and history of cancer. Within each cohort, patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were 1:1 matched to unvaccinated patients using the propensity score. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AESI 28 days after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: A total of 74,878 patients with cancer were included (vaccinated: 25,789 [34%]; unvaccinated: 49,089 [66%]). Among patients with active cancer, the incidence of AESI was 0.31 and 1.02 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.13 and 0.88 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Among patients with history of cancer, the incidence was 0.55 and 0.89 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.42 and 0.93 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Neither vaccine was associated with a higher risk of AESI for patients with active cancer (BNT162b2: HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.09; CoronaVac: 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.18) or patients with history of cancer (BNT162b2: 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28; CoronaVac: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this territory-wide cohort study of patients with cancer, the incidence of AESI following vaccination with two doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines was low. The findings of this study can reassure clinicians and patients with cancer about the overall safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in patients with cancer, which could increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate in this vulnerable group of patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Adult , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Humans , Neoplasms/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects
14.
Front Pharmacol ; 13: 866441, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1903109

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aims to explore head-to-head clinical outcomes and complications associated with tocilizumab or baricitinib initiation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone. Methods: Among 10,445 COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 21st 2020 and January 31st 2021 in Hong Kong, patients who had received tocilizumab (n = 165) or baricitinib (n = 76) while on dexamethasone were included. Primary study outcome was time to clinical improvement (at least one score reduction on WHO clinical progression scale). Secondary outcomes were disease progression, viral dynamics, in-hospital death, hyperinflammatory syndrome, and COVID-19/treatment-related complications. Hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models. Results: The initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had no significant differences in time to clinical improvement (HR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.57-1.29, p = 0.459), hospital discharge (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.57-1.27, p = 0.418), recovery without the need for oxygen therapy (HR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.64-1.67, p = 0.883), low viral load (HR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.85-2.60, p = 0.162), and positive IgG antibody (HR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.61-1.54, p = 0.909). Time to viral clearance (HR = 1.94, 95%CI 1.01-3.73, p = 0.048) was shorter in the tocilizumab group with marginal significance, compared to that of baricitinib. Meanwhile, the two treatment modalities were not significantly different in their associated risks of in-hospital death (HR = 0.63, 95%CI 0.29-1.35, p = 0.233), severe liver injury (HR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.43-3.08, p = 0.778), acute renal failure (HR = 2.33, 95%CI 0.61-8.82, p = 0.213), hyperinflammatory syndrome (HR = 2.32, 95%CI 0.87-6.25, p = 0.091), thrombotic and bleeding events (HR = 1.39, 95%CI 0.32-6.00, p = 0.658), and secondary infection (HR = 2.97, 95%CI 0.62-14.31, p = 0.173). Conclusion: Among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 on background dexamethasone, the initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had generally comparable effects on time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, recovery, low viral load, and positive IgG antibody; risks of in-hospital death, hepatic and renal complications, hyperinflammatory syndrome, thrombotic and bleeding events, and secondary infection. On the other hand, tocilizumab users might achieve viral clearance slightly faster than baricitinib users. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the evaluation of tocilizumab and baricitinib in COVID-19 patients with different disease severities, at varying stages or timing of drug initiation, and considering the concomitant use of other therapeutics.

15.
Cardiovasc Res ; 118(10): 2329-2338, 2022 07 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1901160

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Concern about the cardiovascular safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) may lead to vaccine hesitancy. We sought to assess the association between two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in individuals with established CVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified individuals with a history of CVD before 23 February 2021 and a diagnosis of MACE between 23 February 2021 and 31 January 2022 in Hong Kong. MACE was defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and cardiovascular death. Electronic health records from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority were linked to vaccination records from the Department of Health. A self-controlled case-series method was used to evaluate the risk of MACE for 0-13 and 14-27 days after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to compare the risk of MACE between each risk period and the baseline period. A total of 229 235 individuals with CVD were identified, of which 1764 were vaccinated and had a diagnosis of MACE during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 662; CoronaVac = 1102). For BNT162b2, IRRs were 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-1.02] for the first dose and 0.87 (95% CI 0.50-1.52) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.40 (95% CI 0.18-0.93) for the first dose and 1.13 (95% CI 0.70-1.84) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. For CoronaVac, the IRRs were 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.75) for the first dose and, 0.73 (95% CI 0.46-1.16) for the second dose during the 0-13 days risk period, 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90) for the first dose and 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-1.29) for the second dose during the 14-27 days risk period. Consistent results were found in subgroup analyses for different sexes, age groups and different underlying cardiovascular conditions. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed no evidence of an increased risk of MACE after vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with CVD. Future research is required to monitor the risk after the third dose of each vaccine.


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases , BNT162 Vaccine/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Humans , Risk Factors
17.
J Autoimmun ; 130: 102830, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1882146

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the autoimmune safety of COVID-19 vaccines may negatively impact vaccine uptake. We aimed to describe the incidence of autoimmune conditions following BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination and compare these with age-standardized incidence rates in non-vaccinated individuals. METHODS: This is a descriptive cohort study conducted in public healthcare service settings. Territory-wide longitudinal electronic medical records of Hong Kong Hospital Authority users (≥16 years) were linked with COVID-19 vaccination records between February 23, 2021 and June 30, 2021. We classified participants into first/second dose BNT162b2 groups, first/second dose CoronaVac groups and non-vaccinated individuals for incidence comparison. The study outcomes include hospitalized autoimmune diseases (16 types of immune-mediated diseases across six body systems) within 28 days after first and second dose of vaccination. Age-standardized incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Poisson distribution. RESULTS: This study included around 3.9 million Hong Kong residents, of which 1,122,793 received at least one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2: 579,998; CoronaVac: 542,795), and 721,588 completed two doses (BNT162b2: 388,881; CoronaVac: 332,707). Within 28 days following vaccination, cumulative incidences for all autoimmune conditions were below 9 per 100,000 persons, for both vaccines and both doses. None of the age-standardized incidence rates were significantly higher than the non-vaccinated individuals, except for an observed increased incidence of hypersomnia following the first dose of BNT162b2 (standardized IRR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.10-1.94). CONCLUSIONS: Autoimmune conditions requiring hospital care are rare following mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccination with similar incidence to non-vaccinated individuals. The association between first dose BNT162b2 vaccination and immune-related sleeping disorders requires further research. Population-based robust safety surveillance is essential to detect rare and unexpected vaccine safety events.


Subject(s)
Autoimmune Diseases , COVID-19 , Autoimmune Diseases/epidemiology , Autoimmune Diseases/etiology , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Humans , RNA, Messenger , Vaccination/adverse effects
18.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(5): e2212681, 2022 05 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1843827

ABSTRACT

Importance: COVID-19 has required universities to rapidly develop vaccination policies for students and staff, yet little is known about the preferences of these individuals toward vaccination. Objective: To quantify student and staff preferences for COVID-19 vaccination at a university in Hong Kong. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional online survey study was conducted from July 20 to September 21, 2021, before the announcement of a campus-wide vaccine mandate. A survey of 42 451 eligible university students and staff used discrete-choice experiment methods to quantify 7 attributes of COVID-19 vaccination: risk of a mild or moderate adverse event after vaccination, risk of a severe adverse event after vaccination, efficacy against COVID-19 infection, efficacy against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection, duration of protection after vaccination, incentive for completing vaccination, and out-of-pocket costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: A mixed logit regression model was used to estimate the preferences of attributes for COVID-19 vaccines and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) adjusted for background characteristics, role, vaccination, and COVID-19 infection status of family or friends, adverse event status after vaccination among family and friends of participants, and scenario block. Results: Among 42 451 eligible university students and staff invited, 3423 individuals completed the survey (mean [SD] age, 27.1 [9.9] years; 2053 [60.0%] women). Participants included 2506 students (73.2%) and 917 staff (26.8%), with a response rate of 8.1%. Quarantine-free travel was preferred (ß = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; mWTP: $235.9; 95% CI, $190.3-$294.2), followed by efficacy against any COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.29-0.32; mWTP: $84.1; 95% CI, $71.8-$100.8), against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27; mWTP: $69.7; 95% CI, $465-$653), and risk of severe adverse events following vaccination (ß = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.21; mWTP: -$66.8; 95% CI, -$81.5 to -$55.3). Participants were less concerned about protection duration (ß = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18; mWTP: $46.0; 95% CI, $38.6-$56.2) and risk of mild to moderate adverse events (ß = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.10; mWTP: -$32.7; 95% CI, -$41.2 to -$26.4). Conclusions and Relevance: Preference of all attributes were significant and were considered important by the participants for vaccine decision-making. Insights drawn could assist policy makers in future vaccination decisions, such as campus vaccine mandate and requirement of a third dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Vaccination , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Students , Universities , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination/psychology , Young Adult
19.
Paediatr Drugs ; 24(3): 269-280, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1797448

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: There was initially insufficient understanding regarding suitable pharmacological treatment for pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) was originally used for the treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) infection. It was also used in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) with positive results. Nonetheless, results from recent randomized controlled trials and observational studies on COVID-19 patients were unfavorable. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 933 COVID-19 patients aged ≤ 18 years were admitted between 21 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 in Hong Kong. Exposure was receiving LPV/r within the first two days of admission. Time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, seroconversion and hyperinflammatory syndrome, cumulative costs, and hospital length of stay were assessed. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and linear models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of time-to-event and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: LPV/r users were associated with longer time to clinical improvement (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001), hospital discharge (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001) and seroconversion (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; p < 0.001) when compared with controls. LPV/r users were also associated with prolonged hospital length of stay (6.99 days, 95% CI 6.23-7.76; p < 0.001) and higher costs at 30 days (US$11,709 vs US$8270; p < 0.001) as opposed to controls. CONCLUSION: Early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients was associated with longer time to clinical improvement. Our study advocates the recommendation against LPV/r use for pediatric patients across age groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , HIV Infections , COVID-19/complications , Child , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
20.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther ; 56(1): 121-130, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1752499

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate and quantify the risks of AKI and ALI associated with remdesivir use, given the underlying diseases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This self-controlled case series (SCCS) study was conducted using electronic hospital records between 23 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 as retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority which manages all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong. Outcomes of AKI and ALI were defined using the KDIGO Guideline and Asia Pacific Association of Study of Liver consensus guidelines. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for AKI and ALI following the administration of remdesivir (exposure) in comparison to a non-exposure period were estimated using the conditional Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 860 COVID-19 patients administered remdesivir during hospitalisation, 334 (38.8%) and 137 (15.9%) had incident ALI and AKI, respectively. Compared with the baseline period, both ALI and AKI risks were increased significantly during the pre-exposure period (ALI: IRR = 6.169, 95% CI = 4.549-8.365; AKI: IRR = 7.074, 95% CI = 3.763-13.298) and remained elevated during remdesivir treatment. Compared to the pre-exposure period, risks of ALI and AKI were not significantly higher in the first 2 days of remdesivir initiation (ALI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.915-1.737; AKI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.889-1.789) and between days 2 and 5 of remdesivir treatment (ALI: IRR = 1.087, 95% CI = 0.793-1.489; AKI: IRR = 1.152, 95% CI = 0.821-1.616). CONCLUSION: The increased risks of AKI and ALI associated with intravenous remdesivir treatment for COVID-19 may be due to the underlying SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risks of AKI and ALI were elevated in the pre-exposure period, yet no such increased risks were observed following remdesivir initiation when compared to the pre-exposure period.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Acute Kidney Injury/chemically induced , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Hong Kong , Humans , Liver , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL