Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(10): 671-680, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531932

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) has been reported to be increasing in frequency during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to examine the rates of DKA hospital admissions and the patient demographics associated with DKA during the pandemic compared with in prepandemic years. METHODS: Using a comprehensive, multiethnic, national dataset, the Secondary Uses Service repository, we extracted all emergency hospital admissions in England coded with DKA from March 1 to June 30, 2020 (first wave of the pandemic), July 1 to Oct 31, 2020 (post-first wave), and Nov 1, 2020, to Feb 28, 2021 (second wave), and compared these with DKA admissions in the equivalent periods in 2017-20. We also examined baseline characteristics, mortality, and trends in patients who were admitted with DKA. FINDINGS: There were 8553 admissions coded with DKA during the first wave, 8729 during the post-first wave, and 10 235 during the second wave. Compared with preceding years, DKA admissions were 6% (95% CI 4-9; p<0·0001) higher in the first wave of the pandemic (from n=8048), 6% (3-8; p<0·0001) higher in the post-first wave (from n=8260), and 7% (4-9; p<0·0001) higher in the second wave (from n=9610). In the first wave, DKA admissions reduced by 19% (95% CI 16-21) in those with pre-existing type 1 diabetes (from n=4965 to n=4041), increased by 41% (35-47) in those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes (from n=2010 to n=2831), and increased by 57% (48-66) in those with newly diagnosed diabetes (from n=1072 to n=1681). Compared with prepandemic, type 2 diabetes DKA admissions were similarly common in older individuals and men but were higher in those of non-White ethnicities during the first wave. The increase in newly diagnosed DKA admissions occurred across all age groups and these were significantly increased in men and people of non-White ethnicities. In the post-first wave, DKA admissions did not return to the baseline level of previous years; DKA admissions were 14% (11-17) lower in patients with type 1 diabetes (from n=5208 prepandemic to n=4491), 30% (24-36) higher in patients with type 2 diabetes (from n=2011 to n=2613), and 56% (47-66) higher in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (from n=1041 to n=1625). During the second wave, DKA admissions were 25% (22-27) lower in patients with type 1 diabetes (from n=5769 prepandemic to n=4337), 50% (44-56) higher in patients with type 2 diabetes (from n=2608 to n=3912), and 61% (52-70) higher in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (from n=1234 to n=1986). INTERPRETATION: Our results provide evidence for differences in the numbers and characteristics of people presenting with DKA during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with in the preceding 3 years. Greater awareness of risk factors for DKA in type 2 diabetes and vigilance for newly diagnosed diabetes presenting with DKA during the COVID-19 pandemic might help mitigate the increased impact of DKA. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Diabetic Ketoacidosis/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Patient Admission/trends , Population Surveillance , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , Databases, Factual/trends , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Diabetic Ketoacidosis/therapy , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Population Surveillance/methods , Time Factors , Young Adult
3.
World Neurosurg ; 151: e615-e620, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1297239

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage (including subarachnoid hemorrhage [SAH]) has been reported in 0.3%-1.2% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, no study has evaluated the risk of SAH in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We analyzed data from 62 health care facilities using the Cerner de-identified COVID-19 dataset. RESULTS: There were 86 (0.1%) and 376 (0.2%) patients with SAH among 85,645 patients with COVID-19 and 197,073 patients without COVID-19, respectively. In the multivariate model, there was a lower risk of SAH in patients with COVID-19 (odds ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.4-0.7, P < 0.0001) after adjusting for sex, age strata, race/ethnicity, hypertension, and nicotine dependence/tobacco use. The proportions of patients who developed pneumonia (58.1% vs. 21.3%, P < 0.0001), acute kidney injury (43% vs. 27.7%, P = 0.0005), septic shock (44.2% vs. 20.7%, P < 0.0001), and respiratory failure (64.0% vs. 39.1%, P < 0.0001) were significantly higher among patients with SAH and COVID-19 compared with patients without COVID-19. The in-hospital mortality among patients with SAH and COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with patients without COVID-19 (31.4% vs. 12.2%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of SAH was not increased in patients with COVID-19. The higher mortality in patients with SAH and COVID-19 compared with patients without COVID-19 is likely mediated by higher frequency of systemic comorbidities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/diagnostic imaging , Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Databases, Factual/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends
4.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 78(14): 1294-1308, 2021 07 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195708

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2021 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2021 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2021 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2020, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States grew 4.9% compared to 2019, for a total of $535.3 billion. Utilization (a 2.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase, with price changes having minimal influence (a 0.3% increase). Adalimumab was the top drug in 2020, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $35.3 billion (a 4.6% decrease) and $98.4 billion (an 8.1% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals the decrease in expenditures was driven by reduced utilization. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2021. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2021, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4% to 6%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7% to 9% and 3% to 5%, respectively, compared to 2020. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Drug Costs/trends , Economics, Pharmaceutical/trends , Health Expenditures/trends , Prescription Drugs/economics , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/economics , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/trends , Drugs, Generic/economics , Drugs, Generic/therapeutic use , Health Policy/economics , Health Policy/trends , Humans , Pharmacy/trends , Prescription Drugs/therapeutic use , United States/epidemiology
5.
Br J Anaesth ; 127(1): 15-22, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1184858

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare in various vulnerable patient subpopulations. However, data are lacking on the impact of COVID-19 on hip fractures, seen mainly in older patients. Using national claims data, we aimed to describe the epidemiology during the first COVID-19 wave in the USA. METHODS: We compared patients admitted for hip fractures during March and April of 2020 with those admitted in 2019 in terms of patient and healthcare characteristics, COVID-19 diagnosis, and outcomes. An additional comparison was made between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS), admission to an ICU, ICU LOS, use of mechanical ventilation, 30-day readmission, discharge disposition, and a composite variable of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Overall, 16 068 hip fractures were observed in 2019 compared with 7498 in 2020. Patients with hip fractures in 2020 (compared with 2019) experienced earlier hospital discharge and were less likely to be admitted to ICU, but more likely to be admitted to home. Amongst 83 patients with hip fractures with concomitant COVID-19 diagnosis, we specifically observed more non-surgical treatments, almost doubled LOS, a more than 10-fold increased mortality rate, and higher complication rates compared with COVID-19-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted not only volume of hip fractures, but also patterns in care and outcomes. These results may inform policymakers in future outbreaks and how this may affect vulnerable patient populations, such as those experiencing a hip fracture.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/trends , Hip Fractures/epidemiology , Hip Fractures/surgery , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/trends , Male , Patient Discharge/trends , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
6.
Drug Saf ; 44(1): 95-105, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1092875

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based clinical data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pharmacotherapies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study documented and characterized COVID-19 cases reported in individuals receiving treatment with Pfizer pharmaceutical products and cases that reported use of Pfizer pharmaceutical products for COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: This retrospective observational review leveraged the Pfizer safety database containing adverse event data collected in association with use of Pfizer products between 1 October, 2019, and 25 June, 2020; the database includes worldwide adverse event data from various sources. Selected Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) Preferred Terms and subsequent clinical review were used to characterize COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: Over 1500 relevant cases were identified over an 8-month period. In cases that reported COVID-19, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, followed by anticoagulant/antithrombic agents and corticosteroids, were the most frequently reported agents. The frequent reporting of immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents among cases of COVID-19 suggests increased vulnerability to infection among treated patients, either because of immunosuppressive effects of certain agents or the nature of the underlying treated condition. In cases involving off-label pharmacotherapy use for the treatment of COVID-19-related conditions, the most frequently reported therapeutic classes included antibiotics, antimalarial agents, antivirals/antiretroviral agents, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and immunoglobulin/interferons. The most frequently reported pharmacotherapeutic agents were azithromycin and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, followed by lopinavir-ritonavir, ceftriaxone, and tofacitinib. The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with azithromycin (as sole therapy or combined with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) include electrocardiogram QT prolonged, drug interaction, hepatitis, diarrhea, and hepatitis acute. Regarding cardiac-related events, 19% (120/645) of azithromycin cases reported events associated with QT prolongation/torsade de pointes (which included seven fatal cardiac events). The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with other commonly used agents are also presented. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance surveillance study provides a unique characterization of cases in which a broad range of pharmaceutical products was reported in relation to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , Drug Industry/trends , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Global Health/trends , Pharmacovigilance , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/standards , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Antimalarials/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Databases, Factual/standards , Databases, Factual/trends , Drug Industry/standards , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/diagnosis , Global Health/standards , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies
7.
Acta Diabetol ; 58(6): 771-778, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083192

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The relationship between metformin therapy and the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has not been reported among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). We aimed to investigate whether metformin therapy was associated with the incidence of COVID-19 among type 2 DM patients in South Korea. METHODS: The National Health Insurance Service-COVID-19 cohort database, comprising COVID-19 patients from 1 January 2020 to 4 June 2020, was used for this study. Among them, adult patients with type 2 DM were included in this study. Metformin users were defined as those who had been prescribed continuous oral metformin for over a period of ≥ 90 days, and the control group was defined as all other patients. RESULTS: Overall, 27,493 patients with type 2 DM (7204, metformin user group; 20,289, control group) were included. After propensity score matching, 11,892 patients (5946 patients in each group) were included in the final analysis. In the logistic regression analysis, the odds of metformin users developing COVID-19 was 30% lower than that of the control group [odds ratio (OR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.80; P < 0.001]. However, in the multivariate model, metformin use was not associated with hospital mortality when compared with that of the control group (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.81-1.95; P = 0.301). CONCLUSIONS: Metformin therapy might have potential benefits for the prevention of COVID-19 among patients with type 2 DM in South Korea. However, it did not affect the hospital mortality of type 2 DM patients diagnosed with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/trends , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Metformin/therapeutic use , National Health Programs/trends , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/chemically induced , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cohort Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality/trends , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/adverse effects , Male , Metformin/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Risk Factors
8.
Diabetes Metab J ; 44(6): 897-907, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1005674

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the infection risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with diabetes (according to treatment method). METHODS: Claimed subjects to the Korean National Health Insurance claims database diagnosed with COVID-19 were included. Ten thousand sixty-nine patients with COVID-19 between January 28 and April 5, 2020, were included. Stratified random sampling of 1:5 was used to select the control group of COVID-19 patients. In total 50,587 subjects were selected as the control group. After deleting the missing values, 60,656 subjects were included. RESULTS: Adjusted odds ratio (OR) indicated that diabetic insulin users had a higher risk of COVID-19 than subjects without diabetes (OR, 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.53; P=0.0278). In the subgroup analysis, infection risk was higher among diabetes male insulin users (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.89), those between 40 and 59 years (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.44). The infection risk was higher in diabetic insulin users with 2 to 4 years of morbidity (OR, 1.744; 95% CI, 1.003 to 3.044). CONCLUSION: Some diabetic patients with certain conditions would be associated with a higher risk of acquiring COVID-19, highlighting their need for special attention. Efforts are warranted to ensure that diabetic patients have minimal exposure to the virus. It is important to establish proactive care and screening tests for diabetic patients suspected with COVID-19 for timely disease diagnosis and management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Population Surveillance , Social Class , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , Databases, Factual/trends , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , National Health Programs/trends , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Young Adult
9.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 8(10): 823-833, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-712031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Diabetes has been associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality, but the association between modifiable risk factors, including hyperglycaemia and obesity, and COVID-19-related mortality among people with diabetes is unclear. We assessed associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a population-based cohort study of people with diagnosed diabetes who were registered with a general practice in England. National population data on people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes collated by the National Diabetes Audit were linked to mortality records collated by the Office for National Statistics from Jan 2, 2017, to May 11, 2020. We identified the weekly number of deaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes during the first 19 weeks of 2020 and calculated the percentage change from the mean number of deaths for the corresponding weeks in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The associations between risk factors (including sex, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, HbA1c, renal impairment [from estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)], BMI, tobacco smoking status, and cardiovascular comorbidities) and COVID-19-related mortality (defined as International Classification of Diseases, version 10, code U07.1 or U07.2 as a primary or secondary cause of death) between Feb 16 and May 11, 2020, were investigated by use of Cox proportional hazards models. FINDINGS: Weekly death registrations in the first 19 weeks of 2020 exceeded the corresponding 3-year weekly averages for 2017-19 by 672 (50·9%) in people with type 1 diabetes and 16 071 (64·3%) in people with type 2 diabetes. Between Feb 16 and May 11, 2020, among 264 390 people with type 1 diabetes and 2 874 020 people with type 2 diabetes, 1604 people with type 1 diabetes and 36 291 people with type 2 diabetes died from all causes. Of these total deaths, 464 in people with type 1 diabetes and 10 525 in people with type 2 diabetes were defined as COVID-19 related, of which 289 (62·3%) and 5833 (55·4%), respectively, occurred in people with a history of cardiovascular disease or with renal impairment (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1·73 m2). Male sex, older age, renal impairment, non-white ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and previous stroke and heart failure were associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Compared with people with an HbA1c of 48-53 mmol/mol (6·5-7·0%), people with an HbA1c of 86 mmol/mol (10·0%) or higher had increased COVID-19-related mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2·23 [95% CI 1·50-3·30, p<0·0001] in type 1 diabetes and 1·61 [1·47-1·77, p<0·0001] in type 2 diabetes). In addition, in people with type 2 diabetes, COVID-19-related mortality was significantly higher in those with an HbA1c of 59 mmol/mol (7·6%) or higher than in those with an HbA1c of 48-53 mmol/mol (HR 1·22 [95% CI 1·15-1·30, p<0·0001] for 59-74 mmol/mol [7·6-8·9%] and 1·36 [1·24-1·50, p<0·0001] for 75-85 mmol/mol [9·0-9·9%]). The association between BMI and COVID-19-related mortality was U-shaped: in type 1 diabetes, compared with a BMI of 25·0-29·9 kg/m2, a BMI of less than 20·0 kg/m2 had an HR of 2·45 (95% CI 1·60-3·75, p<0·0001) and a BMI of 40·0 kg/m2 or higher had an HR of 2·33 (1·53-3·56, p<0·0001); the corresponding HRs for type 2 diabetes were 2·33 (2·11-2·56, p<0·0001) and 1·60 (1·47-1·75, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Deaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes rose sharply during the initial COVID-19 pandemic in England. Increased COVID-19-related mortality was associated not only with cardiovascular and renal complications of diabetes but, independently, also with glycaemic control and BMI. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Population Surveillance , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Databases, Factual/trends , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , National Health Programs/trends , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Population Surveillance/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
11.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 77(15): 1213-1230, 2020 07 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-276198

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2020 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2020 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for specialty drugs, biosimilars, and diabetes medications. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2020 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2019, overall US pharmaceutical expenditures grew 5.4% compared to 2018, for a total of $507.9 billion. This increase was driven to similar degrees by prices, utilization, and new drugs. Adalimumab was the top drug in US expenditures in 2019, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $36.9 billion (a 1.5% increase from 2018) and $90.3 billion (an 11.8% increase from 2018) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals growth was driven by new products and price increases. Several new drugs that will likely influence spending are expected to be approved in 2020. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2020 we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 9.0% to 11.0% and 2.0% to 4.0%, respectively, compared to 2019. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/economics , Ambulatory Care Facilities/trends , Drug Costs/trends , Economics, Hospital/trends , Prescription Drugs/economics , Databases, Factual/trends , Humans , Prescription Drugs/therapeutic use , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...