All-cause mortality among Danish nursing home residents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cohort study.

A substantial part of mortality during the COVID-19-pandemic occurred among nursing home residents which caused alarm in many countries. We investigate nursing home mortality in relation to the expected mortality prior to the pandemic. This nationwide register-based study included all 135,501 Danish nursing home residents between 2015 until October 6, 2021. All-cause mortality rates were calculated using a standardization method on sex and age distribution of 2020. Survival probability and lifetime lost for 180 days was calculated using Kaplan Meier estimates. Of 3,587 COVID-19 related deaths, 1137 (32%) occurred among nursing home residents. The yearly all-cause mortality rates per 100,000 person-years in 2015, 2016, and 2017 were 35,301 (95% CI: 34,671-35,943), 34,801 (95% CI: 34,180-35,432), and 35,708 (95% CI: 35,085-36,343), respectively. Slightly elevated mortality rates per 100,000 person-years were seen in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 of 38,268 (95% CI: 37,620-38,929), 36,956 (95% CI: 36,323-37,600), 37,475 (95% CI: 36,838-38,122), and 38,536 (95% CI: 37,798-39,287), respectively. For SARS-CoV-2-infected nursing home residents, lifetime lost difference was 42 days (95% CI: 38-46) in 2020 versus non-infected in 2018. Among vaccinated in 2021, lifetime lost difference was 25 days (95% CI: 18-32) for SARS-CoV-2-infected versus non-infected. Even though a high proportion of COVID-19 fatalities took place in nursing homes and SARS-CoV-2-infection increased the risk of individual death, the annual mortality was only slightly elevated. For future epidemics or pandemics reporting numbers of fatal cases in relation to expected mortality is critical.

Behavioral factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between behavioural factors and incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: Case-control web-based questionnaire study. SETTING: Questionnaire data were collected in the Capital Region of Denmark in December 2020 when limited restrictions were in place, while the number of daily SARS-CoV-2 cases increased rapidly. PARTICIPANTS: 8913 cases of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with two groups of controls: (1) 34 063 individuals with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test from the same date (negative controls, NCs) and 2) 25 989 individuals who had never been tested for a SARS-CoV-2 infection (untested controls, UC). Controls were matched on sex, age, test date and municipality. EXPOSURE: Activities during the 14 days prior to being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or during the same period for matched controls and precautions taken during the entire pandemic. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Response rate was 41.4% (n=93 121). Using public transportation, grocery shopping (IRR: NC: 0.52; UC: 0.63) and outdoor sports activities (NC: 0.75; UC: 0.96) were not associated with increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most precautions, for example, using hand sanitizer (NC: 0.79; UC: 0.98), physical distancing (NC: 0.79; UC: 0.82) and avoiding handshakes (NC: 0.74; UC: 0.77), were associated with a lower rate of infection. Activities associated with many close contacts, especially indoors, increased rate of infection. Except for working from home, all types of occupation were linked to increased rate of infection. CONCLUSIONS: In a community setting with moderate restrictions, activities such as using public transportation and grocery shopping with the relevant precautions were not associated with an increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exposures and activities where safety measures are difficult to maintain might be important risk factors for infection. These findings may help public health authorities tailor their strategies for limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Behavioral factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection

Objective To study the association between behavioural factors and incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design Case–control web-based questionnaire study. Setting Questionnaire data were collected in the Capital Region of Denmark in December 2020 when limited restrictions were in place, while the number of daily SARS-CoV-2 cases increased rapidly. Participants 8913 cases of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with two groups of controls: (1) 34 063 individuals with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test from the same date (negative controls, NCs) and 2) 25 989 individuals who had never been tested for a SARS-CoV-2 infection (untested controls, UC). Controls were matched on sex, age, test date and municipality. Exposure Activities during the 14 days prior to being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or during the same period for matched controls and precautions taken during the entire pandemic. Main outcomes and measures SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence rate ratios (IRR). Results Response rate was 41.4% (n=93 121). Using public transportation, grocery shopping (IRR: NC: 0.52;UC: 0.63) and outdoor sports activities (NC: 0.75;UC: 0.96) were not associated with increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most precautions, for example, using hand sanitizer (NC: 0.79;UC: 0.98), physical distancing (NC: 0.79;UC: 0.82) and avoiding handshakes (NC: 0.74;UC: 0.77), were associated with a lower rate of infection. Activities associated with many close contacts, especially indoors, increased rate of infection. Except for working from home, all types of occupation were linked to increased rate of infection. Conclusions In a community setting with moderate restrictions, activities such as using public transportation and grocery shopping with the relevant precautions were not associated with an increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exposures and activities where safety measures are difficult to maintain might be important risk factors for infection. These findings may help public health authorities tailor their strategies for limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Glycated haemoglobin levels among 3295 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with and without diabetes, and risk of severe infection, admission to an intensive care unit and all-cause mortality.

AIM: To determine the risk of adverse outcomes across the spectrum of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Danish nationwide registries were used to study the association between HbA1c levels and 30-day risk of all-cause mortality and the composite of severe COVID-19 infection, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and all-cause mortality. The study population comprised patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (3 March 2020 to 31 December 2020) with a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and an available HbA1c ≤ 6 months before the first positive PCR test. All patients had at least 30 days of follow-up. Among patients with diabetes, HbA1c was categorized as <48 mmol/mol, 48 to 53 mmol/mol, 54 to 58 mmol/mol, 59 to 64 mmol/mol (reference) and >64 mmol/mol. Among patients without diabetes, HbA1c was stratified into <31 mmol/mol, 31 to 36 mmol/mol (reference), 37 to 41 mmol/mol and 42 to 47 mmol/mol. Thirty-day standardized absolute risks and standardized absolute risk differences are reported. RESULTS: We identified 3295 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an available HbA1c (56.2% male, median age 73.9 years), of whom 35.8% had diabetes. The median HbA1c was 54 and 37 mmol/mol among patients with and without diabetes, respectively. Among patients with diabetes, the standardized absolute risk difference of the composite outcome was higher with HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol (12.0% [95% confidence interval {CI} 3.3% to 20.8%]) and HbA1c > 64 mmol/mol (15.1% [95% CI 6.2% to 24.0%]), compared with HbA1c 59 to 64 mmol/mol (reference). Among patients without diabetes, the standardized absolute risk difference of the composite outcome was greater with HbA1c < 31 mmol/mol (8.5% [95% CI 0.5% to 16.5%]) and HbA1c 42 to 47 mmol/mol (6.7% [95% CI 1.3% to 12.1%]), compared with HbA1c 31 to 36 mmol/mol (reference). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 and HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol or HbA1c > 64 mmol/mol had a higher associated risk of the composite outcome. Similarly, among patients without diabetes, varying HbA1c levels were associated with higher risk of the composite outcome.

The association between cardiovascular disease admission rates and the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown and reopening of a nation: a Danish nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: To investigate the admission rates of cardiovascular diseases, overall and according to subgroups, and subsequent mortality rates during the coronavirus disease 2019 societal lockdown (12 March 2020) and reopening phase (15 April 2020) in Denmark. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified patients with a first-time acute cardiovascular admission in two periods: (i) 2 January-16 October 2019 and (ii) 2 January-15 October 2020. Weekly incidence rates of a first-time cardiovascular admission, overall and according to subtypes, in the two periods were calculated. The incidence rate of first-time cardiovascular admissions overall was significantly lower during the first weeks of lockdown in 2020 compared with a similar period in 2019 but increased after the gradual reopening of the Danish society. A similar trend was observed for all subgroups of cardiovascular diseases. The mortality rate among patients admitted after March 12 was not significantly different in 2020 compared with 2019 [mortality rate ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.06)]. CONCLUSION: In Denmark, we observed a substantial decrease in the rate of acute cardiovascular admissions, overall and according to subtypes, during the first weeks of lockdown. However, after the gradual reopening of the Danish society, the admission rates for acute cardiovascular diseases increased and returned to rates similar to those observed in 2019. The mortality rate in patients admitted with cardiovascular diseases during lockdown was similar to that of patients during the same period in 2019.

All-cause mortality and location of death in patients with established cardiovascular disease before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown: a Danish Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: On 13 March 2020, the Danish authorities imposed extensive nationwide lockdown measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and reallocated limited healthcare resources. We investigated mortality rates, overall and according to location, in patients with established cardiovascular disease before, during, and after these lockdown measures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified a dynamic cohort comprising all Danish citizens with cardiovascular disease (i.e. a history of ischaemic heart disease, ischaemic stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, or peripheral artery disease) alive on 2 January 2019 and 2020. The cohort was followed from 2 January 2019/2020 until death or 16/15 October 2019/2020. The cohort comprised 340 392 and 347 136 patients with cardiovascular disease in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The overall, in-hospital, and out-of-hospital mortality rate in 2020 before lockdown was significantly lower compared with the same period in 2019 [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) CI 0.87-0.95; IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02; and IRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.93, respectively]. The overall mortality rate during and after lockdown was not significantly different compared with the same period in 2019 (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.02). However, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower and out-of-hospital mortality rate higher during and after lockdown compared with the same period in 2019 (in-hospital, IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96; out-of-hospital, IRR 1.04, 95% CI1.01-1.08). These trends were consistent irrespective of sex and age. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower and out-of-hospital mortality rate higher during lockdown compared with the same period in the preceding year, irrespective of age and sex.

Association of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Use With COVID-19 Diagnosis and Mortality.

IMPORTANCE: It has been hypothesized that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may make patients more susceptible to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to worse outcomes through upregulation of the functional receptor of the virus, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether use of ACEI/ARBs was associated with COVID-19 diagnosis and worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: To examine outcomes among patients with COVID-19, a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish national administrative registries was conducted. Patients with COVID-19 from February 22 to May 4, 2020, were identified using ICD-10 codes and followed up from day of diagnosis to outcome or end of study period (May 4, 2020). To examine susceptibility to COVID-19, a Cox regression model with a nested case-control framework was used to examine the association between use of ACEI/ARBs vs other antihypertensive drugs and the incidence rate of a COVID-19 diagnosis in a cohort of patients with hypertension from February 1 to May 4, 2020. EXPOSURES: ACEI/ARB use was defined as prescription fillings 6 months prior to the index date. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In the retrospective cohort study, the primary outcome was death, and a secondary outcome was a composite outcome of death or severe COVID-19. In the nested case-control susceptibility analysis, the outcome was COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: In the retrospective cohort study, 4480 patients with COVID-19 were included (median age, 54.7 years [interquartile range, 40.9-72.0]; 47.9% men). There were 895 users (20.0%) of ACEI/ARBs and 3585 nonusers (80.0%). In the ACEI/ARB group, 18.1% died within 30 days vs 7.3% in the nonuser group, but this association was not significant after adjustment for age, sex, and medical history (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.67-1.03]). Death or severe COVID-19 occurred in 31.9% of ACEI/ARB users vs 14.2% of nonusers by 30 days (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89-1.23]). In the nested case-control analysis of COVID-19 susceptibility, 571 patients with COVID-19 and prior hypertension (median age, 73.9 years; 54.3% men) were compared with 5710 age- and sex-matched controls with prior hypertension but not COVID-19. Among those with COVID-19, 86.5% used ACEI/ARBs vs 85.4% of controls; ACEI/ARB use compared with other antihypertensive drugs was not significantly associated with higher incidence of COVID-19 (adjusted HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.80-1.36]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Prior use of ACEI/ARBs was not significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with hypertension or with mortality or severe disease among patients diagnosed as having COVID-19. These findings do not support discontinuation of ACEI/ARB medications that are clinically indicated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk of major cardiovascular events according to educational level before and after the initial COVID-19 public lockdown: a nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, decreasing rates of hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease raised concerns for undertreatment, particularly for vulnerable groups. We investigated how the initial COVID-19 public lockdown, impacted the risk of being hospitalised with a major cardiovascular event (MCE: myocardial infarction/stroke/heart failure) according to educational level. METHODS: We grouped all Danish residents according to educational attainment level (low, medium, high) and age (40-59, 60-69, ≥70 years). In each group, we calculated the age-standardised and sex standardised risk of MCE hospitalisation in the initial COVID-19 lockdown-period (13 March 2020-3 May 2020) and in the corresponding calendar period in 2019. We calculated age-standardised and sex-standardised risks to investigate whether the COVID-19 lockdown had a differential effect on MCE incidence according to educational level. RESULTS: In the period in 2019, 2700 Danish residents were hospitalised with MCE, compared with only 2290 during the lockdown. During lockdown, the risk of hospitalisation for MCE decreased among residents aged ≥70 with low education (risk difference (RD) -46.2 (-73.2; -19.2) per 100,000) or medium education (RD -23.2 (-50.8; 4.3) per 100 000), but not among residents with high education (RD 5.1 (-32.3; 42.5), per 100 000). The risk of hospitalisation for MCE did not decrease significantly for the younger age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 lockdown is associated with a reduced incidence for MCE, especially among low educated, elderly residents. This raises concern for undertreatment that without clinical awareness and action may widen the educational gap in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Association between statin use and outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a nationwide cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between recent statin exposure and risk of severe COVID-19 infection and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 in Denmark. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational cohort study using data from Danish nationwide registries. PARTICIPANTS: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 22 February 2020 to 17 May 2020 were followed from date of diagnosis until outcome of interest, death or 17 May 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Use of statins, defined as a redeemed drug prescription in the 6 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality, severe COVID-19 infection and the composite. RESULTS: The study population comprised 4842 patients with COVID-19 (median age 54 years (25th-75th percentile, 40-72), 47.1% men), of whom 843 (17.4%) redeemed a prescription of statins. Patients with statin exposure were more often men and had a greater prevalence of comorbidities. The median follow-up was 44 days. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and comorbidities, statin exposure was not associated with a significantly different risk of mortality (HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.18); 30-day standardised absolute risk (SAR), 9.8% (8.7% to 11.0%) vs 9.5% (8.2% to 10.8%); SAR difference, -0.4% (-1.9% to 1.2%)), severe COVID-19 infection (HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.41); 30-day SAR, 13.0% (11.8% to 14.2%) vs 14.9% (12.8% to 17.1%); SAR difference, 1.9% (-0.7% to 4.5%)), and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or severe COVID-19 infection (HR 1.05 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.23); 30-day SAR, 17.6% (16.4% to 18.8%) vs 18.2% (16.4% to 20.1%); SAR difference, 0.6% (-1.6% to 2.9%)). The results were consistent across subgroups of age, sex and presumed indication for statin therapy. Among patients with statin exposure, there was no difference between statin drug or treatment intensity with respect to outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Recent statin exposure in patients with COVID-19 infection was not associated with an increased or decreased risk of all-cause mortality or severe infection.

Cardiovascular comorbidities as predictors for severe COVID-19 infection or death.

AIMS: Pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have been proposed to identify patients at higher risk of adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, but existing evidence is conflicting. Thus, it is unclear whether pre-existing CVDs are independently important predictors for severe COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a nationwide Danish cohort of hospital-screened COVID-19 patients aged ≥40, we investigated if pre-existing CVDs predict the 30-day risk of (i) composite outcome of severe COVID-19 and (ii) all-cause mortality. We estimated 30-day risks using a Cox regression model including age, sex, each CVD comorbidity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-asthma, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. To illustrate CVD comorbidities' importance, we evaluated the predicted risks of death and severe infection, for each sex, along ages 40-85. In total, 4090 COVID-19 hospital-screened patients were observed as of 26 August 2020; 22.1% had ≥1 CVD, 23.7% had severe infection within 30 days and 12.6% died. Predicted risks of both outcomes at age 75 among men with single CVD comorbidities did not differ in clinically meaningful amounts compared with men with no comorbidities risks for the composite outcome of severe infection; women with heart failure (28.2%; 95% CI 21.1-37.0%) or atrial fibrillation (30.0%; 95% CI: 24.2-36.9%) showed modest increases compared with women with no comorbidities (24.0%; 95% CI: 21.4-26.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results showing only modest effects of CVDs on increased risks of poor COVID-19 outcomes are important in allowing public health authorities and clinicians to provide more tailored guidance to cardiovascular patients, who have heretofore been grouped together as high risk due to their disease status.

Association Between Prescribed Ibuprofen and Severe COVID-19 Infection: A Nationwide Register-Based Cohort Study.

Recommendations regarding ibuprofen use in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been conflicting. We examined the risk of severe COVID-19 between ibuprofen-prescribed and non-ibuprofen patients with COVID-19 in a nationwide register-based study of patients with COVID-19 in Denmark between the end of February 2020 and May 16, 2020. Patients with heart failure (n = 208), < 30 years (n = 575), and prescribed other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 57) were excluded. Patients with ibuprofen prescription claims between January 1, 2020, and before COVID-19 diagnosis or April 30, 2020 (last available prescription) were compared with patients without ibuprofen prescription claims. Outcome was a 30-day composite of severe COVID-19 diagnosis with acute respiratory syndrome, intensive care unit admission, or death. Absolute risks and average risk ratios comparing outcome for ibuprofen vs. non-ibuprofen patients standardized to the age, sex, and comorbidity distribution of all patients were derived from multivariable Cox regression. Among 4,002 patients, 264 (6.6%) had ibuprofen prescription claims before COVID-19. Age, sex, and comorbidities were comparable between the two study groups. Standardized absolute risks of the composite outcome for ibuprofen-prescribed vs. non-ibuprofen patients were 16.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.1-20.6) vs. 17.0% (95% CI 16.0-18.1), P = 0.74. The standardized average risk ratio for ibuprofen-prescribed vs. non-ibuprofen patients was 0.96 (95% CI 0.72-1.23). Standardized absolute risks of the composite outcome for patients with ibuprofen prescription claims > 14 days before COVID-19 vs. ≤ 14 days of COVID-19 were 17.1% (95% CI 12.3-22.0) vs. 14.3% (95% CI 7.1-23.1). In conclusion, in this nationwide study, there was no significant association between ibuprofen prescription claims and severe COVID-19.

National all-cause mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Danish registry-based study.

Denmark implemented early widespread social distancing to reduce pressure on the healthcare system from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with the aims to reduce mortality. Unintended consequences might be delays in treatment for other diseases and subsequent mortality. We examined national all-cause mortality comparing weeks 1-27 in 2020 and 2015-2019. This registry-based study used Danish national registry data until 5 July 2020. We examined all-cause mortality rates among all deaths recorded from 2015 to 2020 and among chronic conditions (cardiovascular (cardiac & circulatory), chronic pulmonary, chronic kidney disease, cancer, and diabetes), comparing each week in 2020 to weeks in 2015-2019. In 2020, there were 28,363 deaths in weeks 1-27 (30 December 2019-5 July 2020), the mean deaths in 2015-2019 were 28,630 deaths (standard deviation 784). Compared to previous years, the mortality rate in weeks 3-10 of 2020 was low, peaking in week 14 (17.6 per 100,000 persons in week 9, 19.9 per 100,000 in week 14). Comorbidity prevalence among deceased individuals was similar in 2020 and 2015-2019: 71.1% of all deceased had a prior cardiovascular diagnosis, 30.0% of all deceased had a prior cardiac diagnosis. There were 493 deaths with COVID-19 in weeks 11-27, (59.8% male), and 75.1% had a prior cardiovascular diagnosis. Weekly mortality rates for pre-existing chronic conditions peaked in week 14, and then declined. During the COVID-19 pandemic, due to timely lockdown measures, the mortality rate in Denmark has not increased compared to the mortality rates in the same period during 2015-2019.

Association Between Male Sex and Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-A Danish Nationwide, Register-based Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Male sex has been associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. We examined the association between male sex and severe COVID-19 infection and if an increased risk remains after adjustment for age and comorbidities. METHODS: Nationwide register-based follow-up study of COVID-19 patients in Denmark until 16 May 2020. Average risk ratio comparing 30-day composite outcome of all-cause death, severe COVID-19 diagnosis or intensive care unit (ICU) admission for men versus women standardized to the age and comorbidity distribution of all patients were derived from multivariable Cox regression. Included covariates were age, hypertension, diagnoses including obesity, alcohol, sleep apnea, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic heart disease (IHD), heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke, peripheral artery disease, cancer, liver, rheumatic, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESULTS: Of 4842 COVID-19 patients, 2281 (47.1%) were men. Median age was 57 [25%-75% 43-73] for men versus 52 [38-71] for women (P < .001); however, octogenarians had equal sex distribution. Alcohol diagnosis, diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, prior MI and IHD (all P < .001) as well as AF, stroke, and HF (all P = .01) were more often seen in men, and so was CKD (P = .03). Obesity diagnosis (P < .001) were more often seen in women. Other comorbidity differences were insignificant (P > .05). The fully adjusted average risk ratio was 1.63 [95% CI, 1.44-1.84]. CONCLUSIONS: Men with COVID-19 infection have >50% higher risk of all-cause death, severe COVID-19 infection, or ICU admission than women. The excess risk was not explained by age and comorbidities.

New-onset atrial fibrillation: incidence, characteristics, and related events following a national COVID-19 lockdown of 5.6 million people.

AIM: To determine the incidence, patient characteristics, and related events associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during a national COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using nationwide Danish registries, we included all patients, aged 18-90 years, receiving a new-onset AF diagnosis during the first 3 months of 2019 and 2020. The main comparison was between patients diagnosed during lockdown (12 March 12-1 April 2020) and patients diagnosed in the corresponding period 1 year previously. We found a lower incidence of new-onset AF during the 3 weeks of lockdown compared with the corresponding weeks in 2019 [incidence rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the 3 weeks: 0.66 (0.56-0.78), 0.53 (0.45-0.64), and 0.41 (0.34-0.50)]. There was a 47% drop in total numbers (562 vs. 1053). Patients diagnosed during lockdown were younger and with a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score, while history of cancer, heart failure, and vascular disease were more prevalent. During lockdown, 30 (5.3%) patients with new-onset AF suffered an ischaemic stroke and 15 (2.7%) died, compared with 45 (4.3%) and 14 (1.3%) patients during the corresponding 2019 period, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of a related event (ischaemic stroke or all-cause death) during lock-down compared with the corresponding weeks was 1.41 (95% CI 0.93-2.12). CONCLUSIONS: Following a national lockdown in Denmark, a 47% drop in registered new-onset AF cases was observed. In the event of prolonged or subsequent lockdowns, the risk of undiagnosed AF patients developing complications could potentially translate into poorer outcomes in patients with AF during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Incidence of New-Onset and Worsening Heart Failure Before and After the COVID-19 Epidemic Lockdown in Denmark: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The Danish government ordered a public lockdown on March 12, 2020, because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We investigated the immediate consequences of such a lockdown for patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Using the Danish nationwide administrative databases, we investigated the incidence of new-onset HF and hospitalizations for worsening HF before and after the lockdown (January 1 to March 11 versus March 12 to March 31) in 2020 versus 2019. We also investigated the mortality for all patients with HF and in COVID-19-infected patients with HF. RESULTS: Rates of new-onset HF between January 1 and March 11 were comparable for 2020 and 2019 (1.83 versus 1.78 per 10 000 person-years; P=0.19), while hospitalizations for worsening HF were slightly higher in 2020 versus 2019 (1.04 versus 0.93 per 1000 person-years; P=0.02). In the lockdown period, rates of new-onset HF diagnoses (1.26 versus 2.25 per 1000 person-years) and of hospitalizations for worsening HF (0.63 versus 0.99 per 1000 person-years) were significantly lower in 2020 versus 2019 (P for both, <0.0001). Mortality was similar before and after the national lockdown for the population with HF. We observed 90 HF patients with diagnosed COVID-19 infection, of whom 37% (95% CI, 23%-50%) died within 15 days. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients hospitalized with worsening HF or diagnosed with new-onset HF was markedly reduced after lockdown but has not yet impacted mortality in HF patients at a population-based level. However, these data raise concerns for a potential undertreatment of HF currently that may impact prognosis in the longer term.