Risk phenotypes of diabetes and association with COVID-19 severity and death: an update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: To provide a systematic overview of the current body of evidence on high-risk phenotypes of diabetes associated with COVID-19 severity and death. METHODS: This is the first update of our recently published living systematic review and meta-analysis. Observational studies investigating phenotypes in individuals with diabetes and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with regard to COVID-19-related death and severity were included. The literature search was conducted from inception up to 14 February 2022 in PubMed, Epistemonikos, Web of Science and the COVID-19 Research Database and updated using PubMed alert to 1 December 2022. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate summary relative risks (SRRs) with 95% CIs. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 169 articles (147 new studies) based on approximately 900,000 individuals were included. We conducted 177 meta-analyses (83 on COVID-19-related death and 94 on COVID-19 severity). Certainty of evidence was strengthened for associations between male sex, older age, blood glucose level at admission, chronic insulin use, chronic metformin use (inversely) and pre-existing comorbidities (CVD, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and COVID-19-related death. New evidence with moderate to high certainty emerged for the association between obesity (SRR [95% CI] 1.18 [1.04, 1.34], n=21 studies), HbA1c (53-75 mmol/mol [7-9%]: 1.18 [1.06, 1.32], n=8), chronic glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist use (0.83 [0.71, 0.97], n=9), pre-existing heart failure (1.33 [1.21, 1.47], n=14), pre-existing liver disease (1.40 [1.17, 1.67], n=6), the Charlson index (per 1 unit increase: 1.33 [1.13, 1.57], n=2), high levels of C-reactive protein (per 5 mg/l increase: 1.07 [1.02, 1.12], n=10), aspartate aminotransferase level (per 5 U/l increase: 1.28 [1.06, 1.54], n=5), eGFR (per 10 ml/min per 1.73 m2 increase: 0.80 [0.71, 0.90], n=6), lactate dehydrogenase level (per 10 U/l increase: 1.03 [1.01, 1.04], n=7) and lymphocyte count (per 1×109/l increase: 0.59 [0.40, 0.86], n=6) and COVID-19-related death. Similar associations were observed between risk phenotypes of diabetes and severity of COVID-19, with some new evidence on existing COVID-19  vaccination status (0.32 [0.26, 0.38], n=3), pre-existing hypertension (1.23 [1.14, 1.33], n=49), neuropathy and cancer, and high IL-6 levels. A limitation of this study is that the included studies are observational in nature and residual or unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Individuals with a more severe course of diabetes and pre-existing comorbidities had a poorer prognosis of COVID-19 than individuals with a milder course of the disease. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020193692. PREVIOUS VERSION: This is a living systematic review and meta-analysis. The previous version can be found at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-021-05458-8 FUNDING: The German Diabetes Center (DDZ) is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State North Rhine-Westphalia. This study was supported in part by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research to the German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD).

Increase in Mental Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic-The Role of Occupational and Financial Strains.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have reported an increase in mental disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the exact reasons for this development are not well understood. In this study we investigate whether pandemic-related occupational and financial changes (e.g., reduced working hours, working from home, financial losses) were associated with increased symptoms of depression and anxiety compared with the situation before the pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed data from the German National Cohort (NAKO) Study. Between May and November 2020, 161 849 study participants answered questions on their mental state and social circumstances. Their responses were compared with data from the baseline survey before the pandemic (2014-2019). Linear fixed-effects models were used to determine whether individual changes in the severity of symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) or anxiety (GAD-7) were associated with occupational/ financial changes (controlling for various covariates). RESULTS: The prevalence of moderate or severe symptoms of depression and anxiety increased by 2.4% and 1.5%, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the preceding years. The mean severity of the symptoms rose slightly. A pronounced increase in symptoms was observed among those who became unemployed during the pandemic (+ 1.16 points on the depression scale, 95% confidence interval [0.91; 1.41], range 0-27). Increases were also seen for reduced working hours with no short-time allowance, increased working hours, working from home, insecurity regarding employment, and financial strain. The deterioration in mental health was largely statistically explained by the occupational and financial changes investigated in the model. CONCLUSION: Depressive symptoms and anxiety disorders increased slightly in the study population during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Occupational and financial difficulties were an essential contributory factor. These strains should be taken into account both in the care of individual patients and in the planning of targeted prevention measures.

Type 1 diabetes incidence in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents (<20 years of age) during the COVID-19 pandemic (3/2020 to 12/2021) in Germany. METHODS: The present study was based on the IQVIA longitudinal prescription database (LRx), All persons (age ≤ 20 years) with new insulin prescriptions from 2016 to 2021 (index date) were selected and stratified by age group. Weekly (age-specific) data were used to forecast the prescription incidence for the pandemic period based on pre-pandemic data and to explore the relationship between weekly reported age-specific COVID-19 incidences and type 1 diabetes incidence and rate ratios of observed vs. predicted diabetes incidence respectively. RESULTS: During the pre-pandemic period, there was a stable higher insulin prescription incidence during the winter period and a lower insulin prescription incidence during summer. During the pandemic period, there was less seasonal variation in incidence related to the finding that the observed incidence during summer in 2002 and 2021 was 44 % and 65 %, higher, respectively, than the expected incidence based on pre-pandemic year. We did not find any cross-correlations between the COVID-19 incidence and the type 1 diabetes incidence for any age group. Likewise, there were no cross-correlations between the COVID-19 incidence and the incidence rate ratios of observed incidences to predicted incidences. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was less seasonal variation in the incidence of type 1 diabetes (defined by new insulin prescriptions), with higher observed than expected incidences during summer. We found no evidence that the increase in type 1 diabetes incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic relates to direct effects of COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors' response: Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias.

We thank van Tongeren et al for responding to our study on occupational disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risks during the first pandemic wave in Germany (1). The authors address the potential for bias resulting from differential testing between occupational groups and propose an alternative analytical strategy for dealing with selective testing. In the following, we want to discuss two aspects of this issue, namely (i) the extent and reasons of differential testing in our cohort and (ii) the advantages and disadvantages of different analytical approaches to study risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study relied on nationwide prospective cohort data including more than 100 000 workers in order to compare the incidence of infections between different occupations and occupational status positions. We found elevated infection risks in personal services and business administration, in essential occupations (including health care) and among people in higher occupational status positions (ie, managers and highly skilled workers) during the first pandemic wave in Germany (2). Van Tongeren's et al main concern is that the correlations found could be affected by a systematic bias because people in healthcare professions get tested more often than employees in other professions. A second argument is that better-off people could be more likely to use testing as they are less affected by direct costs (prices for testing) and the economic hardship associated with a positive test result (eg, loss of earnings in the event of sick leave). We share the authors' view that differential testing must be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, in our study, we examined the proportion of tests conducted in each occupational group as part of the sensitivity analyses (see supplementary figure S1, accessible at www.sjweh.fi/article/4037). As expected, testing proportions were exceptionally high in medical occupations (due to employer requirements). However, we did not observe systematic differences among non-medical occupations or when categorising by skill-level or managerial responsibility. This might be explained by several reasons. First, SARS-CoV-2 testing was free of charge during the first pandemic wave in Germany, but reporting a risk contact or having symptoms was a necessary condition for testing ( https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html (accessed 5 September 2022). The newspaper article cited by van Tongeren et al is misleading as it refers to a calendar date after our study period. Second, different motivation for testing due to economic hardship in case of a positive test result is an unlikely explanation, because Germany has a universal healthcare system, including paid sick leave and sickness benefits for all workers (3). Self-employed people carry greater financial risks in case of sickness. We therefore included self-employment in the multivariable analyses to address this potential source of bias. While the observed inverse social gradient may be surprising, it actually matches with findings of ecological studies from Germany (4, 5), the United States (6, 7) as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, Israel, and Hong Kong (8), all of which observed higher infection rates in wealthier neighbourhoods during the initial outbreak phase of the pandemic. One possible explanation is the higher mobility of managers and better educated workers, who are more likely to participate in meetings and engage in business travel and holiday trips like skiing. Given the increasing number of studies providing evidence for this hypothesis, we conclude that the inverse social gradient in our study likely reflects different exposure probabilities and is not a result of systematic bias. This also holds true for the elevated infection risks in essential workers, which is actually corroborated by a large body of research (9-11). Regarding differential likelihood of testing, van Tongeren et al state that "[i]t is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design" (1). As van Tongeren et al describe, this is a case-control approach only including individuals who were tested (without considering those who were not tested). However, the proposed analytical strategy can lead to another (more serious) selection bias if testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups (12). This can be easily illustrated when comparing the results based on a time-incidence design with those obtained by a test-negative design as shown in table 1 (see PDF). Both approaches show similar results in terms of vertical occupational differences. Infection was more common if individuals had a high skill level or had a managerial position, but associations were stronger in the time-incidence design and did not reach statistical significance in the test-negative design (as indicated by the confidence intervals overlapping "1"). Unfortunately, the test-negative approach relies on a strongly reduced sample size and thus results in greater statistical uncertainty and loss of statistical power (13). In contrast, the test-negative design yields a different picture when estimating the association between essential occupation and infection risk: In this analysis, essential workers did not differ from non-essential workers in their chance of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the test-negative design even exhibits a lower chance for essential workers). This is rather counter-intuitive and is not in accordance with what we know about the occupational hazards of healthcare workers during the pandemic (14). The main problem is that proportions of positive tests are highly unreliable when testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups. As essential workers were tested more often without being symptomatic (due to employer requirements), a lower proportion of positive tests in this group does not necessarily correspond to a lower risk of infection. Consequently, we are not convinced that the test-negative design should be the 'gold standard' for studying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infections (15). Especially problematic is the loss of statistical power (increasing the probability of a type II error) and the low validity of the test-positivity when test criteria and/or test proportions differ between groups. References 1. van Tongeren M, Rhodes S, Pearce N. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48(7):586-587. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4052. 2. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48:446-56. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037. 3. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. 4. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, Diercke M, Wahrendorf M, Santos-Hövener C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Heal Monit 2020;5:18-29. https://doi.org/10.25646/7057. 5. Plümper T, Neumayer E. The pandemic predominantly hits poor neighbourhoods? SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 fatalities in German districts. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:1176-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa168. 6. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities 2021;8:732-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4. 7. Mukherji N. The Social and Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in US Counties During the Initial Outbreak Phase. Rev Reg Stud 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.35255. 8. Beese F, Waldhauer J, Wollgast L, Pförtner T, Wahrendorf M, Haller S, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic-A Scoping Review. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1605128. 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo C-G, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal 2020;5:e475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X. 10. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:120-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632. 11. Stringhini S, Zaballa M-E, Pullen N, de Mestral C, Perez-Saez J, Dumont R, et al. Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland. Nat Commun 2021;12:3455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23796-4. 12. Accorsi EK, Qiu X, Rumpler E, Kennedy-Shaffer L, Kahn R, Joshi K, et al. How to detect and reduce potential sources of biases in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:179-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00727-7. 13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587. 14. The Lancet. The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020;395:1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9. 15. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology 2022;33:e7-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438.

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the occupational risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide sample of German workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 February-31 August 2020). METHODS: We used the data of 108 960 workers who participated in a COVID follow-up survey of the German National Cohort (NAKO). Occupational characteristics were derived from the German Classification of Occupations 2010 (Klassifikation der Berufe 2010). PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were assessed from self-reports. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using robust Poisson regression, adjusted for person-time at risk, age, sex, migration background, study center, working hours, and employment relationship. RESULTS: The IR was 3.7 infections per 1000 workers [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3-4.1]. IR differed by occupational sector, with the highest rates observed in personal (IR 4.8, 95% CI 4.0-5.6) and business administration (IR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8-3.9) services and the lowest rates in occupations related to the production of goods (IR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6). Infections were more frequent among essential workers compared with workers in non-essential occupations (IRR 1.95, 95% CI 1.59-2.40) and among highly skilled compared with skilled professions (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize higher infection risks in essential occupations and personal-related services, especially in the healthcare sector. Additionally, we found evidence that infections were more common in higher occupational status positions at the beginning of the pandemic.

Incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes after Covid-19.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this work was to investigate diabetes incidence after infection with coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19). Individuals with acute upper respiratory tract infections (AURI), which are frequently caused by viruses, were selected as a non-exposed control group. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the Disease Analyzer, which comprises a representative panel of 1171 physicians' practices throughout Germany (March 2020 to January 2021: 8.8 million patients). Newly diagnosed diabetes was defined based on ICD-10 codes (type 2 diabetes: E11; other forms of diabetes: E12-E14) during follow-up until July 2021 (median for Covid-19, 119 days; median for AURI 161 days). Propensity score matching (1:1) for sex, age, health insurance, index month for Covid-19/AURI and comorbidity (obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, myocardial infarction, stroke) was performed. Individuals using corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded. Poisson regression models were fitted to obtain incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for diabetes. RESULTS: There were 35,865 individuals with documented Covid-19 in the study period. After propensity score matching, demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in 35,865 AURI controls (mean age 43 years; 46% female). Individuals with Covid-19 showed an increased type 2 diabetes incidence compared with AURI (15.8 vs 12.3 per 1000 person-years). Using marginal models to account for correlation of observations within matched pairs, an IRR for type 2 diabetes of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05, 1.57) was estimated. The IRR was not increased for other forms of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Covid-19 confers an increased risk for type 2 diabetes. If confirmed, these results support the active monitoring of glucose dysregulation after recovery from mild forms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Risk phenotypes of diabetes and association with COVID-19 severity and death: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Diabetes has been identified as a risk factor for poor prognosis of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study is to identify high-risk phenotypes of diabetes associated with COVID-19 severity and death. METHODS: This is the first edition of a living systematic review and meta-analysis on observational studies investigating phenotypes in individuals with diabetes and COVID-19-related death and severity. Four different databases were searched up to 10 October 2020. We used a random effects meta-analysis to calculate summary relative risks (SRR) with 95% CI. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE tool. RESULTS: A total of 22 articles, including 17,687 individuals, met our inclusion criteria. For COVID-19-related death among individuals with diabetes and COVID-19, there was high to moderate certainty of evidence for associations (SRR [95% CI]) between male sex (1.28 [1.02, 1.61], n = 10 studies), older age (>65 years: 3.49 [1.82, 6.69], n = 6 studies), pre-existing comorbidities (cardiovascular disease: 1.56 [1.09, 2.24], n = 8 studies; chronic kidney disease: 1.93 [1.28, 2.90], n = 6 studies; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 1.40 [1.21, 1.62], n = 5 studies), diabetes treatment (insulin use: 1.75 [1.01, 3.03], n = 5 studies; metformin use: 0.50 [0.28, 0.90], n = 4 studies) and blood glucose at admission (≥11 mmol/l: 8.60 [2.25, 32.83], n = 2 studies). Similar, but generally weaker and less precise associations were observed between risk phenotypes of diabetes and severity of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Individuals with a more severe course of diabetes have a poorer prognosis of COVID-19 compared with individuals with a milder course of disease. To further strengthen the evidence, more studies on this topic that account for potential confounders are warranted. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration ID CRD42020193692.