"Decline and uneven recovery from 7 common long-term conditions managed in the Catalan primary care after two pandemic years: an observational retrospective population-based study using primary care electronic health records".

BACKGROUND: The incidence of chronic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically been reduced worldwide due to disruptions in healthcare systems. The aim of our study is to analyse the trends in the incidence of 7 commonly managed primary care chronic diseases during the last 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic in Catalonia. METHODS: We performed an observational retrospective population-based study using data from primary care electronic health records from January 2018 to August 2022 (5.1 million people older than 14 years). We divided the study period into two: a pre-pandemic period (before 14 March 2020) and a pandemic period. We performed a segmented regression analysis of daily incidence rates per 100,000 inhabitants of 7 chronic diseases: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ischemic heart disease (IHD), heart failure (HF), hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. In addition, we compared annual incidence between pandemic years (2020, 2021 and 2022) and 2019. Associated incidence rate ratios (IRR) were also calculated. Finally, we estimated the number of expected diagnoses during the pandemic period using data from 2019 and we compared it with the observed data. RESULTS: We analysed 740,820 new chronic diseases' diagnoses. Daily incidence rates of all 7 chronic diseases were drastically interrupted on 14 March 2020, and a general upward trend was observed during the following months. Reductions in 2020 were around 30% for all conditions except COPD which had greater reductions (IRR: 0.58 [95% CI: 0.57 to 0.6]) and HF with lesser drops (IRR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.84 to 0.88]). Some of the chronic conditions have returned to pre-pandemic diagnosis levels, except asthma, COPD and IHD. The return to pre-pandemic diagnosis levels compensated for the drops in 2020 for T2DM and HF, but not for hypertension which presented an incomplete recovery. We also observed an excess of hypercholesterolemia diagnoses of 8.5% (95%CI: 1.81% to 16.15%). CONCLUSIONS: Although primary care has recovered the pre-pandemic diagnosis levels for some chronic diseases, there are still missing diagnoses of asthma, COPD and IHD that should be addressed.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk screening for safer social events: a non-randomised controlled study.

There is an ongoing debate on the implementation of the COVID-19 passport throughout Europe. We sought to build and test a feasible prevention strategy to ensure low SARS-CoV transmission risk in public events. We conducted a non-randomised controlled study. The intervention group obtained a confidential digital certificate of very low capacity for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and attended socio-cultural events in Girona (Spain) between 1 April and 21 May 2021. The primary care services and a network of pharmacies cooperated in providing the certification. A group of non-attendees was randomly selected from pseudonymised health records as controls. We estimated the incidences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and recorded the challenges in the process. Follow-up was complete for 1351 participants, who were matched with 4050 controls. Mean age of the study population was 31.1 years, and 53% of participants were women. Incidence rates of SARS-CoV infection at 14 days in the group of attendees and non-attendees were 15.9 and 17.7 per 100,000 person-days, respectively; the difference between incidences was - 1.8 (95% CI - 22.8, 19.3). Implementation problems were minor, and 89.2% of respondents to a survey were satisfied with the process. The incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not different in the intervention and control groups. These results are in favour of establishing a COVID-19 certificate to attend public events, and connote feasibility of implementation at a population level.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of homologous two-dose ChAdOx1 versus heterologous vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2.

Small trials have suggested that heterologous vaccination with first-dose ChAdOx1 and second-dose BNT162b2 may generate a better immune response than homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. In this cohort analysis, we use linked data from Catalonia (Spain), where those aged <60 who received a first dose of ChAdOx1 could choose between ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 for their second dose. Comparable cohorts were obtained after exact-matching 14,325/17,849 (80.3%) people receiving heterologous vaccination to 14,325/149,386 (9.6%) receiving homologous vaccination by age, sex, region, and date of second dose. Of these, 464 (3.2%) in the heterologous and 694 (4.8%) in the homologous groups developed COVID-19 between 1st June 2021 and 5th December 2021. The resulting hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is 0.66 [0.59-0.74], favouring heterologous vaccination. The two groups had similar testing rates and safety outcomes. Sensitivity and negative control outcome analyses confirm these findings. In conclusion, we demonstrate that a heterologous vaccination schedule with ChAdOx1 followed by BNT162b2 was more efficacious than and similarly safe to homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. Most of the infections in our study occurred when Delta was the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in Spain. These data agree with previous phase 2 randomised trials.

Individuals With SARS-CoV-2 Infection During the First and Second Waves in Catalonia, Spain: Retrospective Observational Study Using Daily Updated Data.

BACKGROUND: A description of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing the first and second waves could help adapt health services to manage this highly transmissible infection. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the epidemiology of individuals with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the characteristics of patients with a positive test comparing the first and second waves in Catalonia, Spain. METHODS: This study had 2 stages. First, we analyzed daily updated data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals from Girona (Catalonia). Second, we compared 2 retrospective cohorts of patients with a positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction or rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. The severity of patients with a positive test was defined by their admission to hospital, admission to intermediate respiratory care, admission to the intensive care unit, or death. The first wave was from March 1, 2020, to June 24, 2020, and the second wave was from June 25, 2020, to December 8, 2020. RESULTS: The numbers of tests and cases were lower in the first wave than in the second wave (26,096 tests and 3140 cases in the first wave versus 140,332 tests and 11,800 cases in the second wave), but the percentage of positive results was higher in the first wave than in the second wave (12.0% versus 8.4%). Among individuals with a positive diagnostic test, 818 needed hospitalization in the first wave and 680 in the second; however, the percentage of hospitalized individuals was higher in the first wave than in the second wave (26.1% versus 5.8%). The group that was not admitted to hospital included older people and those with a higher percentage of comorbidities in the first wave, whereas the characteristics of the groups admitted to hospital were more alike. CONCLUSIONS: Screening systems for SARS-CoV-2 infection were scarce during the first wave, but were more adequate during the second wave, reflecting the usefulness of surveillance systems to detect a high number of asymptomatic infected individuals and their contacts, to help control this pandemic. The characteristics of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first and second waves differed substantially; individuals in the first wave were older and had a worse health condition.

Divergences on expected pneumonia cases during the COVID-19 epidemic in Catalonia: a time-series analysis of primary care electronic health records covering about 6 million people.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is one of the complications of COVID-19. Primary care electronic health records (EHR) have shown the utility as a surveillance system. We therefore analyse the trends of pneumonia during two waves of COVID-19 pandemic in order to use it as a clinical surveillance system and an early indicator of severity. METHODS: Time series analysis of pneumonia cases, from January 2014 to December 2020. We collected pneumonia diagnoses from primary care EHR, a software system covering > 6 million people in Catalonia (Spain). We compared the trend of pneumonia in the season 2019-2020 with that in the previous years. We estimated the expected pneumonia cases with data from 2014 to 2018 using a time series regression adjusted by seasonality and influenza epidemics. RESULTS: Between 4 March and 5 May 2020, 11,704 excess pneumonia cases (95% CI: 9909 to 13,498) were identified. Previously, we identified an excess from January to March 2020 in the population older than 15 years of 20%. We observed another excess pneumonia period from 22 october to 15 november of 1377 excess cases (95% CI: 665 to 2089). In contrast, we observed two great periods with reductions of pneumonia cases in children, accounting for 131 days and 3534 less pneumonia cases (95% CI, 1005 to 6064) from March to July; and 54 days and 1960 less pneumonia cases (95% CI 917 to 3002) from October to December. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnoses of pneumonia from the EHR could be used as an early and low cost surveillance system to monitor the spread of COVID-19.

Filling the gaps in the characterization of the clinical management of COVID-19: 30-day hospital admission and fatality rates in a cohort of 118 150 cases diagnosed in outpatient settings in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a missing link in the natural history of COVID-19, from first (usually milder) symptoms to hospitalization and/or death. To fill in this gap, we characterized COVID-19 patients at the time at which they were diagnosed in outpatient settings and estimated 30-day hospital admission and fatality rates. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study.Data were obtained from Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP)-a primary-care records database covering >6 million people (>80% of the population of Catalonia), linked to COVID-19 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and hospital emergency, inpatient and mortality registers. We included all patients in the database who were ≥15 years old and diagnosed with COVID-19 in outpatient settings between 15 March and 24 April 2020 (10 April for outcome studies). Baseline characteristics included socio-demographics, co-morbidity and previous drug use at the time of diagnosis, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and results.Study outcomes included 30-day hospitalization for COVID-19 and all-cause fatality. RESULTS: We identified 118 150 and 95 467 COVID-19 patients for characterization and outcome studies, respectively. Most were women (58.7%) and young-to-middle-aged (e.g. 21.1% were 45-54 years old). Of the 44 575 who were tested with PCR, 32 723 (73.4%) tested positive. In the month after diagnosis, 14.8% (14.6-15.0) were hospitalized, with a greater proportion of men and older people, peaking at age 75-84 years. Thirty-day fatality was 3.5% (95% confidence interval: 3.4% to 3.6%), higher in men, increasing with age and highest in those residing in nursing homes [24.5% (23.4% to 25.6%)]. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infections were widespread in the community, including all age-sex strata. However, severe forms of the disease clustered in older men and nursing-home residents. Although initially managed in outpatient settings, 15% of cases required hospitalization and 4% died within a month of first symptoms. These data are instrumental for designing deconfinement strategies and will inform healthcare planning and hospital-bed allocation in current and future COVID-19 outbreaks.

Primary care in the time of COVID-19: monitoring the effect of the pandemic and the lockdown measures on 34 quality of care indicators calculated for 288 primary care practices covering about 6 million people in Catalonia.

BACKGROUND: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic and the lockdown measures on the follow-up and control of chronic diseases in primary care. METHODS: Retrospective study in 288 primary care practices (PCP) of the Catalan Institute of Health. We analysed the results of 34 indicators of the Healthcare quality standard (EQA), comprising different types: treatment (4), follow-up (5), control (10), screening (7), vaccinations (4) and quaternary prevention (4). For each PCP, we calculated each indicator's percentage of change in February, March and April 2020 respective to the results of the previous month; and used the T-Student test for paired data to compare them with the percentage of change in the same month of the previous year. We defined indicators with a negative effect those with a greater negative change or a lesser positive change in 2020 in comparison to 2019; and indicators with a positive effect those with a greater positive change or a lesser negative change. RESULTS: We observed a negative effect on 85% of the EQA indicators in March and 68% in April. 90% of the control indicators had a negative effect, highlighting the control of LDL cholesterol with a reduction of - 2.69% (95%CI - 3.17% to - 2.23%) in March and - 3.41% (95%CI - 3.82% to - 3.01%) in April; and the control of blood pressure with a reduction of - 2.13% (95%CI - 2.34% to - 1.9%) and - 2.59% (95%CI - 2.8% to - 2.37%). The indicators with the greatest negative effect were those of screening, such as the indicator of diabetic foot screening with a negative effect of - 2.86% (95%CI - 3.33% to - 2.39%) and - 4.13% (95%CI - 4.55% to - 3.71%) in March and April, respectively. Only one vaccination indicator, adult Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine, had a negative effect in both months. Finally, among the indicators of quaternary prevention, we observed negative effects in March and April although in that case a lower inadequacy that means better clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 epidemic and the lockdown measures have significantly reduced the results of the follow-up, control, screening and vaccination indicators for patients in primary care. On the other hand, the indicators for quaternary prevention have been strengthened and their results have improved.

Validez del Sistema de Información para el Desarrollo de la Investigación en Atención Primaria (SIDIAP) en el estudio de enfermedades vasculares: estudio EMMA / Validity for use in research on vascular diseases of the SIDIAP (Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care): the EMMA study

Introducción y objetivos. Las bases de datos clínicas de atención primaria ofrecen un gran potencial para la investigación. Nuestro objetivo es analizar la validez de los datos del estudio EMMA, basado en el Sistema de Información para el Desarrollo de Investigación en Atención Primaria. Métodos. Se compararon las prevalencias de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular -hipertensión, diabetes mellitus, hipercolesterolemia (y sus tratamientos), obesidad y tabaquismo- observadas en el EMMA con datos equivalentes del estudio Registre Gironí del Cor (REGICOR) en el año 2000. También se compararon la incidencia de enfermedad vascular y su asociación con dichos factores de riesgo en un seguimiento a 5 años. Resultados. Se analizaron datos de 34.823 participantes de 35 a 74 años incluidos en el EMMA y 2.540 participantes del estudio REGICOR2000. Las prevalencias de los factores de riesgo no difirieron significativamente entre los dos estudios, excepto para la prevalencia de exfumadores varones, que fue superior en el REGICOR2000 (el 24,7% [intervalo de confianza del 95%, 23,9-25,5%] frente al 30,1% [intervalo de confianza del 95%, 27,1-33,1%]) y la proporción de hipertensos tratados y pacientes con tratamiento hipolipemiante, que fueron superiores en el EMMA (el 46,9 frente al 32,7% y el 8,7 frente al 6,3%, respectivamente). No se observaron diferencias entre uno y otro estudio en la comparación de la incidencia de enfermedad vascular (varones, el 2,1% en ambos estudios; mujeres, el 1,18% [intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,7-1,7%] en el REGICOR2000 frente al 0,75% [intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,64-0,87%] en el EMMA) ni en su asociación con los factores de riesgo. Conclusiones. Las prevalencias de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular y su relación con la incidencia de enfermedades vasculares observada en el EMMA concuerdan con las observadas en un estudio epidemiológico estandarizado de base poblacional (AU)

Introduction and objectives. Information in primary care databases can be useful in research, but the validity of these data needs to be evaluated. We sought to analyze the validity of the data used in the EMMA study based on data from the Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care. Methods. We compared the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors observed in EMMA -hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia (and its treatments), obesity, and smoking- with equivalent data from the Registre Gironí del Cor (REGICOR), a population-based study that uses standardized methodology, in 2000. We also compared the incidence rates of vascular diseases and its association with these risk factors in a 5-year follow-up. Results. We analyzed data from 34 823 participants included in EMMA and 2540 REGICOR2000 study participants aged 35 to 74. The prevalence of risk factors did not differ significantly between the 2 studies, except for the prevalence of former smokers in men, which was higher in REGICOR2000 (24.7% [95% confidence interval, 23.9%-25.5%] vs 30.1% [95% confidence interval, 27.1%-33.1%]), and the proportion of patients with lipid-lowering and antihypertensive therapy, which was higher in EMMA (46.9% vs 32.7% and 8.7% vs 6.3%, respectively). There were no differences between the 2 studies when comparing the incidence of vascular diseases (2.1% in both studies in men and 1.18% [95% confidence interval, 0.7%-1.7%] in REGICOR2000 vs 0.75% [95% confidence interval, 0.64%-0.87%] in EMMA in women) and its association with risk factors. Conclusions. The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and their association with the incidence of vascular disease observed in the EMMA study are consistent with those observed in an epidemiological population-based study with a standardized methodology (AU)

Validity for use in research on vascular diseases of the SIDIAP (Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care): the EMMA study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Information in primary care databases can be useful in research, but the validity of these data needs to be evaluated. We sought to analyze the validity of the data used in the EMMA study based on data from the Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care. METHODS: We compared the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors observed in EMMA-hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia (and its treatments), obesity, and smoking-with equivalent data from the Registre Gironí del Cor (REGICOR), a population-based study that uses standardized methodology, in 2000. We also compared the incidence rates of vascular diseases and its association with these risk factors in a 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 34 823 participants included in EMMA and 2540 REGICOR2000 study participants aged 35 to 74. The prevalence of risk factors did not differ significantly between the 2 studies, except for the prevalence of former smokers in men, which was higher in REGICOR2000 (24.7% [95% confidence interval, 23.9%-25.5%] vs 30.1% [95% confidence interval, 27.1%-33.1%]), and the proportion of patients with lipid-lowering and antihypertensive therapy, which was higher in EMMA (46.9% vs 32.7% and 8.7% vs 6.3%, respectively). There were no differences between the 2 studies when comparing the incidence of vascular diseases (2.1% in both studies in men and 1.18% [95% confidence interval, 0.7%-1.7%] in REGICOR2000 vs 0.75% [95% confidence interval, 0.64%-0.87%] in EMMA in women) and its association with risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and their association with the incidence of vascular disease observed in the EMMA study are consistent with those observed in an epidemiological population-based study with a standardized methodology.