Impact of chronic oral glucocorticoid treatment on mortality in patients with COVID-19: analysis of a population-based cohort.

OBJECTIVES: While glucocorticoid (GC) treatment initiated for COVID-19 reduces mortality, it is unclear whether GC treatment prior to COVID-19 affects mortality. Long-term GC use raises infection and thromboembolic risks. We investigated if patients with oral GC use prior to COVID-19 had increased mortality overall and by selected causes. DESIGN: Population-based observational cohort study. SETTINGS: Population-based register data in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: All patients infected with COVID-19 in Sweden from January 2020 to November 2021 (n=1 200 153). OUTCOME MEASURES: Any prior oral GC use was defined as ≥1 GC prescription during 12 months before index. High exposure was defined as ≥2 GC prescriptions with a cumulative prednisolone dose ≥750 mg or equivalent during 6 months before index. GC users were compared with COVID-19 patients who had not received GCs within 12 months before index. We used Cox proportional hazard models and 1:2 propensity score matching to estimate HRs and 95% CIs, controlling for the same confounders in all analyses. RESULTS: 3378 deaths occurred in subjects with any prior GC exposure (n=48 806; 6.9%) and 14 850 among non-exposed (n=1 151 347; 1.3%). Both high (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.87 to 2.09) and any exposure (1.58, 1.52 to 1.65) to GCs were associated with overall death. Deaths from pulmonary embolism, sepsis and COVID-19 were associated with high GC exposure and, similarly but weaker, with any exposure. High exposure to GCs was associated with increased deaths caused by stroke and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: Patients on oral GC treatment prior to COVID-19 have increased mortality, particularly from pulmonary embolism, sepsis and COVID-19.

Factors shaping the COVID-19 epidemic curve: a multi-country analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lockdown measures are the backbone of containment measures for the COVID-19 pandemic both in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, in view of the inevitably-occurring second and third global covid-19 wave, assessing the success and impact of containment measures on the epidemic curve of COVID-19 and people's compliance with such measures is crucial for more effective policies. To determine the containment measures influencing the COVID-19 epidemic curve in nine targeted countries across high-, middle-, and low-income nations. METHODS: Four HICs (Germany, Sweden, Italy, and South Korea) and five LMICs (Mexico, Colombia, India, Nigeria, and Nepal) were selected to assess the association using interrupted time series analysis of daily case numbers and deaths of COVID-19 considering the following factors: The "stringency index (SI)" indicating how tight the containment measures were implemented in each country; and the level of compliance with the prescribed measures using human mobility data. Additionally, a scoping review was conducted to contextualize the findings. RESULTS: Most countries implemented quite rigorous lockdown measures, particularly the LMICs (India, Nepal, and Colombia) following the model of HICs (Germany and Italy). Exceptions were Sweden and South Korea, which opted for different strategies. The compliance with the restrictions-measured as mobility related to home office, restraining from leisure activities, non-use of local transport and others-was generally good, except in Sweden and South Korea where the restrictions were limited. The endemic curves and time-series analysis showed that the containment measures were successful in HICs but not in LMICs. CONCLUSION: The imposed lockdown measures are alarming, particularly in resource-constrained settings where such measures are independent of the population segment, which drives the virus transmission. Methods for examining people's movements or hardships that are caused by covid- no work, no food situation are inequitable. Novel and context-adapted approach of dealing with the COVID-19 crisis are therefore crucial.