Search

SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been proposed as a treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19, with favorable outcomes reported in clinical trials and an emergency use authorization granted by the Food and Drug Administration. Real-world data remain limited, however, and thus this analysis presents findings from over 6,500 outpatient administrations of mAb at facilities affiliated with a large healthcare organization in the United States. Within 48 hours of mAb infusion, 15.6% (1,043) of patients received a drug that was indicative of a possible reaction to the infusion; the majority of these were mild (e.g., acetaminophen). Approximately 5.2% of patients who received mAb (n=347) had a post-infusion emergency department visit or admission for COVID-19 disease progression. The results of this analysis indicate that patients who receive mAb have a low likelihood of both an immediate negative reaction to the treatment as well as future inpatient admission related to COVID-19 disease progression.

Background: Digital mental health services (DMHS) provide highly accessible psychological supports and interventions that can supplement existing mental health services. Concerns about the mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been widespread and provide a unique impetus to examine the utility and responsivity of DMHS. This study examined the service utilisation and user characteristics of two DMHS (THIS WAY UP and Just a Thought) in Australia and New Zealand before and during the early pandemic period in these countries (March to June 2020). Methods: Service use indices (website visits, course registrations and prescriptions, clinician registrations) were compared across different time periods before (12, 6 and 3 months) and during the pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. The demographic and clinical characteristics of course registrants (anxiety and depression symptom severity and psychological distress) were also compared across the pre- and during-COVID periods. Results: Comparing pre-COVID to during-COVID time periods, we observed substantial increases across all service use indices in both DMHS (increases of >100% on the majority of service use indices). For example, in the 3 months prior to the pandemic, 2806 people registered for a THIS WAY UP course and 1907 people registered for a Just a Thought course, whereas 21,872 and 5442 registered for a THIS WAY UP and Just a Thought course, respectively, during the first 3 months of the COVID pandemic. Slight differences in the demographic and clinical profiles of course registrants were found between pre- and during-COVID time periods, with limited evidence of elevated anxiety and depression symptom severity in the COVID period. Conclusions: Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in Australia and New Zealand, the volume of users accessing DMHS increased yet the demographic and clinical characteristics of course registrants remained stable. Results underscore how nimble and scalable DMHS can be during periods of high demand.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on healthcare systems worldwide, including the postponing or canceling of appointments and procedures for type 2 diabetes (T2D) care by general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary healthcare use and clinical measurements for people with T2D. Additionally, we aimed to determine if changes were observed among specific risk groups: (1) persons 70 years or older, or below 70 years, (2) patients who were meeting their HbA1c targets and those who were not, and (3) patients with high-risk and non-high-risk T2D. This retrospective cohort study among persons with T2D was conducted using data from the DIAbetes MANagement and Treatment (DIAMANT) data infrastructure, deriving data from electronic medical records of Dutch GPs. The study assessed GP visit counts, and counts and values of clinical measurements, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (SBP). Adjusted negative binomial (NB) regression and generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to estimate GP visit counts and population averages of clinical measurements, respectively, comparing 2019 (pre-pandemic) with 2020 (during the pandemic). Changes in specific groups were examined by stratifying outcomes for the aforementioned subgroups. The cohort consisted of 182,048 patients with T2D (47% female, mean age 69 ± 13 years) on 1 March 2019, of which 168,097 persons (92%) still contributed follow-up data in 2020. We observed an increase in total GP visits in 2020, with an adjusted rate ratio (RR) of 1.09 (95% CI 1.08–1.09). The frequency increased for office visits (RR 1.06; 1.06–1.07) and phone calls (RR 1.33; 1.31–1.35) but remained stable for home visits (RR 1.02; 0.99–1.04). On both population and individual levels, HbA1c values increased in 2020 by 1.65 (1.59–1.70) mmol/mol compared to 2019. Observed changes in 2020 for BMI, LDL, and SBP values were also statistically significant but small. Subgroup stratifications showed higher scores of all clinical measurements in younger persons (

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has a large impact worldwide and is known to particularly affect the older population. This paper outlines the protocol for external validation of prognostic models predicting mortality risk after presentation with COVID-19 in the older population. These prognostic models were originally developed in an adult population and will be validated in an older population (≥ 70 years of age) in three healthcare settings: the hospital setting, the primary care setting, and the nursing home setting. Methods Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, we identified eight prognostic models predicting the risk of mortality in adults with a COVID-19 infection (five COVID-19 specific models: GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, NEWS2 + model, Xie model, and Wang clinical model and three pre-existing prognostic scores: APACHE-II, CURB65, SOFA). These eight models will be validated in six different cohorts of the Dutch older population (three hospital cohorts, two primary care cohorts, and a nursing home cohort). All prognostic models will be validated in a hospital setting while the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model will be validated in hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. The study will include individuals ≥ 70 years of age with a highly suspected or PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection from March 2020 to December 2020 (and up to December 2021 in a sensitivity analysis). The predictive performance will be evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves for each of the prognostic models in each cohort individually. For prognostic models with indications of miscalibration, an intercept update will be performed after which predictive performance will be re-evaluated. Discussion Insight into the performance of existing prognostic models in one of the most vulnerable populations clarifies the extent to which tailoring of COVID-19 prognostic models is needed when models are applied to the older population. Such insight will be important for possible future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics.

Persons with diabetes mellitus may have an increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 compared to persons without diabetes. Prior studies indicate that immune response and thus vaccine effectiveness might be lower in persons with diabetes. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with diabetes. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with diabetes, published before 4 March 2022. Risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. At least two reviewers conducted the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment independently. After screening of 2196 studies, a total of 17 articles were included. Six different COVID-19 vaccines (Ad5-nCoV-S, AZD1222, BNT162b2, CoronaVac, JNJ-78436735, and mRNA-1273) were included in the synthesis. Vaccine effectiveness was reported for SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, and ranged from 24 to 96% in persons with diabetes, and from 33 to 97% in total study populations; effectiveness was generally lower for persons with diabetes. Odds ratios for breakthrough infection or severe COVID-19 ranged from 1.03 to 2.41 in vaccinated persons with diabetes compared to persons without diabetes. Even though the included studies were very heterogeneous, results from the synthesis indicate that effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines might be lower in persons with diabetes. More research is needed on the comparison of vaccine effectiveness between persons with and without diabetes, and the effectiveness of repeat COVID-19 vaccinations.