The prevalence and ingredient cost of chronic comorbidity in the Irish elderly population with medication treated type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cross-sectional study using a national pharmacy claims database

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comorbidity in patients with diabetes is associated with poorer health and increased cost. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and ingredient cost of comorbidity in patients ≥ 65 years with and without medication treated type 2 diabetes using a national pharmacy claims database.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Irish Health Service Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Service pharmacy claims database, which includes all prescribing to individuals covered by the General Medical Services scheme, was used to identify the study population (≥ 65 years). Patients with medication treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were identified using the prescription of oral anti-hyperglycaemic agents alone or in combination with insulin as a proxy for disease diagnosis. The prevalence and ingredient prescribing cost of treated chronic comorbidity in the study population with and without medication treated T2DM were ascertained using a modified version of the RxRiskV index, a prescription based comorbidity index. The association between T2DM and comorbid conditions was assessed using logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Bootstrapping was used to ascertain the mean annual ingredient cost of treated comorbidity. Statistical significance at p < 0.05 was assumed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 2010, 43165 of 445180 GMS eligible individuals (9.7%) were identified as having received medication for T2DM. The median number of comorbid conditions was significantly higher in those with T2DM compared to without (median 5 vs. 3 respectively; p < 0.001). Individuals with T2DM were more likely to have ≥ 5 comorbidities when compared to those without (OR = 2.82, 95% CI = 2.76-2.88, p < 0.0001). The mean annual ingredient cost for comorbidity was higher in the study population with T2DM (€1238.67, 95% CI = €1238.20 - €1239.14) compared to those without the condition (€799.28, 95% CI = €799.14 - € 799.41).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Individuals with T2DM were more likely to have a higher number of treated comorbid conditions than those without and this was associated with higher ingredient costs. This has important policy and economic consequences for the planning and provision of future health services in Ireland, given the expected increase in T2DM and other chronic conditions.</p

Two-Year Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Surfactant Therapy in Preterm Infants: Follow-Up of the OPTIMIST-A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance  The long-term effects of surfactant administration via a thin catheter (minimally invasive surfactant therapy [MIST]) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome remain to be definitively clarified. Objective  To examine the effect of MIST on death or neurodevelopmental disability (NDD) at 2 years’ corrected age. Design, Setting, and Participants  Follow-up study of a randomized clinical trial with blinding of clinicians and outcome assessors conducted in 33 tertiary-level neonatal intensive care units in 11 countries. The trial included 486 infants with a gestational age of 25 to 28 weeks supported with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Collection of follow-up data at 2 years’ corrected age was completed on December 9, 2022. Interventions  Infants assigned to MIST (n = 242) received exogenous surfactant (200 mg/kg poractant alfa) via a thin catheter; those assigned to the control group (n = 244) received sham treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures  The key secondary outcome of death or moderate to severe NDD was assessed at 2 years’ corrected age. Other secondary outcomes included components of this composite outcome, as well as hospitalizations for respiratory illness and parent-reported wheezing or breathing difficulty in the first 2 years. Results  Among the 486 infants randomized, 453 had follow-up data available (median gestation, 27.3 weeks; 228 females [50.3%]); data on the key secondary outcome were available in 434 infants. Death or NDD occurred in 78 infants (36.3%) in the MIST group and 79 (36.1%) in the control group (risk difference, 0% [95% CI, −7.6% to 7.7%]; relative risk [RR], 1.0 [95% CI, 0.81-1.24]); components of this outcome did not differ significantly between groups. Secondary respiratory outcomes favored the MIST group. Hospitalization with respiratory illness occurred in 49 infants (25.1%) in the MIST group vs 78 (38.2%) in the control group (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.54-0.81]) and parent-reported wheezing or breathing difficulty in 73 (40.6%) vs 104 (53.6%), respectively (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90]). Conclusions and Relevance  In this follow-up study of a randomized clinical trial of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome supported with CPAP, MIST compared with sham treatment did not reduce the incidence of death or NDD by 2 years of age. However, infants who received MIST had lower rates of adverse respiratory outcomes during their first 2 years of life. Trial Registration  anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000916943</p

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

International audienceBackground: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support.Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]).Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable