Risk of severe COVID-19 and mortality in patients with established chronic liver disease: a nationwide matched cohort study

Background and aims Some, but not all, prior studies have suggested that patients with chronic liver disease are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing more severe disease. However, nationwide data are lacking from well-phenotyped cohorts with liver histology and comparisons to matched general population controls. Methods We conducted a nationwide cohort study of all Swedish adults with chronic liver disease (CLD) confirmed by liver biopsy between 1966 and 2017 (n = 42,320), who were alive on February 1, 2020. CLD cases were matched to ≤ 5 population comparators by age, sex, calendar year and county (n = 182,147). Using Cox regression, we estimated multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for COVID-19 hospitalization and severe COVID-19 (intensive care admission or death due to COVID-19). Results Between February 1 and July 31, 2020, 161 (0.38%) CLD patients and 435 (0.24%) general population controls were hospitalized with COVID-19 (aHR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.11–1.66), while 65 (0.15%) CLD patients and 191 (0.10%) controls developed severe COVID-19 (aHR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.79–1.48). Results were similar in patients with CLD due to alcohol use, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, viral hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and other etiologies. Among patients with cirrhosis (n = 2549), the aHRs for COVID-19 hospitalization and for severe COVID-19 were 1.08 (95% CI 0.48–2.40) and 1.23 (95% CI = 0.37–4.04), respectively, compared to controls. Moreover, among all patients diagnosed with COVID-19, the presence of underlying CLD was not associated with increased mortality (aHR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.61–1.19). Conclusions In this nationwide cohort, patients with CLD had a higher risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 compared to the general population, but they did not have an increased risk of developing severe COVID-19

Clinical and societal burden of incident major depressive disorder : A population-wide cohort study in Stockholm

Objective Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent condition and a significant contributor to global disability. The vast majority of MDD is handled by primary care, but most real-life studies on MDD only include data from secondary care. The aim of this study was therefore to estimate the total clinical and societal burden of incident MDD including data from all healthcare levels in a large well-defined western European healthcare region. Methods Population-wide observational study included healthcare data from Region Stockholm, Sweden's largest region with approximately 2.4 million inhabitants. All patients in Region Stockholm having their first unipolar MDD episode between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018, were included. The sample also included matched study population controls. Outcomes were psychiatric and non-psychiatric comorbid conditions, antidepressant therapy use, healthcare resource utilization, work loss, and all-cause mortality. Results In the study period, 137,822 patients in Region Stockholm were diagnosed with their first unipolar MDD episode. Compared with matched controls, MDD patients had a higher burden of non-psychiatric and psychiatric comorbid conditions, 3.2 times higher outpatient healthcare resource utilization and 8.6 times more work loss. MDD was also associated with a doubled all-cause mortality compared with matched controls (HR: 2.2 [95% CI: 2.0-2.4]). Conclusions The high mortality, morbidity, healthcare resource utilization, and work loss found in this study confirms that MDD is associated with individual suffering and low functioning leading to substantial costs for patients and society. These findings should motivate additional efforts in improving outcomes for MDD patients.Peer reviewe

Prevalence and Implications of Frailty in Older Adults With Incident Inflammatory Bowel Diseases : A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the risk of frailty in older adults with incident inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and matched non-IBD comparators and assess the association between frailty and future hospitalizations and mortality. METHODS: In a cohort of patients with incident IBD ≥60 years of age from 2007 to 2016 in Sweden identified using nationwide registers, we defined frailty using Hospital Frailty Risk Score. We compared prevalence of frailty in patients with IBD with age, sex, place of residency- and calendar year-matched population comparators. In the IBD cohort, we used Cox proportional hazards modeling to examine the associations between frailty risk and hospitalizations or mortality. RESULTS: We identified 10,590 patients with IBD, 52% female with a mean age of 71 years of age, matched to 103,398 population-based comparators. Among patients with IBD, 39% had no risk for frailty, 49% had low risk for frailty, and 12% had higher risk for frailty. Mean Hospital Frailty Risk Score was 1.9 in IBD and 0.9 in matched comparators (P < .01). Older adults with IBD at higher risk for frailty had a 20% greater risk for mortality at 3 years compared with those who were not frail. Compared with nonfrail older patients with IBD, patients at higher risk for frailty had increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.86-3.61), all-cause hospitalization (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 2.24-2.61), and IBD-related hospitalization (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.35-1.66). These associations were not attenuated after adjusting for comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is more prevalent in older adults with IBD than in matched comparators. Among older patients with IBD, frailty is associated with increased risk for hospitalizations and mortality.Peer reviewe

Preterm birth after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark: a registry-based difference-in-differences study.

BACKGROUND: Although some studies have reported a decrease in preterm birth following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the incidences of preterm birth before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures in Scandinavian countries using robust population-based registry data. STUDY DESIGN: This was a registry-based difference-in-differences study using births from January 2014 through December 2020 in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The changes in the preterm birth (<37 weeks) rates before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures (set to March 12, 2020) were compared with the changes in preterm birth before and after March 12 from 2014 to 2019. The differences per 1000 births were calculated for 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-week intervals before and after March 12. The secondary analyses included medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, and very preterm (<32 weeks) birth. RESULTS: A total of 1,519,521 births were included in this study. During the study period, 5.6% of the births were preterm in Norway and Sweden, and 5.7% were preterm in Denmark. There was a seasonal variation in the incidence of preterm birth, with the highest incidence during winter. In all the 3 countries, there was a slight overall decline in preterm births from 2014 to 2020. There was no consistent evidence of a change in the preterm birth rates following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures, with difference-in-differences estimates ranging from 3.7 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -3.8 to 11.1) for the first 2 weeks after March 12, 2020, to -1.8 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -4.6 to 1.1) in the 16 weeks after March 12, 2020. Similarly, there was no evidence of an impact on medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, or very preterm birth. CONCLUSION: Using high-quality national data on births in 3 Scandinavian countries, each of which implemented different approaches to address the pandemic, there was no evidence of a decline in preterm births following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. METHODS We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Vulnerable newborn types: Analysis of population-based registries for 165 million births in 23 countries, 2000-2021.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of novel newborn types among 165 million live births in 23 countries from 2000 to 2021. DESIGN: Population-based, multi-country analysis. SETTING: National data systems in 23 middle- and high-income countries. POPULATION: Liveborn infants. METHODS: Country teams with high-quality data were invited to be part of the Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Collaboration. We classified live births by six newborn types based on gestational age information (preterm 90th centile) for gestational age, according to INTERGROWTH-21st standards. We considered small newborn types of any combination of preterm or SGA, and term + LGA was considered large. Time trends were analysed using 3-year moving averages for small and large types. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of six newborn types. RESULTS: We analysed 165 017 419 live births and the median prevalence of small types was 11.7% - highest in Malaysia (26%) and Qatar (15.7%). Overall, 18.1% of newborns were large (term + LGA) and was highest in Estonia 28.8% and Denmark 25.9%. Time trends of small and large infants were relatively stable in most countries. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of newborn types varies across the 23 middle- and high-income countries. Small newborn types were highest in west Asian countries and large types were highest in Europe. To better understand the global patterns of these novel newborn types, more information is needed, especially from low- and middle-income countries

Prevalence and Implications of Frailty in Older Adults With Incident Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the risk of frailty in older adults with incident inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and matched non-IBD comparators and assess the association between frailty and future hospitalizations and mortality. METHODS: In a cohort of patients with incident IBD ≥60 years of age from 2007 to 2016 in Sweden identified using nationwide registers, we defined frailty using Hospital Frailty Risk Score. We compared prevalence of frailty in patients with IBD with age, sex, place of residency- and calendar year-matched population comparators. In the IBD cohort, we used Cox proportional hazards modeling to examine the associations between frailty risk and hospitalizations or mortality. RESULTS: We identified 10,590 patients with IBD, 52% female with a mean age of 71 years of age, matched to 103,398 population-based comparators. Among patients with IBD, 39% had no risk for frailty, 49% had low risk for frailty, and 12% had higher risk for frailty. Mean Hospital Frailty Risk Score was 1.9 in IBD and 0.9 in matched comparators (P &lt; .01). Older adults with IBD at higher risk for frailty had a 20% greater risk for mortality at 3 years compared with those who were not frail. Compared with nonfrail older patients with IBD, patients at higher risk for frailty had increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.86-3.61), all-cause hospitalization (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 2.24-2.61), and IBD-related hospitalization (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.35-1.66). These associations were not attenuated after adjusting for comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is more prevalent in older adults with IBD than in matched comparators. Among older patients with IBD, frailty is associated with increased risk for hospitalizations and mortality