Dataset Information

Association of menopausal status with COVID-19 outcomes: a propensity score matching analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the growing number of studies on the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), little is known about the association of menopausal status with COVID-19 outcomes.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, we included 336 COVID-19 inpatients between February 15, 2020 and April 30, 2020 at the Taikang Tongji Hospital (Wuhan), China. Electronic medical records including patient demographics, laboratory results, and chest computed tomography (CT) images were reviewed.

Results

In total, 300 patients with complete clinical outcomes were included for analysis. The mean age was 65.3 years, and most patients were women (n = 167, 55.7%). Over 50% of patients presented with comorbidities, with hypertension (63.5%) being the most common comorbidity. After propensity score matching, results showed that men had significantly higher odds than premenopausal women for developing severe disease type (23.7% vs. 0%, OR 17.12, 95% CI 1.00-293.60; p = 0.003) and bilateral lung infiltration (86.1% vs. 64.7%, OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.08-10.64; p = 0.04), but not for mortality (2.0% vs. 0%, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.04-19.12, p = 1.00). However, non-significant difference was observed among men and postmenopausal women in the percentage of severe disease type (32.7% vs. 41.7%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37-1.24, p = 0.21), bilateral lung infiltration (86.1% vs. 91.7%, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22-1.47, p = 0.24), and mortality (2.0% vs. 6.0%, OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.06-1.69, p = 0.25).

Conclusions

Men had higher disease severity than premenopausal women, while the differences disappeared between postmenopausal women and men. These findings support aggressive treatment for the poor prognosis of postmenopausal women in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Wang XW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7844785 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We employed pandemic treatment strategies that we developed at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and it was not clear whether any adverse results were associated with our strategies. Therefore, we carried out a retrospective study to compare our pandemic treatment strategies with prepandemic protocols to determine whether the strategies used during the high-risk period of COVID-19 were appropriate. The observation period was September 2019 to February 2020. Patients hospitalized from December 2019 to February 2020 were included as an experimental group, and individuals hospitalized from September 2019 to November 2019 were included as a control group. All non-small cell lung cancer patients hospitalized during the observation period were included except for pediatric and obstetric patients, patients younger than 18 years old, and patients admitted only for routine follow-up examinations. Treatment strategies were evaluated based on the prognosis of the different treatment methods, including surgical and nonsurgical treatments and discontinuation of therapy. Survival curves were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was used for multivariate analysis of risk factors for progress-free survival. Propensity score matching was used for clinical characteristics to adjust for selection bias. Therapy discontinuation in the experimental group was significantly higher than in the control group (P < .001). The differences in cancer progression and the number of deaths between the 2 groups were not significant (P = .38 and .13, respectively). For late-stage patients, there were significant differences in nonsurgical treatment and discontinued therapy (P < .001 and < .001, respectively) between the 2 groups, while the cancer progression and death toll differences were not significant (P = .20 and .20, respectively). For early-stage patients, the differences in surgical treatment, discontinued therapy, cancer progression, and death toll were not significant (P = .24, 0.24, 0.61, and 0.49, respectively) between the 2 groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that temporary discontinuation of therapy did not predict poor progress-free survival independently (hazard ratio = 1.007, 95% confidence interval: 0.653-1.552, P = .98). For patients in geographical regions with a high risk for COVID-19 infections, temporarily suspending treatment for late-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients is not likely to significantly impact their prognosis if they can return to treatment within 3 months of discontinuation.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine, triple combination therapy (TCT), favipiravir, dexamethasone, remdesivir, or COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in comparison with standard-of-care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using real-world data from Saudi Arabia.Patients and methodsA secondary database analysis was conducted using the Saudi Ministry of Health database for patients with COVID-19. Adult (≥18 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 were included in the analysis. A propensity score matching technique was used to establish comparable groups for each therapeutic approach. Lastly, an independent t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the matching groups in the aspects of the duration of hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU), in-hospital mortality, and composite poor outcome. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the severity stage of COVID-19 and the outcomes while using the medication or intervention used as a grouping variable in the model.ResultsThe mean duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients who received TCT, favipiravir, dexamethasone, or CCP compared to patients who did not receive these therapies, with a mean difference ranging between 2.2 and 4.9 days for dexamethasone and CCP, respectively. Furthermore, the use of favipiravir or CCP was associated with a longer stay in ICU. Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. A higher risk of mortality and poorer composite outcome were associated with the use of favipiravir or dexamethasone. However, the logistic regression model reveled that the difference between the two matched cohorts was due to the severity stage not the medication. Additionally, the use of hydroxychloroquine, TCT, or CCP had no impact on the incidence of in-hospital mortality or composite poor outcomes.ConclusionRemdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. The observed worsened treatment outcomes associated with the use of dexamethasone or FPV shall be attributed to the severity stage rather than the medication use. In light of these varied results, additional studies are needed to continue evaluating the actual benefits of these therapies.