Glucose-lowering treatments and COVID-19 mortality in T2DM.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hadjadj S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8114189 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with type 2 diabetes, hyperglycaemia is an independent risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Associations between pre-infection prescription for glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes have been postulated but only investigated in small studies and limited to a few agents. We investigated whether there are associations between prescription of different classes of glucose-lowering drugs and risk of COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis was a nationwide observational cohort study done with data from the National Diabetes Audit for people with type 2 diabetes and registered with a general practice in England since 2003. Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of COVID-19-related mortality in people prescribed each class of glucose-lowering drug, with covariate adjustment with a propensity score to address confounding by demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors.FindingsAmong the 2 851 465 people with type 2 diabetes included in our analyses, 13 479 (0·5%) COVID-19-related deaths occurred during the study period (Feb 16 to Aug 31, 2020), corresponding to a rate of 8·9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 8·7-9·0). The adjusted HR associated with recorded versus no recorded prescription was 0·77 (95% CI 0·73-0·81) for metformin and 1·42 (1·35-1·49) for insulin. Adjusted HRs for prescription of other individual classes of glucose-lowering treatment were as follows: 0·75 (0·48-1·17) for meglitinides, 0·82 (0·74-0·91) for SGLT2 inhibitors, 0·94 (0·82-1·07) for thiazolidinediones, 0·94 (0·89-0·99) for sulfonylureas, 0·94 (0·83-1·07) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, 1·07 (1·01-1·13) for DPP-4 inhibitors, and 1·26 (0·76-2·09) for α-glucosidase inhibitors.InterpretationOur results provide evidence of associations between prescription of some glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality, although the differences in risk are small and these findings are likely to be due to confounding by indication, in view of the use of different drug classes at different stages of type 2 diabetes disease progression. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no clear indication to change prescribing of glucose-lowering drugs in people with type 2 diabetes.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC8009618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Among the most pressing clinical decisions in type 2 diabetes treatments are which drugs should be used after metformin is no longer sufficient, and whether sulfonylureas (SUs) should remain as a suitable second-line treatment. In this article we summarize current evidence on the long-term safety risks associated with SU therapy relative to other oral glucose-lowering therapies. METHODS:The MEDLINE database and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for observational and experimental studies comparing the safety of SUs to that of other diabetes medications in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus through December 15, 2015. Studies with at least 1 year of follow-up, which explicitly examined major cardiovascular events or death in patients who showed no evidence of serious conditions at baseline, were selected for inclusion in meta-analyses. RESULTS:SU treatment was associated with an elevated risk relative to treatment with metformin (METF), thiazolidinedione (TZD), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist classes, either when compared alone (as a monotherapy) or when used in combination with METF. Significant findings were almost entirely derived from nontrial data and not confirmed by smaller, efficacy designed randomized controlled trials whose effects were in the same direction but much more imprecise. CONCLUSION:Although much of the evidence is derived and will continue to come from observational studies, the methodological rigor of such studies is questionable. A key challenge for evaluators is the extent to which they should incorporate evidence from study designs that are quasi-experimental.
| S-EPMC6064594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine how mental disorders and psychopharmacological treatments before and during COVID-19 hospital admissions are related to mortality.MethodsSubjects included in the study were all adult patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, confirmed clinically and by PCR, who were admitted to a tertiary university hospital in Badalona (Spain) between March 1 and November 17, 2020. Data were extracted anonymously from computerized clinical records.Results2,150 subjects were included, 57% males, mean age 61 years. History of mental disorders was registered in 957 (45%). Throughout admission, de novo diagnosis of mood or anxiety, stress, or adjustment disorder was made in 12% of patients without previous history. Delirium was diagnosed in 10% of cases. 1011 patients (47%) received a psychotropic prescription during admission (36% benzodiazepines, 22% antidepressants, and 21% antipsychotics). Mortality rate was 17%. Delirium during admission and history of mood disorder were independently associated with higher mortality risk (hazard ratios, 1.39 and 1.52 respectively), while previous year's treatments with anxiolytics/hypnotics and antidepressants were independently associated with lower mortality risk (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.43, respectively).ConclusionMental symptoms are very common in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. Detecting, diagnosing, and treating them is key to determining the prognosis of the disease and functional recovery.
| S-EPMC8250711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study we profiled 288 new serum proteomics samples measured at admission from patients hospitalized within the Mount Sinai Health System with positive SARS-CoV-2 infection. We first computed Th1 and Th2 pathway enrichment scores by gene set variation analysis and then compared the differences in Th2 and Th1 pathway scores between patients that died compared to those that survived.
2022-06-16 | GSE178399 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundLimited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay.MethodsWe selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100.ResultsA total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays.ConclusionsIn patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed.
| S-EPMC7666969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The viral infection due to the new coronavirus or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was reported for the first time in December 2019, was named by the World Health Organization (WHO) as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2), because of the very similar genome and also its related symptoms to SARS-CoV1. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with significant mortality, morbidity, and socioeconomic impact is considered by the WHO as a global public health emergency. Since there is no specific treatment available for SARS-CoV2 infection, and or COVID-19, several clinical and sub-clinical studies are currently undertaken to find a gold-standard therapeutic regimen with high efficacy and low side effect. Based on the published scientific evidence published to date, we summarized herein the effects of different potential therapies and up-to-date clinical trials. The review is intended to help readers aware of potentially effective COVID-19 treatment and provide useful references for future studies.
| S-EPMC7439639 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:The World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern at the end of January 2020 and a pandemic two months later. The virus primarily spreads between humans via respiratory droplets, and is the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which can vary in severity, from asymptomatic or mild disease (the vast majority of the cases) to respiratory failure, multi-organ failure, and death. Recently, several vaccines were approved for emergency use against SARS-CoV-2. However, their worldwide availability is acutely limited, and therefore, SARS-CoV-2 is still expected to cause significant morbidity and mortality in the upcoming year. Hence, additional countermeasures are needed, particularly pharmaceutical drugs that are widely accessible, safe, scalable, and affordable. In this comprehensive review, we target the prophylactic arena, focusing on small-molecule candidates. In order to consolidate a potential list of such medications, which were categorized as either antivirals, repurposed drugs, or miscellaneous, a thorough screening for relevant clinical trials was conducted. A brief molecular and/or clinical background is provided for each potential drug, rationalizing its prophylactic use as an antiviral or inflammatory modulator. Drug safety profiles are discussed, and current medical indications and research status regarding their relevance to COVID-19 are shortly reviewed. In the near future, a significant body of information regarding the effectiveness of drugs being clinically studied for COVID-19 is expected to accumulate, in addition to information regarding the efficacy of prophylactic treatments.
| S-EPMC8310088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aims to identify baseline medications that, as a proxy for the diseases they are dispensed for, are associated with increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients from two regions in Spain and Italy using real-world data. We conducted a cross-country, retrospective, observational study including 8570 individuals from both regions with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between 4 March and 17 April 2020, and followed them for a minimum of 30 days to allow sufficient time for the studied event, in this case death, to occur. Baseline demographic variables and all drugs dispensed in community pharmacies three months prior to infection were extracted from the PRECOVID Study cohort (Aragon, Spain) and the Campania Region Database (Campania, Italy) and analyzed using logistic regression models. Results show that the presence at baseline of potassium-sparing agents, antipsychotics, vasodilators, high-ceiling diuretics, antithrombotic agents, vitamin B12, folic acid, and antiepileptics were systematically associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients from both countries. Treatments for chronic cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, systemic inflammation, and processes with increased risk of thrombosis as proxies for the conditions they are intended for can serve as timely indicators of an increased likelihood of mortality after the infection, and the assessment of pharmacological profiles can be an additional approach to the identification of at-risk individuals in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8623536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Here we recorded serum proteome profiles of 33 COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. We received, for most patients, blood samples just after admission and at two more later timepoints. We focused on serum proteins different in abundance between the group of survivors and non-survivors and observed that a rather small panel of about a dozen proteins were significantly different in abundance between these two groups. The four structurally and functionally related type-3 cystatins AHSG, FETUB, HRG and KNG1 were all more abundant in the survivors. The family of inter-α-trypsin inhibitors, ITIH1, ITIH2, ITIH3 and ITIH4, were all found to be differentially abundant in between survivors and non-survivors, whereby ITIH1 and ITIH2 were more abundant in the survivor group and ITIH3 and ITIH4 more abundant in the non-survivors. ITIH1/ITIH2 and ITIH3/ITIH4 also did show opposite trends in protein abundance during disease progression. This panel of eight proteins, complemented with a few more, may represent a panel for mortality risk assessment and eventually even for treatment, by administration of exogenous proteins possibly aiding survival. Such administration is not unprecedented, as administration of exogenous inter-α-trypsin inhibitors is already used in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and Kawasaki disease. The mortality risk panel defined here is in excellent agreement with findings in two recent COVID-19 serum proteomics studies on independent cohorts, supporting our findings. This panel may not be unique for COVID-19, as some of the proteins here annotated as mortality risk factors have previously been annotated as mortality markers in aging and in other diseases caused by different pathogens, including bacteria.
2021-07-05 | PXD024707 | Pride