Dataset Information

Statins and clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without Diabetes Mellitus: a retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The pleiotropic effects of statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 disease. This study aims to determine the association between inpatient statin use and severe disease outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, especially those with Diabetes Mellitus (DM).

Research design and methods

A retrospective cohort study on hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. The primary outcome was mortality during hospitalization. Patients were classified into statin and non-statin groups based on the administration of statins during hospitalization. Analysis included multivariable regression analysis adjusting for confounders and propensity score matching to achieve a 1:1 balanced cohort. Subgroup analyses based on presence of DM were conducted.

Results

In the cohort of 922 patients, 413 had a history of DM. About 27.1% patients (n = 250) in the total cohort (TC) and 32.9% patients (n = 136) in DM cohort received inpatient statins. Atorvastatin (n = 205, 82%) was the most commonly prescribed statin medication in TC. On multivariable analysis in TC, inpatient statin group had reduced mortality compared to the non-statin group (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.90; p = 0.01). DM modified this association between inpatient statins and mortality. Patients with DM who received inpatient statins had reduced mortality (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.61; p < 0.001). However, no such association was noted among patients without DM (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.67-2.17; p = 0.52). These results were further validated using propensity score matching.

Conclusions

Inpatient statin use was associated with significant reduction in mortality among COVID-19 patients especially those with DM. These findings support the pursuit of randomized clinical trials and inpatient statin use appears safe among COVID-19 patients.

SUBMITTER: Lohia P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272452 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Previous evidence revealed that central obesity played a vital role in the development of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, because of imbalanced confounding variables, some studies have not wholly established the association between central obesity and diabetes. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis can minimize the impact of potential confounding variables. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between central obesity and diabetes in the Japanese population by using PSM analysis. This retrospective cohort study included 15,453 Japanese adults who were free of diabetes at baseline between 2004 and 2015, which provided all medical records for individuals participating in the physical exam. Central obesity at baseline was an independent variable, and incident diabetes during follow-up was an outcome variable. Using a 1:1 PSM analysis, the present retrospective cohort study included 1639 adults with and without central obesity. Additionally, we employed a doubly robust estimation method to identify the association between central obesity and diabetes. Subjects with central obesity were 92% more likely to develop DM (HR = 1.65, 95%CI 1.12, 2.41). After adjusting for covariates, subjects with central obesity had a 72% increased risk of developing DM compared with subjects with non-central obesity in the PSM cohort (HR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.16, 2.56). Central obesity individuals had a 91% higher risk of DM than non-central obesity individuals, after adjustment for propensity score (HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.29, 2.81). In sensitivity analysis, the central obesity group had a 44% (HR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.09, 1.90) and 59% (HR = 1.59, 95% CI1.35, 1.88) higher risk of DM than the non-central obesity group in the original and weighted cohorts after adjusting for confounding variables, respectively. Central obesity was independently associated with an increased risk of developing diabetes. After adjustment for confounding covariates, central obesity participants had a 72% higher risk of development of diabetes than non-central obesity individuals in the PSM cohort.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) on the outcomes of heart transplantation (HT) has not yet been clearly established. The objectives of this study were to examine the trends in the prevalence of T2D among individuals who underwent a HT in Spain from 2002 to 2021, and to compare the clinical characteristics and hospitalization outcomes between HT recipients with and without T2D.MethodsWe used the national hospital discharge database to select HT recipients aged 35 and older. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions (ICD-9 and ICD-10) were used to identify patients with and without T2D. We also recorded comorbidities, complications of HT, and procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression were used to analyze the effect of T2D on in-hospital mortality (IHM).ResultsBetween 2002 and 2021, a total of 4429 HTs (T2D, 19.14%) were performed in Spain. The number of HTs in patients with T2D decreased from 2002 to 2005 (n = 171) to 2014-2017 (n = 154), then rose during 2018-2021 (n = 186). Complications of HT increased in patients with and without T2D over the study period (26.9% and 31.31% in 2002-2005 vs. 42.47% and 45.01% in 2018-2021, respectively). The results of the PSM showed that pneumonia and Gram-negative bacterial infections were less frequent in patients with T2D and that these patients less frequently required hemodialysis, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and tracheostomy. They also had a shorter hospital stay and lower IHM than patients without diabetes. The variables associated with IHM in patients with T2D were hemodialysis and ECMO. IHM decreased over time in people with and without T2D. The Cox regression analysis showed that T2D was associated with lower IHM (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.98).ConclusionsThe number of HTs increased in the period 2018-2021 compared with 2002-2005 in patients with and without T2D. Over time, complications of HT increased in both groups studied, whereas IHM decreased. The presence of T2D is associated with lower IHM.

Project description:Background: Nowadays, the choice of frozen embryo transfer (FET) regimens is mainly guided by personal convenience. Clinicians prefer the predictability and reliability of artificial cycle (AC) FET and have extended its usage to general in vitro fertilization population. More recent primary studies are beginning to challenge the comparability of AC-FET and suggest reduced clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate (LBR) compared with those in modified natural cycle (mNC) FET (ovulation triggered by human chorionic gonadotrophin) and stimulated cycle (SC) FET. Objective: To assess the pregnancy outcomes within matched mNC-FET, SC-FET, and AC-FET cycles by using propensity score matching (PSM) in a larger cohort. Methods: A total of 16,946 women who underwent their first autologous FET cycle between July 2014 and July 2017 were evaluated. PSM, using the nearest neighbor matching, were established to adjust the baseline features within the three protocols in proportion of 1:1 (mNC-FET vs. SC-FET, mNC-FET vs. AC-FET, SC-FET vs. AC-FET). Furthermore, there were 3,567, 2,917, and 3,964 cycles compared between matched mNC-FET and SC-FET, mNC-FET and AC-FET, and SC-FET and AC-FET after the PSM, respectively. Results: LBR was significant lower in the AC-FET group than that in the mNC-FET (40.0 vs. 43.3%) and SC-FET groups (40.9 vs. 46.5%). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CIs) were 1.11 (1.00, 1.24) for mNC/AC (P = 0.044) and 0.84 (0.76, 0.92) for AC/SC (P < 0.001), which indicated that the AC-FET group was associated with lowest LBR. The LBR was comparable between matched mNC-FET and SC-FET after adjusting for endometrial thickness. Moreover, a lower clinical pregnancy rate and a higher risk of early pregnancy loss were discovered in AC-FET cycles compared with those in SC-FET. Conclusion: In view of our data, AC used for scheduling FET was associated with lower LBR compared with SC and modified natural cycle. This interpretation requires future verification from well-designed prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials, although the comparisons in our study were conducted in the homogenous population after the PSM.

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.