MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-arm prospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 categories 2 and 3 treated with Paxlovid® and a matched control group. A standard risk-stratified scoring system was used to establish Paxlovid® eligibility. All patients who were prescribed Paxlovid® and took at least one dose of Paxlovid® were included in the study. The control patients were selected from a centralised COVID-19 patient registry and matched based on age, gender and COVID-19 stage severity.
RESULTS: A total of 552 subjects were included in the study and evenly allocated to the treatment and control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalisation after diagnosis [Paxlovid®: 26 (9.4%), Control: 34 (12.3%), OR: 0.74; 95%CI, 0.43-1.27; p=0.274] or all-cause death [Paxlovid®: 2 (0.7%), Control: 3 (1.1%), OR 1.51; 95%CI, 0.25-9.09; p=0.999]. There was no significant reduction in hospitalisation duration, intensive care unit admission events or supplementary oxygen requirement in the treatment arm. Ethnicity, COVID-19 severity at diagnosis, comorbidities and vaccination status were predictors of hospitalisation events.
CONCLUSION: In this two-arm study, Paxlovid® did not significantly lower the incidence of hospitalisation, all-cause death and the need for supplemental oxygen. Adverse effects were frequent but not severe. Paxlovid® efficacy varied across settings and populations, warranting further real-world investigations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies published up to April 15th, 2023. Studies that evaluated the association between PD and COVID-19 were included. Risk of bias was evaluated by two reviewers, and meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS: A total of 22 studies involving 92,535 patients from USA, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South America were included; of these, 12 were pooled into the meta-analysis. Most of the studies (19 studies) reported a significant association between PD and COVID-19. The pooled data found a significant association between PD and COVID-19 outcomes: more severe symptoms (OR = 6.95, P = 0.0008), ICU admissions (OR = 3.15, P = 0.0001), and mortality (OR = 1.92, P = 0.21). Additionally, compared to mild PD, severe PD was significantly associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes: severe symptoms (P = 0.02); ICU admission (P = 0.0001); and higher mortality rates (P = 0.0001). The results also revealed 58% higher risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with PD (P = 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest a possible association between poor periodontal health and the risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. However, owing to the observed methodological heterogeneity across the included studies, further prospective cohort studies with standardized methodologies are warranted to further unravel the potential association between periodontal disease and COVID-19 and its adverse outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize the course of COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis and identify factors associated with hospitalization.
METHODS: Clinicians reported patients with psoriasis with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 via an international registry, Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between clinical and/or demographic characteristics and hospitalization. A separate patient-facing registry characterized risk-mitigating behaviors.
RESULTS: Of 374 clinician-reported patients from 25 countries, 71% were receiving a biologic, 18% were receiving a nonbiologic, and 10% were not receiving any systemic treatment for psoriasis. In all, 348 patients (93%) were fully recovered from COVID-19, 77 (21%) were hospitalized, and 9 (2%) died. Increased hospitalization risk was associated with older age (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.59 per 10 years; 95% CI = 1.19-2.13), male sex (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.23-5.12), nonwhite ethnicity (OR = 3.15; 95% CI = 1.24-8.03), and comorbid chronic lung disease (OR = 3.87; 95% CI = 1.52-9.83). Hospitalization was more frequent in patients using nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those using biologics (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 1.31-6.18). No significant differences were found between classes of biologics. Independent patient-reported data (n = 1626 across 48 countries) suggested lower levels of social isolation in individuals receiving nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those receiving biologics (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.50-0.94).
CONCLUSION: In this international case series of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, biologic use was associated with lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization than with use of nonbiologic systemic therapies; however, further investigation is warranted on account of potential selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Established risk factors (being older, being male, being of nonwhite ethnicity, and having comorbidities) were associated with higher hospitalization rates.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted among the patients admitted to the medical and surgical wards in a public hospital located in Brunei Darussalam between February 2022 and April 2022. Hospitalized adults above 18 years old with regular medications with a minimum length of stay of 48 h and a maximum length of stay of 21 days were included in the study. These eligible patients were divided into a POM group and a non-POM group. The economic analysis of using POM was performed by calculating the direct cost per unit of medication used during admission (from unit-use, ward stock and POM) and comparing the cost spent for both groups. Expired ward stock deemed as medication wastage was determined. Medical research ethics were approved, and all participating patients had given their written informed consent before enrolling in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 112 patients aged 63.2 ± 15.8 years participated in this study. The average cost of medication supplied by the inpatient pharmacy for the non-POM group was USD 21.60 ± 34.20 per patient, whereas, for the POM group, it was approximately USD 13.00 ± 18.30 per patient, with a mean difference of USD 8.60 ± 5.17 per patient (95% CI: -3.95, 27.47, p ≥ 0.05). The use of POM minimized 54.03% (USD 625.04) of the total cost spent by the hospital for the POM group within the period of the study.
CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed that the supplied medication cost per patient was not significantly different between the POM and non-POM groups. Nevertheless, the utilization of POM during hospitalization is capable of reducing at least 50% of the total cost spent on inpatient medications by the hospital. The use of POM during hospitalization also helped in reducing the total time spent on the medication process per patient.