RESUMEN

Objective: Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) are predictors of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; therefore, current recommendations for CVD risk assessment and management advocate that patients receive testing for ApoB and Lp(a) in addition to the standard lipid panel. However, US guidelines around ApoB and Lp(a) testing have evolved over time and vary slightly by expert committee. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the number of insured individuals in the USA who received any component of a lipid test, or ApoB and/or Lp(a) testing, during 2019. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to estimate the prevalence of any component of a lipid test, ApoB, and/or Lp(a) in the USA using four different claim data sources (including Medicaid, Medicare, and commercially insured enrollees). Prevalence estimates were age-, sex-, payor-, and region-standardized to the 2019 US Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey. We also described the clinical profile of patients who received lipid testing between 2019 and 2021 (cohort analysis) in Optum claims database. Enrollees were grouped into four non-mutually exclusive cohorts based on their completion of any component of the lipid panel, ApoB, Lp(a), or ApoB and Lp(a). Results: In the prevalence cohort, over a third (38 %) of insured adults in the USA underwent testing for any component of a lipid panel in 2019. This proportion was higher for individuals aged ≥65 years compared to younger adults (62% vs 31 %). The proportion of ApoB and Lp(a) testing represented only <1 % of testing for any component of a lipid panel. In the cohort analysis, we found that lipid testing increased with age and comorbidities. Conclusion: These data should be considered by guideline-issuing agencies and organizations to develop education campaigns encouraging more frequent use of tests beyond the standard lipid panel.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The relationship between underlying type 2 inflammation and immune response to COVID-19 is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationships between allergic conditions and COVID-19 susceptibility and outcomes. METHODS: In the Optum database, adult patients with and without major allergic conditions (asthma, atopic dermatitis [AD], allergic rhinitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, or eosinophilic esophagitis) and patients with and without severe asthma/AD were identified. Adjusted incidence rate ratios for COVID-19 were compared among patients with vs without allergic conditions or severe asthma/AD vs non-severe asthma/AD during April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Among patients with COVID-19, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality were estimated for the same comparisons during April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022. RESULTS: Patients with (N = 1,273,231; asthma, 47.2%; AD, 1.5%; allergic rhinitis, 58.6%; food allergy, 5.1%; anaphylaxis, 4.1%; eosinophilic esophagitis, 0.9%) and without allergic conditions (N = 2,278,571) were identified. Allergic conditions (adjusted incidence rate ratios [95% CI], 1.22 [1.21-1.24]) and asthma severity (1.12 [1.09-1.15]) were associated with increased incidence of COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19 (patients with [N = 261,076] and without allergic conditions [N = 1,098,135] were matched on age, sex, region, index month), having an allergic condition had minimal impact on 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality (aHR [95% CI] 0.96 [0.95-0.98]) but was associated with a lower risk of mortality (0.80 [0.78-0.83]). Asthma was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization/all-cause mortality vs non-asthma allergic conditions (aHR [95% CI], 1.27 [1.25-1.30]), mostly driven by higher hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Allergic conditions were associated with an increased risk of receiving COVID-19 diagnosis but reduced mortality after infection.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Although cholesterol has been hypothesized to promote cancer development through several potential pathways, its role in the risk of developing hormonally driven cancer is controversial. This literature review summarizes evidence from the highest quality studies to examine the consistency and strength of the relationship between serum cholesterol parameters and incidence of hormonally driven cancer. Articles were identified using EMBASE. Longitudinal observational studies published between January 2000 and December 2020 were considered for inclusion. The endpoint of interest was incident prostate, ovary, breast, endometrium, and uterine cancers. In total, 2732 reports were identified and screened; 41 studies were included in the review. No associations were found for ovarian cancer. Most endometrial cancer studies were null. The majority (76.9%) of studies reported no association between cholesterol and prostate cancer. Data on breast cancer were conflicting, associations limited, and effect sizes modest. Our results do not provide evidence for a clear association between cholesterol and different types of incident, hormonally driven reproductive cancers. Future studies should investigate the impact of lipid-lowering therapy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is defined as age-related low muscle mass and function, and can also describe the loss of muscle mass in certain medical conditions, such as sarcopenic obesity. Sarcopenic obesity describes loss of muscle and function in obese individuals; however, as sarcopenia is an age-related condition and obesity can occur in any age group, a more accurate term is obesity with low lean muscle mass (OLLMM). Given limited data on OLLMM (particularly in those aged < 65 years), the purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of OLLMM in adults aged ≥ 20 years in the USA. METHODS: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2017-2018 and 1999-2006 were used. OLLMM was defined as an appendicular lean mass, adjusted for body mass index (BMI), cut-off point < 0.789 for males and < 0.512 for females, measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). DXA was only measured in individuals 20-59 years old in NHANES 2017-2018; we therefore utilized logistic regression models to predict OLLMM from NHANES 1999-2006 for those aged ≥ 60 years. The prevalence of OLLMM was estimated overall, and by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and clinical subgroup (high BMI, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] with fibrosis, or post-bariatric surgery). Prevalence estimates were extrapolated to the USA population using NHANES sampling weights. RESULTS: We estimated that, during 2017-2018, 28.7 million or 15.9% of the USA population had OLLMM. The prevalence of OLLMM was greater in older individuals (8.1%, aged 20-59 years vs 28.3%, aged ≥ 60 years), highest (66.6%) in Mexican-American females aged ≥ 60 years, and lowest (2.6%) in non-Hispanic Black males aged 20-59 years. There was a higher prevalence of OLLMM in adults with prediabetes (19.7%), T2DM (34.5%), NAFLD with fibrosis (25.4%), or post-bariatric surgery (21.8%), compared with those without each condition. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the burden of OLLMM in the USA is substantial, affecting almost 30 million adults. The prevalence of OLLMM increased with age, and among those with prediabetes, T2DM, NAFLD with fibrosis, or post-bariatric surgery. A unified definition of OLLMM will aid diagnosis and treatment strategies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) versus no COVID-19 antibody treatment among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting, including patients diagnosed during the Delta-dominant period prior to Omicron emergence. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Komodo Health closed claims database. PARTICIPANTS: 13 273 128 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (December 2020 through September 2021) were treated with CAS+IMD or untreated but treatment eligible under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Each treated patient was exact and propensity score matched without replacement to up to five untreated EUA-eligible patients. INTERVENTIONS: CAS+IMD. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite endpoint of 30-day all-cause mortality or COVID-19-related hospitalisation. Kaplan-Meier estimators were used to calculate outcome risks overall and across subgroups: age, COVID-19 vaccination status, immunocompromised status, and timing of diagnosis (December 2020 to June 2021, and July to September 2021). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted HRs (aHRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among 75 159 CAS+IMD-treated and 1 670 338 EUA-eligible untreated patients, 73 759 treated patients were matched to 310 688 untreated patients; matched patients were ~50 years, ~60% were women and generally well balanced across risk factors. The 30-day risk of the composite outcome was 2.1% and 5.2% in the CAS+IMD-treated and CAS+IMD-untreated patients, respectively; equivalent to a 60% lower risk (aHR 0.40; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.42). The effect of CAS+IMD was consistent across subgroups, including those who received a COVID-19 vaccine (aHR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.56), and those diagnosed during the Delta-dominant period (aHR 0.40, 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: The real-world effectiveness of CAS+IMD is consistent with the efficacy for reducing all-cause mortality or COVID-19-related hospitalisation reported in clinical trials. Effectiveness is maintained across patient subgroups, including those prone to breakthrough infections, and was effective against susceptible variants including Delta. .

Asunto(s)