Predicting the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in primary care: development and validation of a vulnerability index for equitable allocation of effective vaccines

The use of C-reactive protein testing and antibiotic prescribing in Italy: A population-based study in primary care

Testing serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels can help determine whether there is a need for antibiotics and can limit prescribing of antibiotics for illnesses that are likely viral or non-infectious in origin. Using Health Search, an Italian primary care database, we identified all patients, aged 15 years or older, being registered in the period between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2019 and newly diagnosed with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) or COPD- or asthma-related exacerbations. From the date of these diagnoses, patients were followed up until occurrence of antibiotic prescription (for these indications) up to 31 December 2019. The association between the CRP testing and the outcome was investigated using a nested case-control analysis. In a cohort of 469 684 patients being diagnosed for URTI (83%), COPD- (11%) and asthma (7%)-related exacerbations, 28 688 (6.11%) were prescribed with antibiotics because of the aforementioned indications. Of note, 98% of cases, nominally those prescribed with antibiotics, were not tested with CRP. However, those receiving antibiotics were more likely to have been previously tested for CRP than controls who did not receive antibiotics (833/28 601 [3%] and 4128/277 968 [1.5%]; OR 2.0 [95% CI: 1.8-2.1]). Our findings indicate that most of the antibiotic prescriptions for the investigated conditions were given without any prior CRP testing. A small minority of GPs did properly use CRP to determine whether antibiotics were needed. Further guidance is needed in Italy on the use of CRP in guiding antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

The burden of recurrent respiratory tract infections in adult population: a population-based study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Viral infections are the main original cause of recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs), but their complications and recurrences are due to bacteria as well. While some operational definitions and epidemiology of RRTIs are reported in paediatrics, no similar definitions have been proposed for adults.

AIM

To assess the epidemiology and characteristics of RRTIs in the adult population.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cohort study in the primary care setting.

METHODS

Using the Health Search Database, we selected a cohort of patients aged 18 years or older between 2002 and 2022. Yearly, we counted upper and lower respiratory tract infections (RTIs) per patient. We investigated 2 cut-offs defining RRTIs, nominally 3+ RRTIs/patient/year or greater than the mean value of RTIs/patient/year. The associations between these two event definitions and the correlates defining the patients' vulnerability were assessed by estimating a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Over the study years, the mean number of RTIs/patient/year ranged from 0.07-0.16 or 1.10-1.13 events, when the denominator was formed by the overall population or those diagnosed with RTIs, respectively. When the analysis was focussed on 2022, we obtained 0.2% (1.3% among those with RTIs) or 13% (11.3% among those with RTIs) cases of RRTIs, using a cut-off of 3+ or >=0.16 events (mean value/patient), respectively. Consistent associations were found for these two operational definitions and the investigated clinical correlates.

CONCLUSION

We provided evidence on the epidemiology and concurrent/predisposing factors of RRTIs in adults. These data should support health authorities and general practitioners for the application of the most appropriate preventive and/or treatment strategies.

A Vulnerability Index to Assess the Risk of SARS-CoV-2-Related Hospitalization/Death: Urgent Need for an Update after Diffusion of Anti-COVID Vaccines

Background: There are algorithms to predict the risk of SARS-CoV-2-related complications. Given the spread of anti-COVID vaccination, which sensibly modified the burden of risk of the infection, these tools need to be re-calibrated. Therefore, we updated our vulnerability index, namely, the Health Search (HS)-CoVulnerabiltyIndex (VI)d (HS-CoVId), to predict the risk of SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization/death in the primary care setting. Methods: We formed a cohort of individuals aged ≥15 years and diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 January and 31 December 2021 in the HSD. The date of COVID-19 diagnosis was the study index date. These patients were eligible if they had received an anti-COVID vaccine at least 15 days before the index date. Patients were followed up from the index date until one of the following events, whichever came first: COVID-19-related hospitalization/death (event date), end of registration with their GPs, and end of the study period (31 December 2022). To calculate the incidence rate of COVID-19-related hospitalization/death, a patient-specific score was derived through linear combination of the coefficients stemming from a multivariate Cox regression model. Its prediction performance was evaluated by obtaining explained variation, discrimination, and calibration measures. Results: We identified 2192 patients who had received an anti-COVID vaccine from 1 January to 31 December 2021. With this cohort, we re-calibrated the HS-CoVId by calculating optimism-corrected pseudo-R2, AUC, and calibration slope. The final model reported a good predictive performance by explaining 58% (95% CI: 48-71%) of variation in the occurrence of hospitalizations/deaths, the AUC was 83 (95% CI: 77-93%), and the calibration slope did not reject the equivalence hypothesis (p-value = 0.904). Conclusions: Two versions of HS-CoVId need to be differentially adopted to assess the risk of COVID-19-related complications among vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. Therefore, this functionality should be operationalized in related patient- and population-based informatic tools intended for general practitioners.

Examining the effectiveness and duration of adjuvanted vs. non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines in protecting older adults against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

Annual influenza vaccination is one of the main public health measures able to drastically reduce the burden of this infectious disease. Some evidence suggests 'trained immunity' triggered by influenza vaccine might reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Adjuvanted influenza vaccines are known to induce a broader cross-reactive immunity. No studies investigated the effect of adjuvanted vs. non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines on the risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. A case-control analysis nested in a cohort of subjects aged ≥65 years and immunized with adjuvanted or non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines was conducted. Although no statistically significant (OR = 0.87; P = .082) difference between the two vaccine types was observed for the 9-month follow-up period, a 17% (OR = 0.83; P = .042) reduction in the odds of COVID-19 was observed for adjuvanted vaccines with a 6-month follow-up. Further evidence is needed, but these results might have implications given the complexity of the upcoming winter seasons, in which the co-occurrence of influenza, SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections (e.g., syncytial virus) might be unpredictable.

Expert Consensus: Main Risk Factors for Poor Prognosis in COVID-19 and the Implications for Targeted Measures against SARS-CoV-2

The clinical evolution of patients infected with the Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) depends on the complex interplay between viral and host factors. The evolution to less aggressive but better-transmitted viral variants, and the presence of immune memory responses in a growing number of vaccinated and/or virus-exposed individuals, has caused the pandemic to slowly wane in virulence. However, there are still patients with risk factors or comorbidities that put them at risk of poor outcomes in the event of having the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). Among the different treatment options for patients with COVID-19, virus-targeted measures include antiviral drugs or monoclonal antibodies that may be provided in the early days of infection. The present expert consensus is based on a review of all the literature published between 1 July 2021 and 15 February 2022 that was carried out to establish the characteristics of patients, in terms of presence of risk factors or comorbidities, that may make them candidates for receiving any of the virus-targeted measures available in order to prevent a fatal outcome, such as severe disease or death. A total of 119 studies were included from the review of the literature and 159 were from the additional independent review carried out by the panelists a posteriori. Conditions found related to strong recommendation of the use of virus-targeted measures in the first days of COVID-19 were age above 80 years, or above 65 years with another risk factor; antineoplastic chemotherapy or active malignancy; HIV infection with CD4+ cell counts < 200/mm³; and treatment with anti-CD20 immunosuppressive drugs. There is also a strong recommendation against using the studied interventions in HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ nadir <200/mm³ or treatment with other immunosuppressants. Indications of therapies against SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status or history of infection, may still exist for some populations, even after COVID-19 has been declared to no longer be a global health emergency by the WHO.

How many and who are patients with heart failure eligible to SGLT2 inhibitors? Responses from the combination of administrative healthcare and primary care databases

BACKGROUND

Recent successful findings (i.e. DAPA-HF trial) in patients with heart failure (HF) with/without diabetes treated with sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors (SGLT2-I) have fostered real-world data analyses. Fondazione Ricerca e Salute's (ReSD) administrative and Health Search's (HSD) primary healthcare databases were combined in the ReS-HS DB Consortium, to identify and characterize HF-patients eligible to SGLT2-I, and assess their costs charged to the Italian National Health Service (INHS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eligibility to SGLT2-I was HF diagnosis, age ≥ 18 years, reduced (≤40%) ejection fraction (HFrEF) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ≥30 ml/min. The HSD, including 13,313 HF-patients (1.5% of the total HSD population) was used to develop and test the algorithms for imputing HFrEF and GFR ≥ 30 ml/min, based on a set of covariates, to the ReSD, including 67,369 (1.5% of the total ReSD population). Subjects eligible to SGLT2-I were 2187 in HSD (61.1% of HFrEF); after the imputation, 15,145 in ReSD (58.8% of HFrEF). Prevalence of eligibility to SGLT2-I was higher in males then in females and increased with age; diabetic patients were 44.3% and 33.4% of HSD and ReSD populations eligible to SGLT2-I, respectively. Estimated from ReSD, the mean annual cost charged to the INHS per patient with HF eligible to SGLT2-I was €7122 (68% due to hospitalizations).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 20% of patients with HF was eligible to SGLT2-I. Real-world data can identify, quantify and characterize patients eligible to SGLT2-Is and assess related costs for the health care system, thus providing useful information to Regulatory Decision makers.

To clarify the safety profile of paracetamol for home-care patients with COVID-19: a real-world cohort study, with nested case-control analysis, in primary care

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the prescribing patterns of paracetamol in COVID-19 with those for similar respiratory conditions and investigated the association between paracetamol use and COVID-19-related hospitalization/death.

METHODS

Using a primary care data source, we conducted a cohort study to calculate the incidence rate of paracetamol use in COVID-19 and for similar respiratory conditions in 2020 and 2019 (i.e. pre-pandemic phase), respectively. In the study cohort, we nested a case-control analyses to investigate the association between paracetamol use and COVID-19-related hospitalizations/deaths.

RESULTS

Overall, 1554 (33.4 per 1000) and 2566 patients (78.3 per 1000) were newly prescribed with paracetamol to treat COVID-19 or other respiratory conditions, respectively. Those aged 35-44 showed the highest prevalence rate (44.7 or 99.0 per 1000), while the oldest category reported the lowest value (17.8 or 39.8 per 1000). There was no association for early (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.92-1.43) or mid-term (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 0.61-2.73) users of paracetamol vs. non-users. Instead, the late users of paracetamol showed a statistically significant increased risk of hospitalization/death (OR = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.4-2.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide reassuring evidence on the use and safety profile of paracetamol to treat early symptoms of COVID-19 as in other respiratory infections.

Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) in primary care: from pragmatic use to the best approach to assess their benefit/risk profile in clinical practice

Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) are computer-based tools intended to support physicians in clinical decision making. MilleDSS is an illustrative example for the Italian context. It is featured by four domains of GP-software interaction, such as clinical management and follow-up evaluation, prescribing appropriateness and clinical risk, prevention strategies and medical computerized stewardship on scientific update and training. MilleDSS registered 23,222 accesses in early September 2021. In specific, the sections on prevention and training were viewed 19,440 and 21,797 times, respectively.The Medical Device Regulation (MDR: (EU) 2017/745) indicates that clinical evidence needs to be provided for any software intended to medical purpose. Clinical research on CDSS effectiveness will be therefore conducted through epidemiological studies. In theory, this generation of evidence would follow the pyramid of evidence as per medications approval but, given the large use and constant update of CDSS for daily clinical practice, attentions should be posed on the most cost-effective study.