Several studies have identified a possible association between ABO blood group and COVID-19. However, studies are of variable quality and results are inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence on the association between ABO and the risk of COVID-19 infection and prognosis. Searches were conducted in PubMed, MedRxive and BioRxive to identify observational studies published up to May 2021. The incidence of COVID-19 and, among the COVID-19 positive patients, the risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality were also analyzed. A total of 63 studies were included, with 6,470,438 participants. Group O was associated to a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 infection (OR O vs non-O 0.88 95%CI: 0.82–0.94; I²: 91%) and group A with a higher risk (OR A vs non-A 1.08 95%CI: 1.02–1.15). No effect of ABO on the risk of hospitalization, ICU admission or ventilation was observed. Group A was associated with higher mortality (OR A vs non-A: 1.13 95%CI 1.03–1.13), group B with lower mortality (OR B vs non-B 0.88; 95%CI 0.80–0.96), and no effect with group O was observed. The quality of the evidence was rated as “very low” and “low”. Group O would present a reduced risk of COVID-19 infection, but would not influence the prognosis of the disease. Group A would be risk factor for COVID-19 infection and mortality. Group B would not modify the risk of COVID-19 infection, but would be associated to a lower mortality risk.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Physical activity (PA) is one of the few modifiable factors that can reduce this risk. The aim of this study was to estimate to what extent PA can contribute to reducing CVD risk and all-cause mortality in patients with T2D. Information from a population-based cohort including 26,587 patients with T2D from the Navarre Health System who were followed for five years was gathered from electronic clinical records. Multivariate Cox regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of PA on CVD risk and all-cause mortality, and the approach was complemented using conditional logistic regression models within a matched nested case–control design. A total of 5111 (19.2%) patients died during follow-up, which corresponds to 37.8% of the inactive group, 23.9% of the partially active group and 12.4% of the active group. CVD events occurred in 2362 (8.9%) patients, which corresponds to 11.6%, 10.1% and 7.6% of these groups. Compared with patients in the inactive group, and after matching and adjusting for confounders, the OR of having a CVD event was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.66–1.07) for the partially active group and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.56–0.91) for the active group. A slightly more pronounced gradient was obtained when focused on all-cause mortality, with ORs equal to 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61–0.85) and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.42–0.59), respectively. This study provides further evidence that physically active patients with T2D may have a reduced risk of CVD-related complications and all-cause mortality.

Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) factors often result in profound health inequalities among populations, and their impact may differ between sexes. The aim of this study was to estimate and compare the effect of socioeconomic status indicators on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related events among males and females with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: A population-based cohort from a southern European region including 24,650 patients with T2D was followed for five years. The sex-specific associations between SES indicators and the first occurring CVD event were modeled using multivariate Fine-Gray competing risk models. Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and stroke were considered secondary outcomes. Results: Patients without a formal education had a significantly higher risk of CVD than those with a high school or university education, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) equal to 1.24 (95%CI: 1.09–1.41) for males and 1.50 (95%CI: 1.09–2.06) for females. Patients with <18 000€ income had also higher CVD risk than those with ≥18 000€, with HRs equal to 1.44 (95%CI: 1.29–1.59) for males and 1.42 (95%CI: 1.26–1.60) for females. Being immigrant showed a HR equal to 0.81 (95%CI: 0.66–0.99) for males and 1.13 (95%CI: 0.68–1.87) for females. Similar results were observed for stroke, but differed for CHD when income is used, which had higher effect in females. Conclusion: Socioeconomic inequalities in CVD outcomes are present among T2D patients, and their magnitude for educational attainment is sex-dependent, being higher in females, suggesting the need to consider them when designing tailored primary prevention and management strategies.

Background: With the arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020, it was proposed to make the change from intravenous (IV) tocilizumab (TCZ) to its subcutaneous formulation, in order to avoid rheumatological patients having to go to the day hospital and guarantee enough IV TCZ for those critical patients with COVID who needed it. The aim of this study was to describe the rate and reasons for switching back to IV TCZ from subcutaneous TCZ. Methods: We included patients from the rheumatology service that were on treatment with IV TCZ in February 2020 and were followed up until March 2021. Patients that remained on subcutaneous TCZ were compared with those who switched back to IV TCZ (switch-back group). A subgroup analysis according to rheumatic disease was performed. Results: Fifty-five patients switched to subcutaneous TCZ: 28 rheumatoid arthritis, 19 giant cell arteritis, 4 polymyalgia rheumatica, 2 juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and 2 systemic sclerosis. Seventeen patients switched back to IV TCZ due to ineffectiveness (n = 8), patient preference (n = 4), adverse events (n = 4), and difficulty with the SC administration route (n = 1). In the analysis by disease, 4 of 23 patients switched back to IV TCZ in giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica group due to ineffectiveness (n = 2), injection site reaction (n = 1), or patient preference (n = 1). In rheumatoid arthritis group, 11 of 28 patients switched back to IV TCZ: ineffectiveness (n = 5), patient preference (n = 3), headache (n = 1), injection site reaction (n = 1), and due to difficulty with the SC administration route (n = 1). Conclusions: Mass switch from IV to subcutaneous TCZ during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been safe, effective, and well tolerated after 1 year of follow-up.