more than 1) occurred in 533 (16.0%) patients; 207 (6.2%) were venous (3.2% PE and 3.9% DVT) and 365 (11.1%) were arterial (1.6% ischemic stroke, 8.9% MI, and 1.0% systemic thromboembolism; Table 1). Following multivariable adjustment, age, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, coronary artery disease, prior MI, and higher D-dimer levels at hospital presentation were associated with a thrombotic event (Table 2). All-cause mortality was 24.5% and was higher in those with thrombotic events (43.2% vs 21.0%; P < .001) (Table 1). After multivariable adjustment, a thrombotic event was independently associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.54-2.15; P < .001). Both venous (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.86; P = .04) and arterial (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.65-2.40; P < .001) thrombosis were associated with mortality (P = .25 for interaction). Among 829 ICU patients, 29.4% had a thrombotic event (13.6% venous and 18.6% arterial). Among 2505 non-ICU patients, 11.5% had a thrombotic event (3.6% venous and 8.4% arterial). Discussion | In patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a large New York City health system, a thrombotic event occurred in 16.0%. D-dimer level at presentation was independently associated with thrombotic events, consistent with an early coagulopathy. Prior studies varied regarding the precise incidence of thrombosis; however, all suggested a heightened risk in patients with COVID-19. 3,4 This analysis found variation by clinical setting and type of thrombosis event. While thrombosis is observed in other acute infections 5 (eg, 5.9% prevalence during the 2009 influenza pandemic), 6 the thrombotic risk appears higher in COVID-19. Thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 may be due to a cytokine storm, hypoxic injury, endothelial dysfunction, hypercoagulability, and/or increased platelet activity. This study has several limitations. A diagnosis of thrombosis may be underestimated because imaging studies were limited due to concerns of transmitting infection or competing risk of death. Type of MI was not confirmed with cardiac catheterization. Clinical practice changed over the study period, with increased awareness of thrombotic events and use of anticoagulation, which may affect the incidence of thrombosis.

No abstract

The elevated ratios of pdiol to the Δ4 and Δ5 pathway metabolites as well as the higher androsterone to etiocholanolone ratio in patients with 21-OHD indicate postnatal activity of the backdoor pathway with maximum activity during early infancy. Our data provide new insights into the pathophysiology of androgen biosynthesis of 21-OHD.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Germany compared with previous years. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Based on data from the multicenter German Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Registry, we analyzed the incidence of type 1 diabetes per 100,000 patient-years in children and adolescents from 1 January 2020 through 30 June 2021. Using Poisson regression models, expected incidences for 2020/21 were estimated based on the data from 2011 to 2019 and compared with observed incidences in 2020/21 by estimating incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS From 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021, 5,162 children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes in Germany were registered. The observed incidence in 2020/21 was significantly higher than the expected incidence (24.4 [95% CI 23.6–25.2] vs. 21.2 [20.5–21.9]; IRR 1.15 [1.10–1.20]; P &lt; 0.001). IRRs were significantly elevated in June 2020 (IRR 1.43 [1.07–1.90]; P = 0.003), July 2020 (IRR 1.48 [1.12–1.96]; P &lt; 0.001), March 2021 (IRR 1.29 [1.01–1.65]; P = 0.028), and June 2021 (IRR 1.39 [1.04–1.85]; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS A significant increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a delay in the peak incidence of type 1 diabetes by ∼3 months after the peak COVID-19 incidence and also after pandemic containment measures. The underlying causes are yet unknown. However, indirect rather than direct effects of the pandemic are more likely to be the cause.

No abstract