Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound impact on the health and development of children worldwide. There is limited evidence on the impact of COVID-19 and its related school closures and disease-containment measures on the psychosocial wellbeing of children; little research has been done on the characteristics of vulnerable groups and factors that promote resilience. Methods We conducted a large-scale cross-sectional population study of Hong Kong families with children aged 2–12 years. Parents completed an online survey on family demographics, child psychosocial wellbeing, functioning and lifestyle habits, parent–child interactions, and parental stress during school closures due to COVID-19. We used simple and multiple linear regression analyses to explore factors associated with child psychosocial problems and parental stress during the pandemic. Results The study included 29,202 individual families; of which 12,163 had children aged 2–5 years and 17,029 had children aged 6–12 years. The risk of child psychosocial problems was higher in children with special educational needs, and/or acute or chronic disease, mothers with mental illness, single-parent families, and low-income families. Delayed bedtime and/or inadequate sleep or exercise duration, extended use of electronic devices were associated with significantly higher parental stress and more psychosocial problems among pre-schoolers. Conclusions This study identifies vulnerable groups of children and highlights the importance of strengthening family coherence, adequate sleep and exercise, and responsible use of electronic devices in promoting psychosocial wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00787-020-01680-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Study queStionWhat is the association between clarithromycin use and cardiovascular outcomes? MethodSIn this population based study the authors compared cardiovascular outcomes in adults aged 18 or more receiving oral clarithromycin or amoxicillin during 2005-09 in Hong Kong. Based on age within five years, sex, and calendar year at use, each clarithromycin user was matched to one or two amoxicillin users. The cohort analysis included patients who received clarithromycin (n=108 988) or amoxicillin (n=217 793). The self controlled case series and case crossover analysis included those who received Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment containing clarithromycin. The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes were all cause, cardiac, or non-cardiac mortality, arrhythmia, and stroke. Study anSwer and liMitationSThe propensity score adjusted rate ratio of myocardial infarction 14 days after the start of antibiotic treatment was 3.66 (95% confidence interval 2.82 to 4.76) comparing clarithromycin use (132 events, rate 44.4 per 1000 person years) with amoxicillin use (149 events, 19.2 per 1000 person years), but no long term increased risk was observed. Similarly, rate ratios of secondary outcomes increased significantly only with current use of clarithromycin versus amoxicillin, except for stroke. In the self controlled case analysis, there was an association between current use of H pylori eradication treatment containing clarithromycin and cardiovascular events. The risk returned to baseline after treatment had ended. The case crossover analysis also showed an increased risk of cardiovascular events during current use of H pylori eradication treatment containing clarithromycin. The adjusted absolute risk difference for current use of clarithromycin versus amoxicillin was 1.90 excess myocardial infarction events (95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.68) per 1000 patients.what thiS Study addS Current use of clarithromycin was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, and cardiac mortality short term but no association with long term cardiovascular risks among the Hong Kong population.

Background Bell's palsy is a rare adverse event reported in clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines. However, to our knowledge no population-based study has assessed the association between the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and Bell's palsy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of Bell's palsy after BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccination. Methods In this case series and nested case-control study done in Hong Kong, we assessed the risk of Bell's palsy within 42 days following vaccination with BNT162b2 (Fosun–BioNTech [equivalent to Pfizer–BioNTech]) or CoronaVac (from Sinovac Biotech, Hong Kong) using data from voluntary surveillance reporting with the Hospital Authority, the COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Online Reporting system for all health-care professionals, and the Hospital Authority's territory-wide electronic health records from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System. We described reported cases of Bell's palsy among vaccine recipients (aged 18–110 years for CoronaVac and aged 16–110 years for BNT162b2). We compared the estimated age-standardised incidence of clinically confirmed cases among individuals who had received the CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination (up to 42 days before presentation) with the background incidence in the population. A nested case-control study was also done using conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for risk of Bell's palsy and vaccination. Cases and controls were matched (1:4) by age, sex, admission setting, and admission date. Findings Between February 23 and May 4, 2021, 451 939 individuals received the first dose of CoronaVac and 537 205 individuals received the first dose of BNT162b2. 28 clinically confirmed cases of Bell's palsy were reported following CoronaVac and 16 cases were reported following BNT162b2. The age-standardised incidence of clinically confirmed Bell's palsy was 66·9 cases per 100 000 person-years (95% CI 37·2 to 96·6) following CoronaVac vaccination and 42·8 per 100 000 person-years (19·4 to 66·1) for BNT162b2 vaccination. The age-standardised difference for the incidence compared with the background population was 41·5 (95% CI 11·7 to 71·4) for CoronaVac and 17·0 (−6·6 to 40·6) for BNT162b2, equivalent to an additional 4·8 cases per 100 000 people vaccinated for CoronaVac and 2·0 cases per 100 000 people vaccinated for BNT162b2. In the nested case-control analysis, 298 cases were matched to 1181 controls, and the adjusted ORs were 2·385 (95% CI 1·415 to 4·022) for CoronaVac and 1·755 (0·886 to 3·477) for BNT162b2. Interpretation Our findings suggest an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after CoronaVac vaccination. However, the beneficial and protective effects of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine far outweigh the risk of this generally self-limiting adverse event. Additional studies are needed in other regions to confirm our findings. Funding The Food and Health Bureau of the Gover...

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of patients infected worldwide and indirectly affecting even more individuals through disruption of daily living. Long-term adverse outcomes have been reported with similar diseases from other coronaviruses, namely Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Emerging evidence suggests that COVID-19 adversely affects different systems in the human body. This review summarizes the current evidence on the short-term adverse health outcomes and assesses the risk of potential long-term adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Major adverse outcomes were found to affect different body systems: immune system (including but not limited to Guillain-Barré syndrome and paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome), respiratory system (lung fibrosis and pulmonary thromboembolism), cardiovascular system (cardiomyopathy and coagulopathy), neurological system (sensory dysfunction and stroke), as well as cutaneous and gastrointestinal manifestations, impaired hepatic and renal function. Mental health in patients with COVID-19 was also found to be adversely affected. The burden of caring for COVID-19 survivors is likely to be huge. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to develop comprehensive strategies in providing resources and capacity in the healthcare system. Future epidemiological studies are needed to further investigate the long-term impact on COVID-19 survivors.

Cases of carditis after the use of a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine have been reported in various populations worldwide. However, few studies have directly evaluated this association. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this potential risk involves vaccine platforms other than mRNA vaccines. This case–control study from Hong Kong aimed to examine the association between COVID-19 vaccination with an mRNA vaccine or an inactivated virus vaccine and the subsequent risk for carditis. The results of this study could be useful for public health policymakers to weigh the risk and benefit of population-wide COVID-19 vaccination programs.

ObjectivesTo investigate the relationship between COVID-19 full vaccination (two completed doses) and possible arthritis flare.MethodsPatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified from population-based electronic medical records with vaccination linkage and categorised into BNT162b2 (mRNA vaccine), CoronaVac (inactive virus vaccine) and non-vaccinated groups. The risk of possible arthritis flare after vaccination was compared using a propensity-weighted cohort study design. We defined possible arthritis flare as hospitalisation and outpatient consultation related to RA or reactive arthritis, based on diagnosis records during the episode. Weekly prescriptions of rheumatic drugs since the launch of COVID-19 vaccination programme were compared to complement the findings from a diagnosis-based analysis.ResultsAmong 5493 patients with RA (BNT162b2: 653; CoronaVac: 671; non-vaccinated: 4169), propensity-scored weighted Poisson regression showed no significant association between arthritis flare and COVID-19 vaccination ((BNT162b2: adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.86, 95% Confidence Interval 0.73 to 1.01); CoronaVac: 0.87 (0.74 to 1.02)). The distribution of weekly rheumatic drug prescriptions showed no significant differences among the three groups since the launch of the mass vaccination programme (all p values >0.1 from Kruskal-Wallis test).ConclusionsCurrent evidence does not support that full vaccination of mRNA or inactivated virus COVID-19 vaccines is associated with possible arthritis flare.

Lorcaserin is a new anti-obesity drug recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the association of lorcaserin therapy with weight loss and adverse events in obese adults (18-65 years old). Weight loss of 3.23 kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.70, 3.75) and body mass index reduction of 1.16 kg m⁻² (95% CI: 0.98, 1.34) was observed compared with placebo in RCTs of 1 year duration. The use of lorcaserin for 8 and 12 weeks reduced weight of 1.60 kg (95% CI: 0.34, 2.86) and 2.9 kg (95% CI: 2.2, 3.5), respectively. In comparison to placebo, lorcaserin decreased waist circumference, blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and triglycerides, however did not statistically affect heart rate or high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. Headache, nausea and dizziness were found to be significantly higher in the patients receiving lorcaserin than patients receiving placebo, whereas diarrhoea is no more likely than in patients receiving placebo. In conclusion, lorcaserin achieves modest weight loss and appears to be well tolerated. Clinical and pharmacovigilance studies with longer study duration are needed to inform of the long-term efficacy and safety of lorcaserin.

BackgroundTofacitinib is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) which was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that have investigated the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic review with a meta-analysis of RCTs was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA.MethodsElectronic and clinical trials register databases were searched for published RCTs of tofacitinib between 2009 and 2013. Outcomes of interest include 20% and 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology Scale (ACR20 and ACR50) response rates, rates of infection, the number of immunological/haematological adverse events (AEs), deranged laboratory results (hepatic, renal, haematological tests and lipoprotein level) and the incidence of drug withdrawal.ResultsEight RCTs (n = 3,791) were reviewed. Significantly greater ACR20 response rates were observed in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg bid (twice daily) versus placebo at week 12, with risk ratios (RR) of 2.20 (95% CI 1.58, 3.07) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.81, 3.14) respectively. The effect was maintained at week 24 for 5 mg bid (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.55, 2.44) and 10 mg bid (RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.76, 2.75). The ACR50 response rate was also significantly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg bid (RR 2.91; 95% CI 2.03, 4.16) and 10 mg bid (RR 3.32; 95% CI 2.33, 4.72) compared to placebo at week 12. Patients in the tofacitinib group had significantly lower mean neutrophil counts, higher serum creatinine, higher percentage change of LDL/HDL and a higher risk of ALT/AST > 1 ULN (upper limit of normal) versus placebo. There were no significant differences in AEs and withdrawal due to AEs compared to placebo.ConclusionTofacitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with MTX-resistant RA up to a period of 24 weeks. However, haematological, liver function tests and lipoproteins should be monitored. Long-term efficacy and pharmacovigilance studies are recommended.