ABSTRACT
The aim of the study is to validate the Russian version of the 4C Mortality Score scale and evaluate its accuracy in predicting the outcomes of severe COVID-19. Material and methods. The staff of the Center for Validation of International Scales and Questionnaires of the Research Center of Neurology received official permission from the authors to conduct a validation study of the 4C Mortality Score scale in Russia. In the course of the work, the linguistic and cultural ratification of the scale was carried out and its Russian-language version was prepared. Psychometric properties (reliability and validity) The Russian-language version was evaluated on a group of 78 patients (37 of whom were men, aged 34 to 88 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, hospitalized in the City Clinical Hospital No. 15 named after O.M. Filatov (Moscow) in the period from June to August 2021. Results. The linguocultural adaptation of the 4C Mortality Score scale was successfully carried out. High levels of reliability were obtained (Spearman correlation coefficient rho=0.91, p<0.0001;Cronbach's alpha alpha=0.73, p=0.0002;Cohen's kappa kappa=0.85, p<0.0001). It is shown that the 4C Mortality Score scores have a significant correlation with the COVID-GRAM scores (r=0.72, p=0.002) and NEWS2 (r=0.54, p=0.004). Conclusion. As a result of the validation study, the official Russian version of the 4C Mortality Score scale was developed. It is recommended for use by medical professionals of various specialties at all stages of providing medical care to patients with COVID-19. The scale is available for download on the website of the Center for Validation of International Scales and Questionnaires of the Research Center of Neurology (https://www.neurology.ru/reabilitaciya/centr-validacii-mezhdunarodnyh-shkal-i-oprosnikov).Copyright © 2022 by the authors.
ABSTRACT
Background. Co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus may become more prevalent now that many countries are easing restrictions to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Co-infected patients are more likely to receive invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and have higher odds of in-hospital mortality. In the RECOVERY trial, dexamethasone was found to reduce the risk of 28-day mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. On June 16, 2020, corticosteroids were included in clinical guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen. However, corticosteroid treatment in severe influenza virus infection may increase mortality. The effect of steroids in influenza and COVID-19 co-infected patients is unknown. Methods. Adult patients with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus co-infection were evaluated. Patients without supplemental oxygen during admission were excluded. Patients who were hospitalised prior to June 16, 2020 were included in the 'early' group and patients who were hospitalised on or after June 16, 2020 were included in the 'late' group. Results. 171 co-infected patients were included, 123 patients in the early group (table 1) and 48 in the late group (table 2). In the early group, 25 patients received steroids. In the late group, 40 patients received steroids. In the early group, the proportion of patients who were admitted to critical care was slightly lower in the group that received steroids. IMV was similar in both groups. In-hospital mortality was slightly higher in the group treated with steroids. In the late group, critical care admission and receipt of IMV were higher in the group not treated with corticosteroids than the group with corticosteroid treatment. In-hospital mortality was slightly lower in the group not treated with steroids. Conclusion. There are differences between co-infected patients who were treated and not treated with corticosteroids and differences between the early and late groups. A limitation is that no dates were collected for the start of steroid treatment, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the causality of the need for IMV and treatment with steroids in this analysis. Future research should focus on the effect of steroids in COVID-19 and influenza co-infected patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thromboembolism , Humans , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Thromboembolism/etiology , Survivors , Hospitals , Scotland/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Background Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. Methods We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. Findings Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75.2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86.6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72.4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0.79 [95% CI 0.70-0.89], p=0.0001, for 70-79 years;0.52 [0.46-0.58], p<0.0001, for >80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54.2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27.5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75-80% in January, 2021. Interpretation Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
ABSTRACT
The aim of the study is to validate the Russian version of the 4C Mortality Score scale and evaluate its accuracy in predicting the outcomes of severe COVID-19. Material and methods. The staff of the Center for Validation of International Scales and Questionnaires of the Research Center of Neurology received official permission from the authors to conduct a validation study of the 4C Mortality Score scale in Russia. In the course of the work, the linguistic and cultural ratification of the scale was carried out and its Russian-language version was prepared. Psychometric properties (reliability and validity) The Russian-language version was evaluated on a group of 78 patients (37 of whom were men, aged 34 to 88 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, hospitalized in the City Clinical Hospital No. 15 named after O.M. Filatov (Moscow) in the period from June to August 2021. Results. The linguocultural adaptation of the 4C Mortality Score scale was successfully carried out. High levels of reliability were obtained (Spearman correlation coefficient ρ=0.91, p<0.0001;Cronbach's alpha α=0.73, p=0.0002;Cohen's kappa κ=0.85, p<0.0001). It is shown that the 4C Mortality Score scores have a significant correlation with the COVID-GRAM scores (r=0.72, p=0.002) and NEWS2 (r=0.54, p=0.004). Conclusion. As a result of the validation study, the official Russian version of the 4C Mortality Score scale was developed. It is recommended for use by medical professionals of various specialties at all stages of providing medical care to patients with COVID-19. The scale is available for download on the website of the Center for Validation of International Scales and Questionnaires of the Research Center of Neurology (https://www.neurology.ru/reabilitaciya/centr-validacii-mezhdunarodnyh-shkal-i-oprosnikov). © 2022 by the authors.
ABSTRACT
Background. In South Africa (SA), >2.4 million cases of COVID-19 and >72 000 deaths were recorded between March 2020 and 1 August 2021, affecting the country's 52 districts to various extents. SA has committed to a COVID-19 vaccine roll-out in three phases, prioritising frontline workers, the elderly, people with comorbidities and essential workers. However, additional actions will be necessary to support efficient allocation and equitable access for vulnerable, access-constrained communities. Objectives. To explore various determinants of disease severity, resurgence risk and accessibility in order to aid an equitable, effective vaccine roll-out for SA that would maximise COVID-19 epidemic control by reducing the number of COVID-19 transmissions and resultant deaths, while at the same time reducing the risk of vaccine wastage. Methods. For the 52 districts of SA, 26 COVID-19 indicators such as hospital admissions, deaths in hospital and mobility were ranked and hierarchically clustered with cases to identify which indicators can be used as indicators for severity or resurgence risk. Districts were then ranked using the estimated COVID-19 severity and resurgence risk to assist with prioritisation of vaccine roll-out. Urban and rural accessibility were also explored as factors that could limit vaccine roll-out in hard-to-reach communities. Results. Highly populated urban districts showed the most cases. Districts such as Buffalo City, City of Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Bay experienced very severe first and second waves of the pandemic. Districts with high mobility, population size and density were found to be at highest risk of resurgence. In terms of accessibility, we found that 47.2% of the population are within 5 km of a hospital with 50 beds, and this percentage ranged from 87.0% in City of Cape Town to 0% in Namakwa district. Conclusions. The end goal is to provide equal distribution of vaccines proportional to district populations, which will provide fair protection. Districts with a high risk of resurgence and severity should be prioritised for vaccine roll-out, particularly the major metropolitan areas. We provide recommendations for allocations of different vaccine types for each district that consider levels of access, numbers of doses and cold-chain storage capability.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitals , Humans , Information Services , Semantic Web , VaccinationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In South Africa (SA), >2.4 million cases of COVID19 and >72 000 deaths were recorded between March 2020 and 1 August 2021, affecting the country's 52 districts to various extents. SA has committed to a COVID19 vaccine roll-out in three phases, prioritising frontline workers, the elderly, people with comorbidities and essential workers. However, additional actions will be necessary to support efficient allocation and equitable access for vulnerable, access-constrained communities. OBJECTIVES: To explore various determinants of disease severity, resurgence risk and accessibility in order to aid an equitable, effective vaccine roll-out for SA that would maximise COVID19 epidemic control by reducing the number of COVID19 transmissions and resultant deaths, while at the same time reducing the risk of vaccine wastage. METHODS: For the 52 districts of SA, 26 COVID19 indicators such as hospital admissions, deaths in hospital and mobility were ranked and hierarchically clustered with cases to identify which indicators can be used as indicators for severity or resurgence risk. Districts were then ranked using the estimated COVID19 severity and resurgence risk to assist with prioritisation of vaccine roll-out. Urban and rural accessibility were also explored as factors that could limit vaccine roll-out in hard-to-reach communities. RESULTS: Highly populated urban districts showed the most cases. Districts such as Buffalo City, City of Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Bay experienced very severe first and second waves of the pandemic. Districts with high mobility, population size and density were found to be at highest risk of resurgence. In terms of accessibility, we found that 47.2% of the population are within 5 km of a hospital with ≥50 beds, and this percentage ranged from 87.0% in City of Cape Town to 0% in Namakwa district. CONCLUSIONS: The end goal is to provide equal distribution of vaccines proportional to district populations, which will provide fair protection. Districts with a high risk of resurgence and severity should be prioritised for vaccine roll-out, particularly the major metropolitan areas. We provide recommendations for allocations of different vaccine types for each district that consider levels of access, numbers of doses and cold-chain storage capability.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Mass Vaccination/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility , Hospitalization , Humans , Patient Acuity , South Africa , Vulnerable PopulationsABSTRACT
Background: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust runs a large pleural service. Local anaesthetic medical thoracoscopy (LAT) is a well-established procedure in undiagnosed pleural effusions. Patients were traditionally admitted for a mean of 3.4 days and had a large bore drain inserted post LAT with pleurodesis. The Covid-19 pandemic has forced day case LAT provision with IPC placement without pleurodesis to minimise transmission risk. We describe our experience. LAT is performed in theatre under conscious sedation. Methods: All notes of patients requiring day case LAT between July 2020-Feb 2021 were analysed. Basic demographics and outcomes were collected. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. Results: 17 patients underwent day case LAT. All had negative preoperative Covid-19 swabs: mean age 70.8 years (range 34-82), 12 male,5 female. Diagnoses included 5 lung cancers, 6 mesotheliomas and 4 fibrinous pleuritis. The lung did not deflate, not enabling biopsies in 2. Non-malignant diagnoses are currently presumed. 14 IPCs and 2 large bore drain were inserted due to 2 immediate complication (surgical emphysema). 1 patient developed an empyema within 30days. 9 out of the 11 IPCs have already been removed due to pleurodesis occurring (mean number days 60. All were discharged on the same day except the two requiring further drain insertion. Conclusions: We have thus transformed our service after more than a decade of providing LAT as an inpatient service. This is a small cohort of patients but proves the feasibility and safety of day case LAT with massive reduction in inpatient stay. The Covid-19 pandemic has transformed our service but for the better. Further qualitative work should elucidate the acceptability of such a pathway for patients. Disclosure: No significant relationships.
ABSTRACT
Aims: Currently 80% of National Health Service (NHS) budget for diabetes is spent on diabetes related complications.1 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)2 recommends regular review to identify early complications. The covid-19 pandemic has affected normal diabetes services and we aim to explore how this has impacted diabetes care in accordance to NICE guidelines. Methods: Retrospective study was conducted by analysing the data of patients reviewed in diabetes clinics in Poole Hospital from March to August 2019 compared to the same timeframe in 2020. During the pandemic clinics changed to virtual telephone consultation compared to face-to- face review in 2019. Patients were identified from one clinic list from two different consultants. Data was collected using Electronic Patient Record (EPR), Diabetea3 and Spectra. Results: All routine checks for diabetes review were affected by covid-19. Only 56% of patients had blood pressure, body mass index and foot review during 2020 compared to 91% in 2019. Foot checks were most affected with a 32% decrease;additionally there was a 17% reduction in urine samples compared to previous. 98% of patients had a routine HbA1c in 2019 however this fell to 83% the following year. Retinal screening was least affected with a 9% decrease. Interestingly there was a 2% increase for both thyroid and renal results in 2020. Conclusion: Diabetes care has been adversely affected by the covid-19 pandemic which raises concerns for patient management. We can expect a significant rise in complications related to diabetes and we should therefore target our efforts to address these issues.
ABSTRACT
Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the UK triggered a national characterisation protocol and information on co-morbidities including malignant neoplasm is recorded. A lack of prospective data regarding cancer patients with COVID-19 hampers the development of an evidence based approach in this population. The Clinical Characterisation Protocol-CANCER-UK is a UK multi-disciplinary project aimed at characterising the presentation and course of COVID-19 in cancer patients with the aim of informing practice. Methods: The international Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)-4C COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) collects data on hospital inpatients with proven/high likelihood of COVID-19. Data was collected in 166 UK sites using a questionnaire adopted by the WHO. Data on patients with malignant neoplasm was extracted from the main dataset. We chose a priori to restrict any analysis of outcome to patients who were admitted more than 14 days before data extraction (13th May 2020). Results: As of 13th May 2020 1797 of 16160 participants had malignant neoplasm (8.6% of all cases). Age<50 62 (3.5%), 50-60 378 (21%), 70-79 558 (31%), 80+ 1002 (42%). Male 1147 (64%);Female 645 (36%). Commonest comorbidities chromic pulmonary disease (22%), chronic kidney disease (21%), uncomplicated diabetes (19%) and dementia (14%). Outcomes 35% discharged alive, 30% care ongoing & 35% died. Admiited to ICU: 150 cases (25% discharged alive,31% care ongoing & 45% died). Receiving invasive ventiation: 67 cases (18% discharged alive, 25% care ongoing:25% & 57% died). HR mortality for malignancy (adjusted for age, sex, other comorbidity): 1.13 (1.02-1.24, p=0.017). Data on presentation will be presented. Conclusions: Europe’s largest prospective COVID-19 dataset demonstrates that cancer is independently associated with mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19. Data collection is on-going and updated data will be presented including a comparison of cancer vs. non-cancer cohort with regard to presentation, comorbidity and otucomes. Clinical trial identification: ISRCTN66726260. Legal entity responsible for the study: and international Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C). Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Medical Research Council and Department for Health and Social Care. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.