Comparison of children and young people admitted with SARS-CoV-2 across the UK in the first and second pandemic waves: prospective multicentre observational cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundChildren and young people (CYP) were less affected than adults in the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. We test the hypothesis that clinical characteristics of hospitalized CYP with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK second wave would differ from the first due to the combined impact of the alpha variant, school reopening and relaxation of shielding. MethodsPatients <19 years hospitalised in the UK with clinician-reported SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled in a prospective multicentre observational cohort study between 17th January 2020 and 31st January 2021. Minimum follow up time was two weeks. Clinical characteristics were compared between the first (W1) and second wave (W2) of infections. Findings2044 CYP aged <19 years were reported from 187 hospitals. 427/2044 (20.6%) had asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection and were excluded from main analysis. 16.0% (248/1548) of symptomatic CYP were admitted to critical care and 0.8% (12/1504) died. 5.6% (91/1617) of symptomatic CYP had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Patients in W2 were significantly older (median age 6.5 years, IQR 0.3-14.9) than W1 (4.0 (0.4-13.6, p 0.015). Fever was more common in W1, otherwise presenting symptoms and comorbidities were similar across waves. After excluding CYP with MIS-C, patients in W2 had lower PEWS at presentation, lower antibiotic use and less respiratory and cardiovascular support compared to W1. There was no change in the proportion of CYP admitted to critical care between W1 and W2. 58.0% (938/1617) of symptomatic CYP had no reported comorbidity. Patients without co-morbidities were younger (42.4%, 398/938, <1 year old), had lower Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) at presentation, shorter length of hospital stay and received less respiratory support. MIS-C was responsible for a large proportion of critical care admissions, invasive and non-invasive ventilatory support, inotrope and intravenous corticosteroid use in CYP without comorbidities. InterpretationSevere disease in CYP admitted with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 in the UK remains rare. One in five CYP in this cohort had asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no evidence of increased disease severity in W2 compared with W1. FundingShort form: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Long form: This work is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (award CO-CIN-01) and the Medical Research Council (grant MC_PC_19059) and by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford (NIHR award 200907), Wellcome Trust and Department for International Development (215091/Z/18/Z), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135). Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research (grant reference: C18616/A25153). JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England (DHSC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the DHSC, DID, NIHR, MRC, Wellcome Trust, or PHE.

The contribution of hospital-acquired infections to the COVID-19 epidemic in England in the first half of 2020 (preprint)

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 spreads in hospitals, but the contribution of these settings to the overall COVID-19 burden at a national level is unknown. MethodsWe used comprehensive national English datasets and simulation modelling to determine the total burden (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections. Those unidentified would either be 1) discharged before symptom onset ("missed"), or 2) have symptom onset 7 days or fewer from admission ("misclassified"). We estimated the contribution of "misclassified" cases and transmission from "missed" symptomatic infections to the English epidemic before 31st July 2020. FindingsIn our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English Trusts with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired (with symptom onset 8 or more days after admission and before discharge). We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified. Misclassified cases and onward transmission from missed infections could account for 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14{middle dot}1%-15{middle dot}8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19. From this, we estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2%-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. ConclusionsTransmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the "first wave", but fewer than 1% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections in England. Using symptom onset as a detection method for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 likely misses a substantial proportion (>60%) of hospital-acquired infections. FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening, UKRI, Wellcome Trust, Singapore National Medical Research Council. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed with the terms "((national OR country) AND (contribution OR burden OR estimates) AND ("hospital-acquired" OR "hospital-associated" OR "nosocomial")) AND Covid-19" for articles published in English up to July 1st 2021. This identified 42 studies, with no studies that had aimed to produce comprehensive national estimates of the contribution of hospital settings to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most studies focused on estimating seroprevalence or levels of infection in healthcare workers only, which were not our focus. Removing the initial national/country terms identified 120 studies, with no country level estimates. Several single hospital setting estimates exist for England and other countries, but the percentage of hospital-associated infections reported relies on identified cases in the absence of universal testing. Added value of this studyThis study provides the first national-level estimates of all symptomatic hospital-acquired infections with SARS-CoV-2 in England up to the 31st July 2020. Using comprehensive data, we calculate how many infections would be unidentified and hence can generate a total burden, impossible from just notification data. Moreover, our burden estimates for onward transmission suggest the contribution of hospitals to the overall infection burden. Implications of all the available evidenceLarge numbers of patients may become infected with SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals though only a small proportion of such infections are identified. Further work is needed to better understand how interventions can reduce such transmission and to better understand the contributions of hospital transmission to mortality.

SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination from hospitalised COVID-19 patients receiving aerosol generating procedures (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background. Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered "aerosol-generating procedures" (AGPs) in the treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to measure air and surface environmental contamination of SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO were used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. Methods. 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen [≥]0.4 to maintain oxygen saturations [≥]94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. RT qPCR analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. Results. Overall 21/30 (70%) of participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. Conclusions. The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 was not associated with significantly higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of remdesivir in treating severe COVID-19 using data from the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: a prospective, national cohort study. (preprint)

Background Remdesivir was given UK early-access approval for use in COVID-19 in people aged 12 years and older on 26th May 2020 on the basis of unmet clinical need. Evidence on the side effects, complications of therapy and effectiveness of this therapy is lacking or conflicting. Methods Adults with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir were compared with propensity-score matched controls, identified from the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol study of UK hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Remdesivir patients were matched to controls according to baseline underlying 14-day mortality risk. The effect of remdesivir on short-term outcomes was investigated (primary outcome: 14-day mortality). Effect sizes were estimated and adjusted for potential confounders using multivariable modelling. Results 1,549 patients given remdesivir and 4,964 matched controls were identified satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria. The balance diagnostic threshold was achieved. Patients had symptoms for a median of 6 days prior to baseline; 62% were male, with mean (SD) age 63.1 (15.6) years, and 80% categorised as White ethnicity. Fourteen-day mortality was not statistically significantly associated with treatment (9.3% remdesivir vs. 11.9% controls, odds-ratio 0.80, [95% CI 0.60-1.07], p=0.116, adjusted for age, sex, number of key comorbidities, dexamethasone use, and diagnosis of viral pneumonia. Findings Treatment with remdesivir was not associated with a reduction in mortality in our primary endpoint at 14 days. Interpretation Remdesivir did not significantly improve mortality in this study. The findings are subject to the limitations of an observational study. Balance was achieved for measured baseline factors, but unmeasured confounders may account for observed treatment effect sizes. Funding Medical Research Council UK & National Institute of Health Research

Short-term forecasts to inform the response to the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK (preprint)

Background: Short-term forecasts of infectious disease can create situational awareness and inform planning for outbreak response. Here, we report on multi-model forecasts of Covid-19 in the UK that were generated at regular intervals starting at the end of March 2020, in order to monitor expected healthcare utilisation and population impacts in real time. Methods: We evaluated the performance of individual model forecasts generated between 24 March and 14 July 2020, using a variety of metrics including the weighted interval score as well as metrics that assess the calibration, sharpness, bias and absolute error of forecasts separately. We further combined the predictions from individual models to ensemble forecasts using a simple mean as well as a quantile regression average that aimed to maximise performance. We further compared model performance to a null model of no change. Results: In most cases, individual models performed better than the null model, and ensembles models were well calibrated and performed comparatively to the best individual models. The quantile regression average did not noticeably outperform the mean ensemble. Conclusions: Ensembles of multi-model forecasts can inform the policy response to the Covid-19 pandemic by assessing future resource needs and expected population impact of morbidity and mortality.

Mental Health Status of Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Survey among the Bangladeshi Graduate Students at Dhaka City (preprint)

ObjectivesTo identify the level of Mental Health Status of Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic among the Bangladeshi Graduate Student at Dhaka MethodA cross-sectional survey was conducted with 330 students from different public and Private Universities in Dhaka, Bangladesh between April 01, 2020 and July 31, 2020 amid the COVID-19 lockdown period in Bangladesh. A standard, self-administered online questionnaire consisting of questions on socio-demographic variables, mental health status, as well as stress management sent to the respondents through social networking platforms. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA and correlation tests. ResultsThe mean score of mental health status was 2.08 based on four points scale. They felt problem in decision making (3.04), in doing the things well (2.92), in enjoying normal day to day life (2.88), in playing a useful part in life (2.85), in doing their task (2.75), living in perfectly well and in good health (2.70). The respondents also developed a suicidal tendency (2.55), felt nervous in strung-up (2.24), took longer time to do things (2.14), felt tightness and pressure in head (2.12), and found themselves pressurized by various stuff (2.05). This study also found a significant positive relationship between mental health status and age, living with parents, and parents attitude. Finally, this study revealed that the respondents managed their stress by chatting with their friends, parents and siblings, and by sleeping. ConclusionMental health status of adolescents was found moderate in this study. This study suggests further large-scale study including different socio-economic settings in order to figure out the real scenario of adolescents mental health status of the country during the pandemic.

A retrospective cluster analysis of COVID-19 cases by county (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. has exhibited distinct waves, the first beginning in March 2020, the second beginning in early June, and additional waves currently emerging. Paradoxically, almost no county has exhibited this multi-wave pattern. We aim to answer three research questions: (1) How many distinct clusters of counties exhibit similar COVID-19 patterns in the time-series of daily confirmed cases?; (2) What is the geographic distribution of the counties within each cluster? and (3) Are county-level demographic, socioeconomic and political variables associated with the COVID-19 case patterns? We analyzed data from counties in the U.S. from March 1 to October 24, 2020. Time series clustering identified clusters in the daily confirmed cases of COVID-19. An explanatory model was used to identify demographic, socioeconomic and political variables associated the cluster patterns. Four patterns were identified from the timing of the outbreaks including counties experiencing a spring, an early summer, a late summer, and a fall outbreak. Several county-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political variables showed significant associations with the identified clusters. The timing of the outbreak is related both to the geographic location within the U.S. and several variables including age, poverty distribution, and political association. These results show that the reported pattern of cases in the U.S. is observed through aggregation of the COVID-19 cases, suggesting that local trends may be more informative. The timing of the outbreak varies by county, and is associated with important demographic, socioeconomic and geographic factors.

Development and validation of the 4C Deterioration model for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (preprint)

Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 are required to inform clinical management decisions. Among 75,016 consecutive adults across England, Scotland and Wales prospectively recruited to the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study, we developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) using 11 routinely measured variables. We used internal-external cross-validation to show consistent measures of discrimination, calibration and clinical utility across eight geographical regions. We further validated the final model in held-out data from 8,252 individuals in London, with similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.78); calibration-in-the-large 0.01 (-0.04 to 0.06); calibration slope 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02)). Importantly, this model demonstrated higher net benefit than using other candidate scores to inform decision-making. Our 4C Deterioration model thus demonstrates unprecedented clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.

Elevated antiviral, myeloid and endothelial inflammatory markers in severe COVID-19 (preprint)

The mechanisms that underpin COVID-19 disease severity, and determine the outcome of infection, are only beginning to be unraveled. The host inflammatory response contributes to lung injury, but circulating mediators levels fall below those in classical cytokine storms. We analyzed serial plasma samples from 619 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 recruited through the prospective multicenter ISARIC clinical characterization protocol U.K. study and 39 milder community cases not requiring hospitalization. Elevated levels of numerous mediators including angiopoietin-2, CXCL10, and GM-CSF were seen at recruitment in patients who later died. Markers of endothelial injury (angiopoietin-2 and von-Willebrand factor A2) were detected early in some patients, while inflammatory cytokines and markers of lung injury persisted for several weeks in fatal COVID-19 despite decreasing antiviral cytokine levels. Overall, markers of myeloid or endothelial cell activation were associated with severe, progressive, and fatal disease indicating a central role for innate immune activation and vascular inflammation in COVID-19.

Outcomes of COVID-19 related hospitalisation among people with HIV in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK Protocol: prospective observational study (preprint)

Background.There is conflicting evidence about how HIV infection influences COVID-19. We compared the presentation characteristics and outcomes of people with and without HIV hospitalised with COVID-19 at 207 centres across the United Kingdom. Methods.We analysed data from people with laboratory confirmed or highly likely COVID-19 enrolled into the ISARIC CCP-UK study. The primary endpoint was day-28 mortality after presentation. We used Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression to describe the association with HIV status after adjustment for sex, ethnicity, age, indeterminate/probable hospital acquisition of COVID-19 (definite hospital acquisition excluded), presentation date, and presence/absence of ten comorbidities. We additionally adjusted for disease severity at presentation as defined by hypoxia/oxygen therapy. Findings.Among 47,539 patients, 115 (0{middle dot}24%) had confirmed HIV-positive status and 103/115 (89{middle dot}6%) had a record of antiretroviral therapy. At presentation, relative to the HIV-negative group, HIV-positive people were younger (median 55 versus 74 years; p<0{middle dot}001), had a higher prevalence of obesity and moderate/severe liver disease, higher lymphocyte counts and C-reactive protein, and more systemic symptoms. The cumulative incidence of day-28 mortality was 25{middle dot}2% in the HIV-positive group versus 32{middle dot}1% in the HIV-negative group (p=0{middle dot}12); however, stratification for age revealed a higher mortality among HIV-positive people aged below 60 years. The effect of HIV-positive status was confirmed in adjusted analyses (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1{middle dot}49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0{middle dot}99-2{middle dot}25; p=0{middle dot}06). Following additional adjustment for disease severity at presentation, mortality was higher in HIV-positive people (adjusted HR 1{middle dot}63; 95% CI 1{middle dot}07-2{middle dot}48; p=0{middle dot}02). In the HIV-positive group, mortality was more common among those who were slightly older and among people with obesity and diabetes with complications. Interpretation.HIV-positive status may be associated with an increased risk of day-28 mortality following a COVID-19 related hospitalisation. Funding.NIHR, MRC, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Study registrationISRCTN66726260 RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed for articles in all languages containing the words "COVID*", "coronavirus", "SARS CoV-2" AND "HIV". After screening on 23rd July 2020, we found 51 articles reporting outcomes of COVID-19 in HIV-positive people. Of these, 2 were systematic reviews, 24 were single case reports or case series of under 10 participants, and 12 were larger case series or retrospective cohorts without matched controls. There were two cohort studies that matched HIV-positive people diagnosed with COVID-19 to the general population attending for HIV care in the same area, and three studies that matched HIV-positive people diagnosed with COVID-19 to HIV-negative controls. Some of the evidence from the United States and Europe to date suggests that people with HIV experience a similar disease course and outcomes of COVID-19 compared to the general population. However, many of the studies are limited by small sample size, lack of comparator group and lack of adjustment for potential confounding. In contrast, preliminary results from a cohort study of over 20,000 participants in South Africa indicate that HIV-positive status more than doubles the risk of COVID-19 related mortality. Currently, the evidence from the United Kingdom is limited to two case series comprising a total of 21 patients. Added value of this studyThis study analysed data collected from 207 sites across the United Kingdom as part of ISARIC CCP, the largest prospective cohort of patients hospitalised with COVID-19, to evaluate the association between HIV-positive status and day-28 mortality. The study has the benefit of a relatively large number of participants with HIV (n=115, almost all receiving antiretroviral therapy) and importantly, the ability to direct compare their presenting characteristics and outcomes to those of 47,424 HIV-negative controls within the same dataset. This includes the ability to assess the influence of gender, ethnicity and age, as well as the effect of key comorbidities including chronic cardiac, pulmonary, renal and haematological disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic neurological disorder, dementia, liver disease, and malignancy. Unlike some of the other evidence to date, but in line with the data from South Africa, this study indicates that HIV-positive status may increase the risk of mortality with COVID-19 compared to the general population, with an effect that was especially evident among people with HIV aged below 60 years and was independent of gender or ethnicity. Although we detected an association between mortality among people with HIV and occurrence of obesity and diabetes with complication, the effect of HIV-positive status persisted after adjusting for comorbidities. Implications of all the available evidencePeople with HIV may be at increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 compared to the general population. Ongoing data collection is needed to confirm this association. Linkage of hospital outcome data to the HIV history will be paramount to establishing the determinants of the increased risk. COVID-19 related hospitalisation should pursue systematic recording of HIV status to ensure optimal management and gathering of evidence.

Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score (preprint)

ObjectivesTo develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality for patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DesignProspective observational cohort study: ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study (ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium [4C]). Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited between 21 May and 29 June 2020. Setting260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. ParticipantsAdult patients ([≥]18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 admitted at least four weeks before final data extraction. Main outcome measuresIn-hospital mortality. ResultsThere were 34 692 patients included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 31.7%) and 22 454 in the validation dataset (mortality 31.5%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea, and C-reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C risk stratification score demonstrated high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: AUROC 0.79; 95% CI 0.78 - 0.79; validation cohort 0.78, 0.77-0.79) with excellent calibration (slope = 1.0). Patients with a score [≥]15 (n = 2310, 17.4%) had a 67% mortality (i.e., positive predictive value 67%) compared with 1.0% mortality for those with a score [≤]3 (n = 918, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (AUROC range 0.60-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73). ConclusionsWe have developed and validated an easy-to-use risk stratification score based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. This outperformed existing scores, demonstrated utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify inpatients with covid-19 into different management groups. The 4C Mortality Score may help clinicians identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of dying during current and subsequent waves of the pandemic. Study registrationISRCTN66726260

ISARIC COVID-19 Clinical Data Report: 8 June 2020 (preprint)

ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium) partnerships and outbreak preparedness initiatives enabled the rapid launch of standardised clinical data collection on COVID-19 in Jan 2020. Extensive global uptake of this resource has resulted in a large, standardised collection of comprehensive clinical data from hundreds of sites across dozens of countries. Data are analysed regularly and reported publicly to inform patient care and public health response. This report is a part of a series and includes the results of data analysis on 8 June 2020. We thank all of the data contributors for their ongoing support. As of 8JUN20, data have been entered for 67,130 patients from 488 sites across 37 countries. For this report, we show data for 42,656 patients with confirmed disease who were enrolled >14 days prior. This update includes about 2,400 new cases from France, and we thank these collaborators for this significant addition to the dataset. Some highlights from this report The median time from onset of symptoms to hospital admission is 5 days, but a proportion of patients take longer to get to the hospital (average 14.6 days, standard deviation 8.1). COVID-19 patients tend to require prolonged hospitalisation; of the 88% with a known outcome, the median length of admission to death or discharge is 8 days and the mean 11.5. 17% of patients were admitted to ICU/HDU, about 40% of these on the very day of hospital admission. Antibiotics were given to 83% of patients, antivirals to 9%, steroids to 15%, which becomes 93%, 50% and 27%, respectively for those admitted to ICU/HDU. Attention has been called on overuse of antibiotics and need to adhere to antibiotic stewardship principles. 67% of patients received some degree of oxygen supplementation: of these 23.4% received NIV and 15% IMV. This relatively high proportion of oxygen use will have implications for oxygen surge planning in healthcare facilities. Some centres may need to plan to boost capacity to deliver oxygen therapy if this is not readily available. WHO provides operational advice on surge strategy here https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331746/WHO-2019-nCoV-Oxygen_sources-2020.1-eng.pdf

Outcome of hospitalisation for COVID-19 in patients with Interstitial Lung Disease: An international multicentre study. (preprint)

Rationale: The impact of COVID-19 on patients with Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) has not been established. Objectives: To assess outcomes following COVID-19 in patients with ILD versus those without in a contemporaneous age, sex and comorbidity matched population. Methods: An international multicentre audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between 1 March and 1 May 2020 was undertaken and compared with patients, without ILD obtained from the ISARIC 4C cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished IPF from non-IPF ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death. Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity-score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching ILD patients with COVID-19 had higher mortality (HR 1.60, Confidence Intervals 1.17-2.18 p=0.003) compared with age, sex and co-morbidity matched controls without ILD. Patients with a Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC [≥]80% (HR 1.72, 1.05-2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR 1.98, 1.13-3.46). Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.

Clinical characteristics of children and young people hospitalised with covid-19 in the United Kingdom: prospective multicentre observational cohort study (preprint)

ObjectiveTo characterise the clinical features of children and young people admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the UK, and explore factors associated with admission to critical care, mortality, and development of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents temporarily related to covid-19 (MIS-C). DesignProspective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real time analysis. Setting260 acute care hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland between 17th January and 5th June 2020, with a minimal follow-up time of two weeks (to 19th June 2020). Participants451 children and young people aged less than 19 years admitted to 116 hospitals and enrolled into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emergency Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcome MeasuresAdmission to critical care (high dependency or intensive care), in-hospital mortality, or meeting the WHO preliminary case definition for MIS-C. ResultsMedian age was 3.9 years [interquartile range (IQR) 0.3-12.9 years], 36% (162/451) were under 12 months old, and 57% (256/450) were male. 56% (224/401) were White, 12% (49/401) South Asian and 10% (40/401) Black. 43% (195/451) had at least one recorded comorbidity. A muco-enteric cluster of symptoms was identified, closely mirroring the WHO MIS-C criteria. 17% of children (72/431) were admitted to critical care. On multivariable analysis this was associated with age under one month odds ratio 5.05 (95% confidence interval 1.69 to 15.72, p=0.004), age 10 to 14 years OR 3.11 (1.21 to 8.55, p=0.022) and Black ethnicity OR 3.02 (1.30 to 6.84, p=0.008). Three young people died (0.7 %, 3/451) aged 16 to 19 years, all of whom had profound comorbidity. Twelve percent of children (36/303) met the WHO MIS-C criteria, with the first patient developing symptoms in mid-March. Those meeting MIS-C criteria were older, (median age 10.8 years ([IQR 8.4-14.1] vs 2.0 [0.2-12.6]), p<0.001) and more likely to be of non-White ethnicity (70% (23/33) vs 43% (101/237), p=0.005). Children with MIS-C were four times more likely to be admitted to critical care (61% (22/36) vs 15% (40/267, p<0.001). In addition to the WHO criteria, children with MIS-C were more likely to present with headache (45% (13/29) vs 11% (19/171), p<0.001), myalgia (39% (11/28) vs 7% (12/170), p<0.001), sore throat (37% (10/27) vs (13% (24/183, p = 0.004) and fatigue (57% (17/30) vs 31% (60/192), p =0.012) than children who did not and to have a platelet count of less than 150 x109/L (30% (10/33) vs 10% (24/232), p=0.004). ConclusionsOur data confirms less severe covid-19 in children and young people than in adults and we provide additional evidence for refining the MIS-C case definition. The identification of a muco-enteric symptom cluster also raises the suggestion that MIS-C is the severe end of a spectrum of disease. Study registrationISRCTN66726260

Protocol for the development and evaluation of a tool for predicting risk of short-term adverse outcomes due to COVID-19 in the general UK population (preprint)

Introduction: Novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has propagated a global pandemic with significant health, economic and social costs. Emerging emergence has suggested that several factors may be associated with increased risk from severe outcomes or death from COVID-19. Clinical risk prediction tools have significant potential to generate individualised assessment of risk and may be useful for population stratification and other use cases. Methods and analysis: We will use a prospective open cohort study of routinely collected data from 1205 general practices in England in the QResearch database. The primary outcome is COVID-19 mortality (in or out-of-hospital) defined as confirmed or suspected COVID-19 mentioned on the death certificate, or death occurring in a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection between 24th January and 30th April 2020. Our primary outcome in adults is COVID-19 mortality (including out of hospital and in hospital deaths). We will also examine COVID-19 hospitalisation in children. Time-to-event models will be developed in the training data to derive separate risk equations in adults (19-100 years) for males and females for evaluation of risk of each outcome within the 3-month follow-up period (24th January to 30th April 2020), accounting for competing risks. Predictors considered will include age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index, pre-existing medical co-morbidities, and concurrent medication. Measures of performance (prediction errors, calibration and discrimination) will be determined in the test data for men and women separately and by ten-year age group. For children, descriptive statistics will be undertaken if there are currently too few serious events to allow development of a risk model. The final model will be externally evaluated in (a) geographically separate practices and (b) other relevant datasets as they become available. Ethics and dissemination: The project has ethical approval and the results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Features of 16,749 hospitalised UK patients with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol (preprint)

Objective: To characterize the clinical features of patients with severe COVID-19 in the UK. Design: Prospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real-time analysis, using a pre-approved questionnaire adopted by the WHO. Setting: 166 UK hospitals between 6th February and 18th April 2020. Participants: 16,749 people with COVID-19. Interventions: No interventions were performed, but with consent samples were taken for research purposes. Many participants were co-enrolled in other interventional studies and clinical trials. Results: The median age was 72 years [IQR 57, 82; range 0, 104], the median duration of symptoms before admission was 4 days [IQR 1,8] and the median duration of hospital stay was 7 days [IQR 4,12]. The commonest comorbidities were chronic cardiac disease (29%), uncomplicated diabetes (19%), non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease (19%) and asthma (14%); 47% had no documented reported comorbidity. Increased age and comorbidities including obesity were associated with a higher probability of mortality. Distinct clusters of symptoms were found: 1. respiratory (cough, sputum, sore throat, runny nose, ear pain, wheeze, and chest pain); 2. systemic (myalgia, joint pain and fatigue); 3. enteric (abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhoea). Overall, 49% of patients were discharged alive, 33% have died and 17% continued to receive care at date of reporting. 17% required admission to High Dependency or Intensive Care Units; of these, 31% were discharged alive, 45% died and 24% continued to receive care at the reporting date. Of those receiving mechanical ventilation, 20% were discharged alive, 53% died and 27% remained in hospital. Conclusions: We present the largest detailed description of COVID-19 in Europe, demonstrating the importance of pandemic preparedness and the need to maintain readiness to launch research studies in response to outbreaks. Trial documentation: Available at https://isaric4c.net/protocols . Ethical approval in England and Wales (13/SC/0149), and Scotland (20/SS/0028). ISRCTN (pending).