Comparison between first and second wave of COVID-19 outbreak in older people: the COPE multicentre European observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Effective shielding measures and virus mutations have progressively modified the disease between the waves, likewise healthcare systems have adapted to the outbreak. Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes for older people with COVID-19 in Wave 1 (W1) and Wave 2 (W2). METHODS: All data, including the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), were collected for COVID-19 consecutive patients, aged ≥65, from 13 hospitals, in W1 (February-June 2020) and W2 (October 2020-March 2021). The primary outcome was mortality (time to mortality and 28-day mortality). Data were analysed with multilevel Cox proportional hazards, linear and logistic regression models, adjusted for wave baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Data from 611 people admitted in W2 were added to and compared with data collected during W1 (N = 1340). Patients admitted in W2 were of similar age, median (interquartile range), W2 = 79 (73-84); W1 = 80 (74-86); had a greater proportion of men (59.4% vs. 53.0%); had lower 28-day mortality (29.1% vs. 40.0%), compared to W1. For combined W1-W2 sample, W2 was independently associated with improved survival: time-to-mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.93], 28-day mortality adjusted odds ratio = 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03). W2 was associated with increased length of hospital stay aHR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.81). Patients in W2 were less frail, CFS [adjusted mean difference (aMD) = -0.50, 95% CI -0.81, -0.18], as well as presented with lower C-reactive protein (aMD = -22.52, 95% CI -32.00, -13.04). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 older adults in W2 were less likely to die than during W1. Patients presented to hospital during W2 were less frail and with lower disease severity and less likely to have renal decline.

The Prognostic and Discriminatory Utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale and Modified Frailty Index Compared to Age.

Background: There is no consensus on the optimal method for the assessment of frailty. We compared the prognostic utility of two approaches (modified Frailty Index [mFI], Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS]) in older adults (≥65 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 versus age. Methods: We used a test and validation cohort that enrolled participants hospitalised with COVID-19 between 27 February and 30 June 2020. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic modelling was undertaken, with 28-day mortality as the primary outcome. Nested models were compared between a base model, age and frailty assessments using likelihood ratio testing (LRT) and an area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC). Results: The primary cohort enrolled 998 participants from 13 centres. The median age was 80 (range:65-101), 453 (45%) were female, and 377 (37.8%) died within 28 days. The sample was replicated in a validation cohort of two additional centres (n = 672) with similar characteristics. In the primary cohort, both mFI and CFS were associated with mortality in the base models. There was improved precision when fitting CFS to the base model +mFI (LRT = 25.87, p < 0.001); however, there was no improvement when fitting mFI to the base model +CFS (LRT = 1.99, p = 0.16). AUROC suggested increased discrimination when fitting CFS compared to age (p = 0.02) and age +mFI (p = 0.03). In contrast, the mFI offered no improved discrimination in any comparison (p > 0.05). Similar findings were seen in the validation cohort. Conclusions: These observations suggest the CFS has superior prognostic value to mFI in predicting mortality following COVID-19. Our data do not support the use of the mFI as a tool to aid clinical decision-making and prognosis.

Occurrence and outcomes of possible superadded infections in older adults with COVID-19-cohort study.

PURPOSE: Current guidance discourages use of antibiotics in COVID-19. However, in older adults, superadded infection may be common and require treatment. Our aim was to investigate the occurrence and outcomes from possible superadded infections, occurring within 2 weeks of hospitalization, in older adults with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single centre, observational cohort study. We collected data from patients admitted to older adult wards who had tested positive for the Sars-CoV-2 virus on viral PCR between 1st October and 1st December 2020. The primary outcome was inpatient death occurring within 90 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. The secondary outcome was length of stay in hospital. Associations were described using univariable and multivariable models, and time to event data. RESULTS: Of 266 patients with COVID-19, 43% (115) had evidence of superadded infections (91 with positive bacterial cultures and 36 instances of radiological lobar consolidation). Patients with superadded infections were more likely to die (45.2 versus 30.7%, p = 0.020) and had an increased length of stay (23 versus 18 days, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations to avoid antibiotics in COVID-19 may not be applicable to an older adult population. Assessing for possible superadded infections is warranted in this group.

Prognostic value of estimated glomerular filtration rate in hospitalised older patients (over 65) with COVID-19: a multicentre, European, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The reduced renal function has prognostic significance in COVID-19 and it has been linked to mortality in the general population. Reduced renal function is prevalent in older age and thus we set out to better understand its effect on mortality. METHODS: Patient clinical and demographic data was taken from the COVID-19 in Older People (COPE) study during two periods (February-June 2020 and October 2020-March 2021, respectively). Kidney function on admission was measured using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The primary outcomes were time to mortality and 28-day mortality. Secondary outcome was length of hospital stay. Data were analysed with multilevel Cox proportional hazards regression, and multilevel logistic regression and adjusted for individual patient clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred two patients (55.0% male; median [IQR] 80 [73-86] years) were included in the study. 28-day mortality was 42.3% (n = 742). 48% (n = 801) had evidence of renal impairment on admission. Using a time-to-event analysis, reduced renal function was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (compared to eGFR ≥ 60 [Stage 1&2]): eGFR 45-59 [Stage 3a] aHR = 1.26 (95%CI 1.02-1.55); eGFR 30-44 [Stage 3b] aHR = 1.41 (95%CI 1.14-1.73); eGFR 1-29 [Stage 4&5] aHR = 1.42 (95%CI 1.13-1.80). In the co-primary outcome of 28-day mortality, mortality was associated with: Stage 3a adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.18 (95%CI 0.88-1.58), Stage 3b aOR = 1.40 (95%CI 1.03-1.89); and Stage 4&5 aOR = 1.65 (95%CI 1.16-2.35). CONCLUSION: eGFR on admission is a good independent predictor of mortality in hospitalised older patients with COVID-19 population. We found evidence of a dose-response between reduced renal function and increased mortality.

Multiple house occupancy is associated with mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries mandated staying at home to reduce transmission. This study examined the association between living arrangements (house occupancy numbers) and outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: Study population was drawn from the COPE study, a multicentre cohort study. House occupancy was defined as: living alone; living with one other person; living with multiple other people; or living in a nursing/residential home. Outcomes were time from admission to mortality and discharge (Cox regression), and Day 28 mortality (logistic regression) analyses were adjusted for key comorbidities and covariates including admission: age, sex, smoking, heart failure, admission C-reactive protein (CRP), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, frailty and others. RESULTS: A total of 1584 patients were included from 13 hospitals across UK and Italy: 676 (42.7%) were female, 907 (57.3%) were male, median age was 74 years (range: 19-101). At 28 days, 502 (31.7%) had died. Median admission CRP was 67, 82, 79.5 and 83 mg/l for those living alone, with someone else, in a house of multiple occupancy and in a nursing/residential home, respectively. Compared to living alone, living with anyone was associated with increased mortality: within a couple [adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) = 1.39, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.09-1.77, P = 0.007]; living in a house of multiple occupancy (aHR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.38, P = 0.005); and living in a residential home (aHR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.03-1.80, P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: For patients hospitalized with COVID-19, those living with one or more people had an increased association with mortality, they also exhibited higher CRP indicating increased disease severity suggesting they delayed seeking care.

Impact of COVID-19 on care-home mortality and life expectancy in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 deaths are commoner among care-home residents, but the mortality burden has not been quantified. METHODS: Care-home residency was identified via a national primary care registration database linked to mortality data. Life expectancy was estimated using Makeham-Gompertz models to (i) describe yearly life expectancy from November 2015 to October 2020 (ii) compare life expectancy (during 2016-18) between care-home residents and the wider population and (iii) apply care-home life expectancy estimates to COVID-19 death counts to estimate years of life lost (YLL). RESULTS: Among care-home residents, life expectancy in 2015/16 to 2019/20 ranged from 2.7 to 2.3 years for women and 2.3 to 1.8 years for men. Age-sex-specific life expectancy in 2016-18 in care-home residents was lower than in the Scottish population (10 and 2.5 years in those aged 70 and 90, respectively). Applying care home-specific life expectancies to COVID-19 deaths yield mean YLLs for care-home residents of 2.6 and 2.2 for women and men, respectively. In total YLL care-home residents have lost 3,560 years in women and 2,046 years in men. Approximately half of deaths and a quarter of YLL attributed to COVID-19 were accounted for by the 5% of over-70s who were care-home residents. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection has led to the loss of substantial years of life in care-home residents aged 70 years and over in Scotland. Prioritising the 5% of older adults who are care-home residents for vaccination is justified not only in terms of total deaths, but also in terms of YLL.

Routine use of immunosuppressants is associated with mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Whilst there is literature on the impact of SARS viruses in the severely immunosuppressed, less is known about the link between routine immunosuppressant use and outcome in COVID-19. Consequently, guidelines on their use vary depending on specific patient populations. METHODS: The study population was drawn from the COPE Study (COVID-19 in Older People), a multicentre observational cohort study, across the UK and Italy. Data were collected between 27 February and 28 April 2020 by trained data-collectors and included all unselected consecutive admissions with COVID-19. Load (name/number of medications) and dosage of immunosuppressant were collected along with other covariate data. Primary outcome was time-to-mortality from the date of admission (or) date of diagnosis, if diagnosis was five or more days after admission. Secondary outcomes were Day-14 mortality and time-to-discharge. Data were analysed with mixed-effects, Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models using non-users of immunosuppressants as the reference group. RESULTS: In total 1184 patients were eligible for inclusion. The median (IQR) age was 74 (62-83), 676 (57%) were male, and 299 (25.3%) died in hospital (total person follow-up 15,540 days). Most patients exhibited at least one comorbidity, and 113 (~10%) were on immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased mortality: aHR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.69 (time to mortality) and aOR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.01-2.88 (14-day mortality). There also appeared to be a dose-response relationship. CONCLUSION: Despite possible indication bias, until further evidence emerges we recommend adhering to public health measures, a low threshold to seek medical advice and close monitoring of symptoms in those who take immunosuppressants routinely regardless of their indication. However, it should be noted that the inability to control for the underlying condition requiring immunosuppressants is a major limitation, and hence caution should be exercised in interpretation of the results. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Regular Use of Immune Suppressing Drugs is Associated with Increased Risk of Death in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 Background: We do not have much information on how the COVID-19 virus affects patients who use immunosuppressants, drugs which inhibit or reduce the activity of the immune system. There are various conflicting views on whether immune-suppressing drugs are beneficial or detrimental in patients with the disease. Methods: This study collected data from 10 hospitals in the UK and one in Italy between February and April 2020 in order to identify any association between the regular use of immunosuppressant medicines and survival in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Results: 1184 patients were included in the study, and 10% of them were using immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased risk of death, and the risk appeared to increase if the dose of the medicine was higher. Conclusion: We therefore recommend that patients who take immunosuppressant medicines routinely should carefully adhere to social distancing measures, and seek medical attention early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 associated stroke: a UK multicentre case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: We set out to determine which characteristics and outcomes of stroke are associated with COVID-19. METHODS: This case-control study included patients admitted with stroke to 13 hospitals in England and Scotland between 9 March and 5 July 2020. We collected data on 86 strokes (81 ischaemic strokes and 5 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients with evidence of COVID-19 at the time of stroke onset (cases). They were compared with 1384 strokes (1193 ischaemic strokes and 191 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients admitted during the same time period who never had evidence of COVID-19 (controls). In addition, the whole group of stroke admissions, including another 37 patients who appeared to have developed COVID-19 after their stroke, were included in two logistic regression analyses examining which features were independently associated with COVID-19 status and with inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Cases with ischaemic stroke were more likely than ischaemic controls to occur in Asians (18.8% vs 6.7%, p<0.0002), were more likely to involve multiple large vessel occlusions (17.9% vs 8.1%, p<0.03), were more severe (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 8 vs 5, p<0.002), were associated with higher D-dimer levels (p<0.01) and were associated with more severe disability on discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score 4 vs 3, p<0.0001) and inpatient death (19.8% vs 6.9%, p<0.0001). Recurrence of stroke during the patient's admission was rare in cases and controls (2.3% vs 1.0%, NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that COVID-19 may be an important modifier of the onset, characteristics and outcome of acute ischaemic stroke.

The Clinical Frailty Scale: Estimating the Prevalence of Frailty in Older Patients Hospitalised with COVID-19. The COPE Study.

Frailty assessed using Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a good predictor of adverse clinical events including mortality in older people. CFS is also an essential criterion for determining ceilings of care in people with COVID-19. Our aims were to assess the prevalence of frailty in older patients hospitalised with COVID-19, their sex and age distribution, and the completion rate of the CFS tool in evaluating frailty. Methods: Data were collected from thirteen sites. CFS was assessed routinely at the time of admission to hospital and ranged from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill). The completion rate of the CFS was assessed. The presence of major comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease was noted. Results: A total of 1277 older patients with COVID-19, aged ≥ 65 (79.9 ± 8.1) years were included in the study, with 98.5% having fully completed CFS. The total prevalence of frailty (CFS ≥ 5) was 66.9%, being higher in women than men (75.2% vs. 59.4%, p < 0.001). Frailty was found in 161 (44%) patients aged 65-74 years, 352 (69%) in 75-84 years, and 341 (85%) in ≥85 years groups, and increased across the age groups (<0.0001, test for trend). Conclusion: Frailty was prevalent in our cohort of older people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. This indicates that older people who are also frail, who go on to contract COVID-19 may have disease severity significant enough to warrant hospitalization. These data may help inform health care planners and targeted interventions and appropriate management for the frail older person.

The influence of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on hospital length of stay and survival in people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic the continuation or cessation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been contentious. Mechanisms have been proposed for both beneficial and detrimental effects. Recent studies have focused on mortality with no literature having examined length of hospital stay. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of ACEi and ARBs on COVID-19 mortality and length of hospital stay. METHODS: COPE (COVID-19 in Older People) is a multicenter observational study including adults of all ages admitted with either laboratory or clinically confirmed COVID-19. Routinely generated hospital data were collected. Primary outcome: mortality; secondary outcomes: Day-7 mortality and length of hospital stay. A mixed-effects multivariable Cox's proportional baseline hazards model and logistic equivalent were used. RESULTS: 1371 patients were included from eleven centres between 27th February to 25th April 2020. Median age was 74 years [IQR 61-83]. 28.6% of patients were taking an ACEi or ARB. There was no effect of ACEi or ARB on inpatient mortality (aHR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.65-1.11). For those prescribed an ACEi or ARB, hospital stay was significantly reduced (aHR = 1.25, 95%CI 1.02-1.54, p = 0.03) and in those with hypertension the effect was stronger (aHR = 1.39, 95%CI 1.09-1.77, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians can be reassured that prescription of an ACEi or ARB at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis is not harmful. The benefit of prescription of an ACEi or ARB in reducing hospital stay is a new finding.

The Clinical Frailty Scale: Estimating the Prevalence of Frailty in Older Patients Hospitalised with COVID-19. The COPE Study

Frailty assessed using Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a good predictor of adverse clinical events including mortality in older people. CFS is also an essential criterion for determining ceilings of care in people with COVID-19. Our aims were to assess the prevalence of frailty in older patients hospitalised with COVID-19, their sex and age distribution, and the completion rate of the CFS tool in evaluating frailty. Methods: Data were collected from thirteen sites. CFS was assessed routinely at the time of admission to hospital and ranged from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill). The completion rate of the CFS was assessed. The presence of major comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease was noted. Results: A total of 1277 older patients with COVID-19, aged ≥65 (79.9 ±8.1) years were included in the study, with 98.5% having fully completed CFS. The total prevalence of frailty (CFS ≥5) was 66.9%, being higher in women than men (75.2% vs. 59.4%, p <0.001). Frailty was found in 161 (44%) patients aged 65-74 years, 352 (69%) in 75-84 years, and 341 (85%) in ≥85 years groups, and increased across the age groups (<0.0001, test for trend). Conclusion: Frailty was prevalent in our cohort of older people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. This indicates that older people who are also frail, who go on to contract COVID-19 may have disease severity significant enough to warrant hospitalization. These data may help inform health care planners and targeted interventions and appropriate management for the frail older person.

The effect of frailty on survival in patients with COVID-19 (COPE): a multicentre, European, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on health-care systems. Frailty is being used in clinical decision making for patients with COVID-19, yet the prevalence and effect of frailty in people with COVID-19 is not known. In the COVID-19 in Older PEople (COPE) study we aimed to establish the prevalence of frailty in patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and investigate its association with mortality and duration of hospital stay. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study conducted at ten hospitals in the UK and one in Italy. All adults (≥18 years) admitted to participating hospitals with COVID-19 were included. Patients with incomplete hospital records were excluded. The study analysed routinely generated hospital data for patients with COVID-19. Frailty was assessed by specialist COVID-19 teams using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and patients were grouped according to their score (1-2=fit; 3-4=vulnerable, but not frail; 5-6=initial signs of frailty but with some degree of independence; and 7-9=severe or very severe frailty). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality (time from hospital admission to mortality and day-7 mortality). FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, and April 28, 2020, we enrolled 1564 patients with COVID-19. The median age was 74 years (IQR 61-83); 903 (57·7%) were men and 661 (42·3%) were women; 425 (27·2%) had died at data cutoff (April 28, 2020). 772 (49·4%) were classed as frail (CFS 5-8) and 27 (1·7%) were classed as terminally ill (CFS 9). Compared with CFS 1-2, the adjusted hazard ratios for time from hospital admission to death were 1·55 (95% CI 1·00-2·41) for CFS 3-4, 1·83 (1·15-2·91) for CFS 5-6, and 2·39 (1·50-3·81) for CFS 7-9, and adjusted odds ratios for day-7 mortality were 1·22 (95% CI 0·63-2·38) for CFS 3-4, 1·62 (0·81-3·26) for CFS 5-6, and 3·12 (1·56-6·24) for CFS 7-9. INTERPRETATION: In a large population of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, disease outcomes were better predicted by frailty than either age or comorbidity. Our results support the use of CFS to inform decision making about medical care in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. FUNDING: None.

Research with older people in a world with COVID-19: identification of current and future priorities, challenges and opportunities.

Older people are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a profound impact on research as well as clinical service delivery. This commentary identifies key challenges and opportunities in continuing to conduct research with and for older people, both during and after the current pandemic. It shares opinions from responders to an international survey, a range of academic authors and opinions from specialist societies. Priorities in COVID-19 research include its specific presentation in older people, consequences for physical, cognitive and psychological health, treatments and vaccines, rehabilitation, supporting care homes more effectively, the impact of social distancing, lockdown policies and system reconfiguration to provide best health and social care for older people. COVID-19 research needs to be inclusive, particularly involving older people living with frailty, cognitive impairment or multimorbidity, and those living in care homes. Non-COVID-19 related research for older people remains of critical importance and must not be neglected in the rush to study the pandemic. Profound changes are required in the way that we design and deliver research for older people in a world where movement and face-to-face contact are restricted, but we also highlight new opportunities such as the ability to collaborate more widely and to design and deliver research efficiently at scale and speed.