Validation of the russian version of the 4C Mortality Score and prediction of outcomes of severe COVID-19

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.

The role of pandemic planning in the management of COVID-19 in England from an infection prevention and control perspective: results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: This national survey aimed to explore how existing pandemic preparedness plans (PPP) accounted for the demands placed on infection prevention and control (IPC) services in acute and community settings in England during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey of IPC leaders working within National Health Service Trusts or clinical commissioning groups/integrated care systems in England. METHODS: The survey questions related to organisational COVID-19 preparedness pre-pandemic and the response provided during the first wave of the pandemic (January to July 2020). The survey ran from September to November 2021, and participation was voluntary. RESULTS: In total, 50 organisations responded. Seventy-one percent (n = 34/48) reported having a current PPP in December 2019, with 81% (n = 21/26) indicating their plan was updated within the previous 3 years. Around half of IPC teams were involved in previous testing of these plans via internal and multi-agency tabletop exercises. Successful aspects of pandemic planning were identified as command structures, clear channels of communication, COVID-19 testing, and patient pathways. Key deficiencies were lack of personal protective equipment, difficulties with fit testing, keeping up to date with guidance, and insufficient staffing. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic plans need to consider the capability and capacity of IPC services to ensure they can contribute their critical knowledge and expertise to the pandemic response. This survey provides a detailed evaluation of how IPC services were impacted during the first wave of the pandemic and identifies key areas, which need to be included in future PPP to better manage the impact on IPC services.

Pediatric Covid-19 Mortality: Twosided Challenges from Health Resource Disparity

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted high (HICs) and low to high- middle income countries (LHMICs) disproportionately. We sought to investigate factors contributing to disparate pediatric COVID-19 mortality. METHOD(S): We used the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database, and stratified country group defined by World Bank criteria. All hospitalized patients aged less than 19 years with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from January 2020 through April 2021 were included. RESULT(S): A total of 12,860 patients with 3,819 cases from HICs and 9,041 cases from LHMICs were included in this study. Of these, 8,961 (73.8%) patiens were confirmed cases and 2444 (20.1%) were suspected COVID19. Overall in-hospital mortality was 425 (3.3%) patients, with 4.0% mortality in LHMICs (361/9041), which was higher than 1.7% mortality in HICs (64/3819);adjusted HR (aHR) 4.74, 95%CI 3.16-7.10, p<0.001. There were significant differences between country income groups in the use of interventions, with higher use of antibiotics, corticosteroid, prone position, high flow nasal cannula, and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs, and higher use of anticoagulants and non-invasive ventilation in LHMICs. Infectious comorbidities such as tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS were shown to be more prevalent in LHMICs [2 (0.0%) vs 171 (1.9 %), 1 (0.0%) vs. 149 (1.6%) patients, respectively]. Mortality rates in children who received mechanical ventilation in LHMICs were higher compared with children in HICs [89 (43.6%) vs. 17 (7.2%) patients, aHR 12.0, CI95% 7.2-19.9, p<0.001]. CONCLUSION(S): Various contributing factors to COVID-19 mortality identified in this study may reflect management differences in HICs and LHMICs. (Figure Presented).

Implementation of corticosteroids in treatment of COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: prospective, cohort study

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.

Validation of the russian version of the 4C Mortality Score and prediction of outcomes of severe COVID-19

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.

Asthma may influence long-term consequences of COVID-19 in hospitalised adult

Background: The symptoms of the COVID-19 acute phase are well studied, but the long-term sequelae (post-COVID condition) are still poorly characterised. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of persistent symptoms in previously hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 and assess risk factors for the post-COVID condition Method: Ambidirectional cohort study of patients over 18 years hospitalised to Sechenov University Hospital Network, Moscow, Russia with clinically diagnosed or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between April 8 and July 10, 2020. Study participants were interviewed 6-8 months after discharge via telephone using a follow-up case report form (CRF) developed by ISARIC in collaboration with WHO. Identified symptoms were categorised according to organ systems. Risk factors were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. Results: Among 4,755 patients discharged from the hospitals, 2,649 were subsequently interviewed. The median age of patients was 56 years (46-66), and 1,353 patients (51.1%) were female. The follow-up median time was 217.5 days (200.4-235.5). 1,247 (47.1%) participants reported persistent symptoms (since discharge). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue (21.2%, 551/2599), shortness of breath (14.5%, 378/2614) and forgetfulness (9.1%, 237/2597). Female gender was associated with chronic fatigue with an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.39-2.02), neurological 2.03 (1.60-2.58), mental 1.83 (1.41-2.40), respiratory 1.31 (1.06-1.62) and dermatological symptoms 3.26 (2.36-4.57), GI disturbances 2.50 (1.64-3.89) and sensory problems 1.73 (2.06-2.89). Pre-existing asthma was associated with a higher risk of neurological 1.95 (1.25-2.98) and mood and behavioural changes 2.02 (1.24-3.18). Conclusion: Six to eight months after COVID-19 nearly half of patients have symptoms lasting since discharge. The main risk factor for the majority of the development of long-term symptoms was female sex. Asthma may also serve as a risk factor for the post-COVID condition. Further follow-up of patients reporting the persistence of COVID-19 symptoms and the development of interventional approaches for the prevention of post-COVID manifestations are needed.

Prospective data of first 1,797 hospitalised patients with cancer and COVID-19 derived from the COVID-19 Clinical Information Network and international Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium, WHO Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium

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.