What changed between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave? A multicentric Portuguese cohort study in intensive care. / O que mudou entre os períodos de pico e de platô durante a primeira onda do SARS-CoV-2? Estudo multicêntrico português em unidades de cuidados intensivos.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare COVID-19 patient characteristics, clinical management and outcomes between the peak and plateau periods of the first pandemic wave in Portugal. METHODS: This was a multicentric ambispective cohort study including consecutive severe COVID-19 patients between March and August 2020 from 16 Portuguese intensive care units. The peak and plateau periods, respectively, weeks 10 - 16 and 17 - 34, were defined. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-one adult patients with a median age of 65 [57 - 74] years, mostly male (71.2%), were included. There were no significant differences in median age (p = 0.3), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0.8), partial arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (139 versus 136; p = 0.6), antibiotic therapy (57% versus 64%; p = 0.2) at admission, or 28-day mortality (24.4% versus 22.8%; p = 0.7) between the peak and plateau periods. During the peak period, patients had fewer comorbidities (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0.002) and presented a higher use of vasopressors (47% versus 36%; p < 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (58.1 versus 49.2%; p < 0.001) at admission, prone positioning (45% versus 36%; p = 0.04), and hydroxychloroquine (59% versus 10%; p < 0.001) and lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0.001) prescriptions. However, a greater use of high-flow nasal cannulas (5% versus 16%, p < 0.001) on admission, remdesivir (0.3% versus 15%; p < 0.001) and corticosteroid (29% versus 52%, p < 0.001) therapy, and a shorter ICU length of stay (12 days versus 8, p < 0.001) were observed during the plateau. CONCLUSION: There were significant changes in patient comorbidities, intensive care unit therapies and length of stay between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 wave.

OBJETIVO: Analisar e comparar as características de pacientes críticos com a COVID-19, a abordagem clínica e os resultados entre os períodos de pico e de platô na primeira onda pandêmica em Portugal. MÉTODOS: Este foi um estudo de coorte multicêntrico ambispectivo, que incluiu pacientes consecutivos com a forma grave da COVID-19 entre março e agosto de 2020 de 16 unidades de terapia intensiva portuguesas. Definiram-se as semanas 10 - 16 e 17 - 34 como os períodos de pico e platô. RESULTADOS: Incluíram-se 541 pacientes adultos com mediana de idade de 65 [57 - 74] anos, a maioria do sexo masculino (71,2%). Não houve diferenças significativas na mediana de idade (p = 0,3), no Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0,8), na pressão parcial de oxigênio/fração inspirada de oxigênio (139 versus 136; p = 0,6), na terapia com antibióticos na admissão (57% versus 64%; p = 0,2) ou na mortalidade aos 28 dias (24,4% versus 22,8%; p = 0,7) entre o período de pico e platô. Durante o período de pico, os pacientes tiveram menos comorbidades (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0,002); fizeram mais uso de vasopressores (47% versus 36%; p < 0,001) e ventilação mecânica invasiva na admissão (58,1% versus 49,2%; p < 0,001), e tiveram mais prescrição de hidroxicloroquina (59% versus 10%; p < 0,001), lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0,001) e posição prona (45% versus 36%; p = 0,04). Entretanto, durante o platô, observou-se maior uso de cânulas nasais de alto fluxo (5% versus 16%; p < 0,001) na admissão, remdesivir (0,3% versus 15%; p < 0,001) e corticosteroides (29% versus 52%; p < 0,001), além de menor tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva (12 versus 8 dias; p < 0,001). CONCLUSÃO: Houve mudanças significativas nas comorbidades dos pacientes, nos tratamentos da unidade de terapia intensiva e no tempo de internação entre os períodos de pico e platô na primeira onda da COVID-19.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study.

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the ISARIC WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Due to the large number of patients with severe COVID-19, many were treated outside of the traditional walls of the ICU, and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside of the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC WHO COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes, and vasopressors. A logistic Generalised Additive Model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted and not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median [IQR], 67 years [55, 78]), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 days (5–19) and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those that were cared for outside of ICU (12 [6–23] versus 8 [4–15] days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% [5797/18831] versus 39.0% [7532/19295], p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR:0.70, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside of an ICU.

The Impact of Health Literacy on Knowledge and Attitudes towards Preventive Strategies against COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced a set of mitigation measures based on personal behavior and attitudes. In the absence of vaccination or specific treatment, it became essential to comply with these measures to reduce infection transmission. Health literacy is the basis for changing behaviors. AIM: To characterize the impact of literacy on knowledge and attitudes towards preventive strategies against COVID-19. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved an online questionnaire applied to students of the University of Porto, Portugal, containing questions about knowledge and attitudes towards COVID-19 based on European guidelines. Health literacy was assessed through the Newest Vital Sign questionnaire. Logistic regression estimated the relationship between health literacy and both knowledge and attitudes. RESULTS: We included 871 participants (76.3% female), with a median age of 22 years old. We found adequate literacy in 92% of our sample, irrespective of gender and age. In the global analysis, 78.6% of the participants had adequate knowledge, and 90.4% had adequate attitudes. We found that better literacy was significantly associated with attitudes towards COVID-19, but not with better knowledge. In a model adjusted for gender, age, and previous education in the health field, female gender and previous education in the health field were associated with better knowledge and attitudes. CONCLUSION: Better health literacy is associated with better attitudes towards preventive strategies against COVID-19. We should invest in ways to improve health literacy, so we can improve people's attitudes and consequently reduce coronavirus' transmission.