One year health outcomes associated with systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundIn patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, dexamethasone reduces acute severity and improves survival, but longer-term effects are unknown. We hypothesised that systemic corticosteroid administration during acute COVID-19 would be associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) one year after discharge. MethodsAdults admitted to hospital between February 2020 and March 2021 for COVID-19 and meeting current guideline recommendations for dexamethasone treatment were included using two prospective UK cohort studies. HRQoL, assessed by EQ-5D-5L utility index, pre-hospital and one year after discharge were compared between those receiving corticosteroids or not after propensity weighting for treatment. Secondary outcomes included patient reported recovery, physical and mental health status, and measures of organ impairment. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for survival and selection bias. FindingsIn 1,888 participants included in the primary analysis, 1,149 received corticosteroids. There was no between-group difference in EQ-5D-5L utility index at one year (mean difference 0.004, 95% CI: -0.026 to 0.034, p = 0.77). A similar reduction in EQ-5D-5L was seen at one year between corticosteroid exposed and non-exposed groups (mean (SD) change -0.12 (0.22) vs -0.11 (0.22), p = 0.32). Overall, there were no differences in secondary outcome measures. After sensitivity analyses modelled using a larger cohort of 109,318 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, EQ-5D-5L utility index at one year remained similar between the two groups. InterpretationSystemic corticosteroids for acute COVID-19 have no impact on the large reduction in HRQoL one year after hospital discharge. Treatments to address this are urgently needed. Take home messageSystemic corticosteroids given for acute COVID-19 do not affect health-related quality of life or other patient reported outcomes, physical and mental health outcomes, and organ function one year after hospital discharge

Cohort Profile: Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) (preprint)

Abstract [bullet] PHOSP-COVID is a national UK multi-centre cohort study of patients who were hospitalised for COVID-19 and subsequently discharged. [bullet] PHOSP-COVID was established to investigate the medium- and long-term sequelae of severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation, understand the underlying mechanisms of these sequelae, evaluate the medium- and long-term effects of COVID-19 treatments, and to serve as a platform to enable future studies, including clinical trials. [bullet] Data collected covered a wide range of physical measures, biological samples, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). [bullet] Participants could join the cohort either in Tier 1 only with remote data collection using hospital records, a PROMs app and postal saliva sample for DNA, or in Tier 2 where they were invited to attend two specific research visits for further data collection and biological research sampling. These research visits occurred at five (range 2-7) months and 12 (range 10-14) months post-discharge. Participants could also participate in specific nested studies (Tier 3) at selected sites. [bullet] All participants were asked to consent to further follow-up for 25 years via linkage to their electronic healthcare records and to be re-contacted for further research. [bullet] In total, 7935 participants were recruited from 83 UK sites: 5238 to Tier 1 and 2697 to Tier 2, between August 2020 and March 2022. [bullet] Cohort data are held in a Trusted Research Environment and samples stored in a central biobank. Data and samples can be accessed upon request and subject to approvals.

Evaluation of S/F94 as a proxy for COVID-19 severity (preprint)

Optimising statistical power in early-stage trials and observational studies accelerates discovery and improves the reliability of results. Ideally, intermediate outcomes should be continuously distributed and lie on the causal pathway between an intervention and a definitive outcome such as mortality. In order to optimise power for an intermediate outcome in the RECOVERY trial, we devised and evaluated a modification to a simple, pragmatic measure of oxygenation function - the SaO2/FIO2 (S/F) ratio. We demonstrate that, because of the ceiling effect in oxyhaemoglobin saturation, S/F ceases to reflect pulmonary oxygenation function at high values of SaO2. Using synthetic and real data, we found that the correlation of S/F with a gold standard (PaO2/FIO2, P/F ratio) improved substantially when measurements with SaO2 > 0.94 are excluded(Spearman r, synthetic data: S/F: 0.31; S/F94: 0.85). We refer to this measure as S/F94. In order to test the underlying assumptions and validity of S/F94 as a predictor of a definitive outcome (mortality), we collected an observational dataset including over 39,000 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the ISARIC4C study. We first demonstrated that S/F94 is predictive of mortality in COVID-19. We then compared the sample sizes required for trials using different outcome measures (S/F94, the WHO ordinal scale, sustained improvement at day 28 and mortality at day 28) ensuring comparable effect sizes. The smallest sample size was needed when S/F94 on day 5 was used as an outcome measure. To facilitate future study design, we provide an online user interface to quantify realworld power for a range of outcomes and inclusion criteria, using a synthetic dataset retaining the population-level clinical associations in real data accrued in ISARIC4C https://isaric4c.net/endpoints. We demonstrated that S/F94 is superior to S/F as a measure of pulmonary oxygenation function and is an effective intermediate outcome measure in COVID-19. It is a simple and non-invasive measurement, representative of disease severity and provides greater statistical power to detect treatment differences than other intermediate endpoints.

Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of Long-COVID and association with one-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study (preprint)

Background There are currently no effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for Long-COVID. To identify potential therapeutic targets, we focussed on previously described four recovery clusters five months after hospital discharge, their underlying inflammatory profiles and relationship with clinical outcomes at one year. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a prospective longitudinal cohort study, recruiting adults hospitalised with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs), physical performance, and organ function at five-months and one-year after hospital discharge. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at one-year. Cluster analysis was performed using clustering large applications (CLARA) k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at five-months. Inflammatory protein profiling from plasma at the five-month visit was performed. Findings 2320 participants have been assessed at five months after discharge and 807 participants have completed both five-month and one-year visits. Of these, 35.6% were female, mean age 58.7 (SD 12.5) years, and 27.8% received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between five months 501/165 (25.6%) and one year 232/804 (28.9%). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at one year were: female sex OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.46-0.99), obesity OR 0.50 (95%CI 0.34-0.74) and IMV OR 0.42 (95%CI 0.23-0.76). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate/cognitive, mild relating to the severity of physical, mental health and cognitive impairments at five months in a larger sample. There was elevation of inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate/cognitive clusters compared to the mild cluster including interleukin-6 which was elevated in both comparisons. Overall, there was a substantial deficit in median (IQR) EQ5D-5L utility index from pre-COVID (retrospective assessment) 0.88 (0.74-1.00), five months 0.74 (0.60-0.88) to one year: 0.74 (0.59-0.88), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at one-year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters. Interpretation The sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 remain substantial one year after discharge across a range of health domains with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient perceived health-related quality of life remains reduced at one year compared to pre-hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials.

‘Guided by the science’: (De)politicising the UK government’s response to the coronavirus crisis

This article sets out to examine the politicising and depoliticising effects of the various stories that were deployed by the UK government in its response to the coronavirus crisis during its daily press briefings over a 2-month period between 16 March and 16 May 2020. In doing so, we identify four key narratives: (1) unprecedented government activism;(2) working to plan;(3) national security, wartime unity and sacrifice;and (4) scientific guidance. Through a quantitative and qualitative study of the deployment of these narratives, we attempt to further recent theoretical insights on depoliticisation by noting that the COVID-19 crisis produced a particular type of crisis moment in which the government was forced to respond in ‘real time’ to a set of circumstances which were rapidly changing. As such, this made it much more difficult to control the various stories they wanted to tell and therefore find a coherent ‘anchor’ for their politicising and depoliticising strategies. This led to some deft discursive footwork as the government sought to pass the ball of responsibility between various groups of actors in order to rapidly and continually shift the balance between avoiding blame and taking credit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of British Journal of Politics & International Relations is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Physical, cognitive and mental health impacts of COVID-19 following hospitalisation: a multi-centre prospective cohort study (preprint)

Background The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health, and employment following hospitalisation is poorly understood. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre, UK, observational study of adults discharged from hospital with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 involving an assessment between two- and seven-months later including detailed symptom, physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for patient-perceived recovery with age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, and severity of acute illness as co-variates. Cluster analysis was performed using outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognition and physical function. Findings We report findings of 1077 patients discharged in 2020, from the assessment undertaken a median 5 [IQR4 to 6] months later: 36% female, mean age 58 [SD 13] years, 69% white ethnicity, 27% mechanical ventilation, and 50% had at least two co-morbidities. At follow-up only 29% felt fully recovered, 20% had a new disability, and 19% experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with failure to recover were female, middle-age, white ethnicity, two or more co-morbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial and weakly related to acute severity. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment: 1) Very severe (17%), 2) Severe (21%), 3) Moderate with cognitive impairment (17%), 4) Mild (46%), with 3%, 7%, 36% and 43% feeling fully recovered, respectively. Persistent systemic inflammation determined by C-reactive protein was related to cluster severity, but not acute illness severity. Interpretation We identified factors related to recovery from a hospital admission with COVID-19 and four different phenotypes relating to the severity of physical, mental, and cognitive health five months later. The implications for clinical care include the potential to stratify care and the need for a pro-active approach with wide-access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services. Funding: UKRI and NIHR

An External Validation of the QCovid Risk Prediction Algorithm for Risk of Mortality from COVID-19 in Adults: National Validation Cohort Study in Scotland (preprint)

Background: The QCovid algorithm is a risk prediction tool for COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality that can be used to stratify patients by risk into vulnerability groups . We carried out an external validation of the QCovid algorithm in Scotland.Methods: We established a national COVID-19 data platform using individual level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithm in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisation and deaths in our dataset for two time periods: 1 March, 2020 to 30 April, 2020, and 1 May, 2020 to 30 June, 2020.Findings: Our dataset comprised 5,384,819 individuals, representing 99% of the estimated population (5,463,300) resident in Scotland in 2020. The algorithm showed excellent calibration in both time periods with close correspondence between observed and predicted risks. Harrell ’s C for deaths in males and females in the first period was 0.946 (95% CI: 0.941 - 0.951) and 0.925 (95% CI: 0.919 - 0.931) respectively. Harrell’s C for hospitalisations in males and females in the first period was 0.809 (95% CI: 0.801 - 0.817) and 0.816 (95% CI: 0.808 - 0.823) respectively.Interpretation: The QCovid algorithm shows high levels of external validity in predicting the risk of COVID- 19 hospitalisation and death in the population of Scotland.Funding: Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund Health Data Research UK.Declaration of Interests: Dr. Hippisley-Cox reports grants from MRC, grants from Wellcome Trrust, grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; other from ClinRisk Ltd, outside the submitted work. Dr. Sheikh reports grants from NIHR, grants from MRC, grants from HRR UK, during the conduct of the study. All other authors report no conflict of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical permission for this study was granted from South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 02 [12/SS/0201]. The Public Benefit and Privacy Panel Committee of Public Health Scotland, approved the linkage and analysis of the de-identified datasets for this project [1920-0279].

Effectiveness of First Dose of COVID-19 Vaccines Against Hospital Admissions in Scotland: National Prospective Cohort Study of 5.4 Million People (preprint)

Background: The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated high efficacy against infection in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. There is an urgent need to study the ‘real-world’ effects of these vaccines. The aim of our study was to estimate the effectiveness of the first dose of these COVID-19 vaccines in preventing hospital admissions.Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) database comprising of linked vaccination, primary care, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing, hospitalisation and mortality records for 5.4 million people in Scotland (covering ~99% of population). A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 related hospitalisation (defined as 1- Adjusted Hazard Ratio) following the first dose of vaccine.Findings: The first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76 to 91) for COVID-19 related hospitalisation at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 94% (95% CI 73 to 99). Results of combined vaccine effect for prevention of COVID-19 related hospitalisation were comparable when restricting the analysis to those aged ≥80 years (81%; 95% CI 65 to 90 at 28-34 days post-vaccination).Interpretation: A single dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines resulted in substantial reductions in the risk of COVID-19 related hospitalisation in Scotland.Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council); Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund; Health Data Research UK.Conflict of Interest: AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19Advisory Group and the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats (NERVTAG) Risk Stratification Subgroup. CRS declares funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO and New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and Health Research Council during the conduct of this study. SVK is co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on COVID-19 and ethnicity, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity and acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship, MRC and CSO. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.Ethical Approval: Approvals were obtained from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (reference number: 12/SS/0201) and Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (reference number: 1920-0279).