Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e044384, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1090929

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to describe evolution, epidemiology and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in subjects tested at or admitted to hospitals in North West London. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (LNWH). PARTICIPANTS: Patients tested and/or admitted for COVID-19 at LNWH during March and April 2020 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive and analytical epidemiology of demographic and clinical outcomes (intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality) of those who tested positive for COVID-19. RESULTS: The outbreak began in the first week of March 2020 and reached a peak by the end of March and first week of April. In the study period, 6183 tests were performed in on 4981 people. Of the 2086 laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases, 1901 were admitted to hospital. Older age group, men and those of black or Asian minority ethnic (BAME) group were predominantly affected (p<0.05). These groups also had more severe infection resulting in ICU admission and need for mechanical ventilation (p<0.05). However, in a multivariate analysis, only increasing age was independently associated with increased risk of death (p<0.05). Mortality rate was 26.9% in hospitalised patients. CONCLUSION: The findings confirm that men, BAME and older population were most commonly and severely affected groups. Only older age was independently associated with mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units , London/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Risk Factors , Young Adult
2.
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e047110, 2021 02 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1075984

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and false-negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and develop and internally validate a diagnostic risk score to predict risk of COVID-19 (including RT-PCR-negative COVID-19) among medical admissions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two hospitals within an acute NHS Trust in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to medical wards between 2 March and 3 May 2020. OUTCOMES: Main outcomes were diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and mortality during hospital admission. For the diagnostic risk score, we report discrimination, calibration and diagnostic accuracy of the model and simplified risk score and internal validation. RESULTS: 4008 patients were admitted between 2 March and 3 May 2020. 1792 patients (44.8%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 1391 were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and 283 had only negative RT-PCRs. Compared with a clinical reference standard, sensitivity of RT-PCR in hospital patients was 83.1% (95% CI 81.2%-84.8%). Broadly, patients with false-negative RT-PCR COVID-19 and those confirmed by positive PCR had similar demographic and clinical characteristics but lower risk of intensive care unit admission and lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.61). A simple diagnostic risk score comprising of age, sex, ethnicity, cough, fever or shortness of breath, National Early Warning Score 2, C reactive protein and chest radiograph appearance had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver-operator curve 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85), good calibration and was internally validated. CONCLUSION: RT-PCR-negative COVID-19 is common and is associated with lower mortality despite similar presentation. Diagnostic risk scores could potentially help triage patients requiring admission but need external validation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , False Negative Reactions , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , London/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
3.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 20(5): e165-e169, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-652106

ABSTRACT

We describe the London community testing programme developed for COVID-19, audit its effectiveness and report patient acceptability and patient adherence to isolation guidance, based upon a survey conducted with participants.Any patients meeting the Public Health England (PHE) case definition for COVID-19 who did not require hospital admission were eligible for community testing. 2,053 patients with suspected COVID-19 were tested in the community between January and March 2020. Of those tested, 75 (3.6%) were positive. 88% of patients that completed a patient survey felt safe and 82% agreed that community testing was preferable to hospital admission. 97% were able to remain within their own home during the isolation period but just 41% were able to reliably isolate from other members of their household.The London community testing programme allowed widespread testing for COVID-19 while minimising patient transport, hospital admissions and staff exposures. Community testing was acceptable to patients and preferable to admission to hospital. Patients were able to reliably isolate in their home but not from household contacts. The authors believe in the importance, feasibility and acceptability of community testing for COVID-19 as a part of a package of interventions to mitigate a second wave of infection.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Community Health Services/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , England , Female , Humans , London , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Program Development , Program Evaluation , Public Health
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL