Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 29
Filter
1.
Int J Drug Policy ; 107: 103787, 2022 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914305

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In the following weeks, most European countries implemented national lockdowns to mitigate viral spread. Services for people who use drugs had to quickly revise their operating procedures to rearrange service provision while adhering to lockdown requirements. Given the scarcity of literature published on overdose prevention during COVID-19 in Europe, we aimed to examine how these changes to service provision affected take-home naloxone (THN) programmes and naloxone availability across Europe. METHODS: Between November 2020 and January 2021, we conducted a rapid assessment with country experts from European countries that provide THN. We sent country experts a template to report monthly THN distribution data (January 1, 2019-October 31, 2020) and a structured 6-item survey for completion. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 of the 15 European countries with THN provision of which 11 participated in the rapid assessment: Austria, Denmark, England, Estonia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain (Catalonia only), Sweden, and Wales. All reported reduced organisational capacity during COVID-19, and some put into place a range of novel approaches to manage the restrictions on face-to-face service provision. In six countries, the introduction of programme innovation occurred alongside the publication of government guidelines recommending increased THN provision during COVID-19. Eight of the eleven participating countries managed to maintain 2019-level monthly THN distribution rates or even increase provision during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Through programme innovation supported by public guidelines, many European THN programmes managed to ensure stable or even increased THN provision during the pandemic, despite social distancing and stay-at-home orders affecting client mobility.

2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-336895

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in significant challenges to the provision of face-to-face clinics in geriatric perioperative care (G-POC). There are no studies evaluating the use of telemedicine in this population. A pilot study at North Bristol NHS Trust demonstrated that delivery of GPOC clinics via video consultation was feasible, but did not record outcome measures to demonstrate effectiveness and was not compared to face to face clinic. This study aims to provide proof of concept examining the outcomes of virtual G-POC consultations, compared to a face-to-face clinic, using standardised perioperative outcomes. It will test the feasibility of the intervention with a view to developing a randomised controlled trial.

3.
The Lancet regional health. Europe ; 16, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1842382

ABSTRACT

Summary Background Mandatory vaccination has been mooted to combat falling childhood vaccine uptake rates in England. This study investigated parental preferences for a mandatory vaccination scheme. Methods Discrete choice experiment. Six attributes were investigated: vaccine, child age group, incentive, penalty, ability to opt out, and compensation scheme. Mixed effects conditional logit regression models were used to investigate parental preferences and relative importance of attributes. Findings Participants were 1,001 parents of children aged 5 years and under in England (53% female;mean age=33·6 years, SD=7·1;84% white). Parental preferences were mostly based on incentives (30·7% relative importance;80·9% [95% confidence interval 76·3–85·0%] preference for parent and 74·8% [71·0–78·3%] for child incentive;reference: no incentive) and penalties (25·4% relative importance;69·5% [65·7–73·1%] preference for schemes where unvaccinated children cannot attend school or day care and 67·6% [63·6–71·4%] for those withholding financial benefits for parents of unvaccinated children;reference: £450 fine). Parents also preferred schemes that: offered a compensation scheme (18·1% relative importance;66·4% [62·7–69·8%] preference;reference: not offered), mandated vaccination in children aged 2 years (versus 5 years;11·4% relative importance;42·6% [39·4–45·9%] preference;reference: 2 years), mandated the 6-in-1 vaccine (10·5% relative importance;58·2% [54·6–61·7%] preference;reference: MMR), and that offered only medical exemptions (versus medical and religious belief exemptions;4·0% relative importance;45·5% [41·1–50·0%] preference;reference: medical exemptions). Interpretation These findings can inform policymakers’ decisions about how best to implement a mandatory childhood vaccination scheme in England. Funding Data collection was funded by a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants (SRG1920\101118).

4.
Journal of affective disorders ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1837147

ABSTRACT

Background Frailty is associated with long-term physical deterioration after COVID-19. Mental health recovery has been less well investigated. Early studies have shown minimal effect from the virus, although studies have not focused on whether people living with frailty may have different psychiatric outcomes. We aimed to examine the effect of living with frailty on mental health outcomes one year after hospital with COVID-19. Methods We undertook a multicentre cross-sectional study of people admitted with COVID-19. We assessed quality of life (ICECAP-O and MRC), psychiatric symptoms including: generalised anxiety (GAD-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and trauma (Trauma Screening Questionnaire). Frailty was measured using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). We used a multivariable mixed-effects logistic and linear regression to examine the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and adjusted mean difference (aMD). Results From eight hospitals 224 participants consented. Median follow-up time from admission 358 days (IQR 153–418), mean age 63.8 (SD = 13.7), 34.8% female (n = 78), and 43.7% living with frailty (n = 98 CFS 4–8). People living with frailty were significantly more likely to have symptoms of anxiety aOR = 5.72 (95% CI 1.71–19.13), depression aOR = 2.52 (95% CI 1.59–14.91), post-traumatic stress disorder aMD = 1.16 (95% CI 0.47, 1.85), and worse quality of life aMD = 1.06 (95% CI 0.76–1.36). Limitations Patient-rated symptoms were captured rather than formal mental health diagnoses. CFS has not been validated in under 65-year-olds. Conclusions Living with frailty is associated with significant psychiatric morbidity and reduced wellbeing one year after COVID-19 hospital admission. We recommend clinical follow-up after COVID-19 for people living with frailty should include a psychiatric assessment.

5.
Endocrinol Diabetes Metab ; 5(3): e00338, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1797923

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: To date, COVID-19 has claimed 4.9 million lives. Diabetes has been identified as an independent risk factor of serious outcomes in people with COVID-19 infection. Whether that holds true across world regions uniformly has not been previously assessed. METHODS: This study offers the first umbrella systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the collective and geographically stratified mortality, ICU admission, ventilation requirement, illness severity and discharge rate amongst patients with diabetes. Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CAB Abstracts, PsychInfo and Web of Science) and 3 additional sources (SSRN's eLibrary, Research Square and MedRxiv) were searched from inception to 30 August 2021. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, reporting the association between diabetes and one or more COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes, were included. This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021278579. Abbreviated MeSH terms used for search were as follows: (Diabetes) AND (2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease), adapted per database requirements. Exclusion criteria exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) none of the primary or secondary outcomes of meta-analysis reported, (2) no confirmed COVID-19 infection (laboratory or clinical) and (3) no unexposed population (solely patients with diabetes included). Quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) whilst quality of evidence by the GRADE framework. Studies that were clinically homogeneous were pooled. Summative data and heterogeneity were generated by the Cochrane platform RevMan (V. 5.4). RESULTS: Overall, 158 observational studies were included, with a total of 270,212 of participants, median age 59 [53-65 IQR] of who 56.5% were male. A total of 22 studies originated from EU, 90 from Far East, 16 from Middle East and 30 from America. Data were synthesized with mixed heterogeneity across outcomes. Pooled results highlighted those patients with diabetes were at a higher risk of COVID-19-related mortality, OR 1.87 [95%CI 1.61, 2.17]. ICU admissions increased across all studies for patients with diabetes, OR 1.59 [95%CI 1.15, 2.18], a result that was mainly skewed by Far East-originating studies, OR 1.94 [95%CI 1.51, 2.49]. Ventilation requirements were also increased amongst patients with diabetes worldwide, OR 1.44 [95%CI 1.20, 1.73] as well as their presentation with severe or critical condition, OR 2.88 [95%CI 2.29, 3.63]. HbA1C levels under <70 mmol and metformin use constituted protective factors in view of COVID-19 mortality, whilst the inverse was true for concurrent insulin use. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst diabetes constitutes a poor prognosticator for various COVID-19 infection outcomes, variability across world regions is significant and may skew overall trends.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus , COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
6.
BMC Geriatr ; 22(1): 119, 2022 02 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690963

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Glomerular Filtration Rate , Humans , Male , Prognosis , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2
7.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-317659

ABSTRACT

Background: Whilst there is literature on impact of the SARS viruses in the severely immunosuppressed, and those who develop exaggerated immune response, 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, carried out in UK and Italy. Data were collected between 27th February and 28th 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. The 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 (length of stay). Data were analysed with mixed-effects, Cox proportional hazards and Logistic regression models using non-users of immunosuppressants as the reference group. Results: : 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. We found that any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased mortality: aHR 1.87,95%CI:1.30,2.69 (time to mortality) and aOR1.71,95%CI:1.01-2.88 (14-day mortality). There also appeared to be a dose-response relationship. Conclusion: Despite the possibility of indication bias, until further evidence emerges we recommend adhering to public health measures stringently, a low threshold to seek medical advice and close monitoring of worsening symptoms in those who take immunosuppressants routinely regardless of their indication.

8.
Eur J Public Health ; 32(1): 133-139, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672175

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
9.
BMJ Open ; 11(12): e056091, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1546531

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Psilocybin-assisted therapy may be a new treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), with encouraging data from pilot trials. In this trial (short name: PsiDeR) we aimed to test the feasibility of a parallel-group, randomised, placebo-controlled design. The primary outcomes in this trial are measures of feasibility: recruitment rates, dropout rates and the variance of the primary outcome measure of depression. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are recruiting up to 60 participants at a single centre in London, UK who are unresponsive to, or intolerant of, at least two evidence-based treatments for MDD. Participants are randomised to receive a single dosing session of 25 mg psilocybin or a placebo. All participants receive a package of psychological therapy. The primary outcome measure for depression is the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale collected by blinded, independent raters. The primary endpoint is at 3 weeks, and the total follow-up is 6 weeks. With further informed consent, this study collects neuroimaging and omics data for mechanism and biomarker analyses and offers participants an open label extension consisting of a further, open label dose of 25 mg of psilocybin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants will be required to provide written informed consent. The trial has been authorised by the National Research Ethics Committee (20-LO/0206), Health Research Authority (252750) and Medicine's and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (CTA 14523/0284/001-0001) in the UK. Dissemination of results will occur via a peer-reviewed publication and other relevant media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EUDRACT2018-003573-97; NCT04959253.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Depressive Disorder, Major , Depressive Disorder, Major/drug therapy , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Psilocybin/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
10.
J Affect Disord ; 299: 118-125, 2022 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517308

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute effects of COVID-19 can be life-threatening. Alterations in mental health during the active infection have been documented, but the long-term consequences are less clear. METHOD: A systematic review was undertaken to investigate the effect of COVID-19 infection on long-term mental health outcomes. Three databases [PubMed, Medline (Ovid) and Cochrane library] were searched between 1st October 2019 and 29th August 2021 with additional hand searching to identify all published studies reporting symptoms of generalised anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or sleep disturbance in participants at least one month after COVID-19 infection. The prevalence and mean symptom score of each were assessed. RESULTS: Eight hundred and eighty five studies were found, of which 33 were included in the review involving a total of 6743 participants. The studies' risk of bias were typically fair quality. The median study age of participants was 57.8 years (IQR 49.3-60.7), with 63.0% male (IQR 57.0%-73.0%). Participants typically experienced no or mild symptoms of long-term anxiety (GAD-7, STAI-S, HADS) and depression (PHQ-9, BDI, PHQ-2, HADS). Prevalence varied depending on the measurement tool. Sleep disturbances (primarily insomnia) were most commonly reported as mild. PTSD prevalence was similar to anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: The overall effect of the pandemic has been linked with worsening psychiatric symptoms. However, the long-term effect from direct COVID-19 infection has been associated with no or mild symptoms. Studies exhibited the long-term prevalence of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and sleep disturbances to be comparable to general population levels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health , Anxiety/epidemiology , Depression , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292108

ABSTRACT

Background: To date, COVID-19 has claimed 4.9 million lives. Diabetes has been identified as an independent risk factor of serious outcomes in people with COVID-19 infection. Whether that holds true across world regions uniformly has not been previously assessed.Methods: This study offers the first ONTOP systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the collective and geographically stratified mortality, ICU admission, ventilation requirement, illness severity and discharge rate among patients with diabetes. Five databases were searched from inception to 30 th of August 2021. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, reporting the association between diabetes and one or more COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes, were included. This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021278579.Findings: Overall, 158 observational studies were included, with a total of 270212 of participants, median age 59 [53-65 IQR] of who 56.5 % were male. A total of 22 studies originated from EU, 90 from Far East, 16 from Middle East, and 30 from America. Data were synthesised with mixed heterogeneity across outcomes. Pooled results highlighted that patients with diabetes were at a higher risk of COVID-19-related mortality, OR 1.87 [95%CI 1.61, 2.17]. ICU admissions were increased across all studies for patients with diabetes, OR 1.59 [95%CI 1.15, 2.18], a result that was mainly skewed by Far East-originating studies, OR 1.94 [95%CI 1.51, 2.49]. Ventilation requirements were also increased amongst patients with diabetes worldwide, OR 1.44 [95%CI 1.20, 1.73] as well as their presentation with severe or critical condition, OR 2.88 [95%CI 2.29, 3.63]. HbA1C levels under < 70 mmol and metformin use constituted protective factors in view of COVID-19 mortality, while the inverse was true for concurrent insulin use.Interpretation: Whilst diabetes constitutes a poor prognosticator for various COVID-19 infection outcomes, variability across world regions is significant and may skew overall trends.Registration Details: This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021278579.Funding Information: No funding was received for the presented work.Declaration of Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

13.
Healthcare (Basel) ; 9(9)2021 Sep 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430835

ABSTRACT

Reliance on government-led policies have heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research on the policies associated with outcomes other than mortality rates remains warranted. We aimed to determine associations between government public health policies on the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. This ecological study including countries reporting ≥25 daily COVID-related deaths until end May 2020, utilised public data on policy indicators described by the Blavatnik school of Government. Associations between policy indicators and severity of the pandemic (mean mortality rate, time to peak, peak deaths per 100,000, cumulative deaths after peak per 100,000 and ratio of mean slope of the descending curve to mean slope of the ascending curve) were measured using Spearman rank-order tests. Analyses were stratified for age, income and region. Among 22 countries, containment policies such as school closures appeared effective in younger populations (rs = -0.620, p = 0.042) and debt/contract relief in older populations (rs = -0.743, p = 0.009) when assessing peak deaths per 100,000. In European countries, containment policies were generally associated with good outcomes. In non-European countries, school closures were associated with mostly good outcomes (rs = -0.757, p = 0.049 for mean mortality rate). In high-income countries, health system policies were generally effective, contrasting to low-income countries. Containment policies may be effective in younger populations or in high-income or European countries. Health system policies have been most effective in high-income countries.

15.
EClinicalMedicine ; 36: 100896, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240305

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has resulted in the largest pandemic experienced since 1918, accounting for over 2 million deaths globally. Frail and older people are at the highest risk of mortality. The main objective of the present research was to quantify the impact of clinical frailty scale (CFS) by increasing severity of frailty and to identify other personal prognostic factors associated with increased mortality from COVID-19. METHODS: This study offers a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the stratified mortality risk by increasing CFS sub-categories (1-3, 4-5 and 6-9). Databases searched included EMBASE, MEDLINE, CAB Abstracts, PsychInfo, and Web of Science with end-search restriction the 18th December 2020. Publications identified via MedRevix were followed up on the 23rd March 2021 in peer-reviewed database search, and citations were updated as published. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies which reported the association between CFS and COVID-19 mortality were included. Thirty-four studies were eligible for systematic review and seventeen for meta-analysis, with 81-87% (I2) heterogeneity. FINDINGS: All studies [N: 34] included patients from a hospital setting, comprising a total of 18,042 patients with mean age 72.8 (Min: 56; Max: 86). The CFS 4-5 patient group had significantly increased mortality when compared to patients with CFS 1-3 [(RE) OR 1.95 (1.32 (95% CI), 2.87 (95% CI)); I2 81%; p = 0.0008]. Furthermore, CFS 6-9 patient group displayed an even more noticeable mortality increase when compared to patients with CFS 1-3 [(RE) OR 3.09 (2.03, 4.71); I2 87%; p<0.0001]. Generic inverse variance analysis of adjusted hazard ratio among included studies highlighted that CFS (p = 0.0001), male gender (p = 0.0009), National Early Warning Score (p = 0.0001), Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD) (p = 0.07), Hypertension (HT) (p<0.0001), and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) (p = 0.0009) were associated with increased COVID-19 mortality. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest a differential stratification of CFS scores in the context of COVID-19 infection, in which CFS 1-3 patients may be considered at lower risk, CFS 4-5 at moderate risk, and CFS 6-9 at high risk of mortality regardless of age. Overall, our study not only aims to alert clinicians of the value of CFS scores, but also highlight the multiple dimensions to consider such as age, gender and co-morbidities, even among moderately frail patients in relation to COVID-19 mortality. FUNDING: None.

16.
Eur J Public Health ; 32(1): 133-139, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1231032

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Int J Epidemiol ; 50(2): 420-429, 2021 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1122059

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is a non-specific acute phase reactant elevated in infection or inflammation. Higher levels indicate more severe infection and have been used as an indicator of COVID-19 disease severity. However, the evidence for CRP as a prognostic marker is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to examine the CRP response in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and to determine the utility of CRP on admission for predicting inpatient mortality. METHODS: Data were collected between 27 February and 10 June 2020, incorporating two cohorts: the COPE (COVID-19 in Older People) study of 1564 adult patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to 11 hospital sites (test cohort) and a later validation cohort of 271 patients. Admission CRP was investigated, and finite mixture models were fit to assess the likely underlying distribution. Further, different prognostic thresholds of CRP were analysed in a time-to-mortality Cox regression to determine a cut-off. Bootstrapping was used to compare model performance [Harrell's C statistic and Akaike information criterion (AIC)]. RESULTS: The test and validation cohort distribution of CRP was not affected by age, and mixture models indicated a bimodal distribution. A threshold cut-off of CRP ≥40 mg/L performed well to predict mortality (and performed similarly to treating CRP as a linear variable). CONCLUSIONS: The distributional characteristics of CRP indicated an optimal cut-off of ≥40 mg/L was associated with mortality. This threshold may assist clinicians in using CRP as an early trigger for enhanced observation, treatment decisions and advanced care planning.


Subject(s)
C-Reactive Protein , COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Hospitalization , Humans , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Ther Adv Drug Saf ; 12: 2042098620985690, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1109957

ABSTRACT

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.

19.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 46, 2021 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1097191

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Quality of Health Care/standards , Biomedical Research , Humans , Research Design/standards , Research Report
20.
Health Policy and Technology ; 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1082233
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL