Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
BMC Med ; 20(1): 267, 2022 08 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1993362

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been concerns regarding potential bias in pulse oximetry measurements for people with high levels of skin pigmentation. We systematically reviewed the effects of skin pigmentation on the accuracy of oxygen saturation measurement by pulse oximetry (SpO2) compared with the gold standard SaO2 measured by CO-oximetry. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to December 2021) for studies with SpO2-SaO2 comparisons and measuring the impact of skin pigmentation or ethnicity on pulse oximetry accuracy. We performed meta-analyses for mean bias (the primary outcome in this review) and its standard deviations (SDs) across studies included for each subgroup of skin pigmentation and ethnicity and used these pooled mean biases and SDs to calculate accuracy root-mean-square (Arms) and 95% limits of agreement. The review was registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/gm7ty ). RESULTS: We included 32 studies (6505 participants): 15 measured skin pigmentation and 22 referred to ethnicity. Compared with standard SaO2 measurement, pulse oximetry probably overestimates oxygen saturation in people with the high level of skin pigmentation (pooled mean bias 1.11%; 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.93%) and people described as Black/African American (1.52%; 0.95 to 2.09%) (moderate- and low-certainty evidence). The bias of pulse oximetry measurements for people with other levels of skin pigmentation or those from other ethnic groups is either more uncertain or suggests no overestimation. Whilst the extent of mean bias is small or negligible for all subgroups evaluated, the associated imprecision is unacceptably large (pooled SDs > 1%). When the extent of measurement bias and precision is considered jointly, pulse oximetry measurements for all the subgroups appear acceptably accurate (with Arms < 4%). CONCLUSIONS: Pulse oximetry may overestimate oxygen saturation in people with high levels of skin pigmentation and people whose ethnicity is reported as Black/African American, compared with SaO2. The extent of overestimation may be small in hospital settings but unknown in community settings. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/gm7ty.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Skin Pigmentation , Humans , Oximetry/methods , Oxygen , Oxygen Saturation , Pandemics
2.
JAC-antimicrobial resistance ; 4(Suppl 1), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1823913

ABSTRACT

Background A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial coinfection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. The PEACH study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. There is a lack of clear evidence to support its use in lung infections, which means in some hospitals, clinicians have used the procalcitonin test to guide antibiotic decisions in COVID-19, whilst in other hospitals, they have not. Our study is analysing data from hospitals that did and did not use procalcitonin testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will determine whether and how procalcitonin testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. Methods To assess whether the use of PCT testing, to guide antibiotic prescribing, safely reduced antibiotic use among patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic, we are answering this question through three different, and complimentary, work streams (WS), each with discrete work packages (WP): (i) Work Stream 1: utilization of PCT testing to guide antibiotic prescribing during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic;(ii) Work Stream 2: patient-level impact of PCT testing on antibiotic exposure and clinical outcome (main work stream currently in analysis);and (iii) Work Stream 3: health economics analysis of PCT testing to guide antibiotics in COVID-19. Results Our first publication from Work Stream 1 (Antibiotics 2021, 10: 516) used a web-based survey to gather data from antimicrobial leads about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in ICU increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empirical antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Conclusions Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety. Work Stream 2 is ongoing, and results will be published once available.

3.
JAMA ; 327(6): 546-558, 2022 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1711978

ABSTRACT

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Cannula , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology
4.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327724

ABSTRACT

Background: Pulse oximetry was widely used in hospitals and at home to monitor blood oxygen during the COVID-19 pandemic. There have been concerns regarding potential bias in pulse oximetry measurements for people with dark skin. We aimed to assess the effects of skin pigmentation on the accuracy of oxygen saturation measurement by pulse oximetry (SpO2) compared with the gold standard SaO2 measured by CO-oximetry. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus (up to December 2021), as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to August 2021). We identified studies comparing SpO2 values in any population, in any care setting, using any type of pulse oximeter, with SaO2 by standard CO-oximetry;and measuring the impact of skin pigmentation or ethnicity on pulse oximetry accuracy. We performed meta-analyses for mean bias (the primary outcome in this review) and its standard deviations (SDs) across studies included for each subgroup of level of skin pigmentation and ethnicity. We calculated accuracy root-mean-square (Arms) and 95% limits of agreement based on pooled mean bias and pooled SDs for each subgroup. Results We included 32 studies (6505 participants);27/32 (84.38%) in hospitals and none in people's homes. Findings of 14/32 studies (43.75%) were judged, via QUADAS-2, at high overall risk of bias. Fifteen studies measured skin pigmentation and 22 referred only to ethnicity. Compared with standard SaO2 measurement, pulse oximetry probably overestimates oxygen saturation in people with dark skin (pooled mean bias 1.11%;95% confidence interval 0.29% to 1.93%) and people described as Black/African American (pooled mean bias 1.52%;0.95% to 2.09%) (moderate- and low-certainty evidence). These results suggest that, for people with dark skin, pulse oximetry may overestimate blood oxygen saturation by around 1% on average compared with SaO2. The bias of pulse oximetry measurements for people with other levels of skin pigmentation, or those from the White/Caucasian group is more uncertain. The data do not suggest overestimation in people from other ethnic groups such as those described as Asian, Hispanic, or mixed ethnicity (pooled mean bias 0.31%, 0.09% to 0.54%), but this evidence is low certainty. Whilst the extent of mean bias is small or negligible for all the subgroups of population evaluated, the associated imprecision is unacceptably large (with the pooled SDs > 1%). Nevertheless, when the extents of measurement bias and precision are considered jointly in Arms, pulse oximetry measurements for all the subgroups appear acceptably accurate (with Arms < 4%). Conclusions Low-certainty evidence suggests that pulse oximetry may overestimate oxygen saturation in people with dark skin and people whose ethnicity is reported as Black/African American, compared with SaO2, although the overestimation may be quite small in hospital settings. The clinical importance of any overestimation will depend on the particular clinical circumstance. Pulse oximetry measurements appear accurate but imprecise for all levels of skin pigmentation. The evidence relates to clinician-measured oximetry in health care environments and may not be reflected in home pulse oximetry where other factors may also influence accuracy.

5.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321480

ABSTRACT

Emerging studies indicate that some COVID-19 patients suffer from persistent symptoms including breathlessness and chronic fatigue;however the long-term immune response in these patients presently remains ill-defined. Here we describe the phenotypic and functional characteristics of B and T cells in healthy individuals and individuals with acute or convalescent COVID-19. We report that the alterations in B cell subsets observed in acute COVID-19 patients were largely recovered in convalescent patients. In contrast, T cells from convalescent patients displayed long-term alterations with persistence of a cytotoxic programme evident in CD8+ T cells as well as elevated production of type-1 cytokines and IL-17. Interestingly, B cells from patients with acute COVID-19 displayed an IL-6/ IL-10 cytokine imbalance in response to toll-like receptor activation, skewed towards a pro-inflammatory phenotype. Whereas the frequency of IL-10+ B cells was restored in a subset of convalescent patients, IL-6 production remained elevated. Our data are the first to define long-term alterations in the lymphocyte compartment of previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients, at up to 19 weeks of convalescence, and identify 3 subgroups of convalescent patients based on distinct lymphocyte phenotypes. We propose that alterations in B and T cell function following hospitalisation with COVID-19 could impact long-term immunity and contribute to some persistent symptoms observed in convalescent COVID-19 patients.Funding: This study was funded by the BBSRC (BB/M025977/1 to JEK, BB/S01103X/1 to TNS), by the Lister Institute (Prize Fellowship to JEK), by PTDF (SHS/1327/18 to HAS), The Wellcome Trust (202865/Z/16/Z to TH), The Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research (Rapid Response Award to JRG) and Versus Arthritis (FAM and JEK studentship). This report is independent research supported by the North West Lung Centre Charity and the NIHR Manchester Clinical Research Facility at Wythenshawe Hospital. We acknowledge the Manchester Allergy, Respiratory and Thoracic Surgery Biobank for supporting this project and thank the study participants for their contribution. Ethical Approval: Ethical approval obtained from the National Research Ethics Service (REC reference 15/NW/0409 for ManARTS and 18/WA/0368 for NCARC). Informed consent was obtained from each patient, clinical information was extracted from written/electronic medical records including demographic data, presenting symptoms, comorbidities, radiographic findings, vital signs, and laboratory data.Declaration of Interest: None to declare.

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-318473

ABSTRACT

During an infectious disease outbreak, biases in the data and complexities of the underlying dynamics pose significant challenges in mathematically modelling the outbreak and designing policy. Motivated by the ongoing response to COVID-19, we provide a toolkit of statistical and mathematical models beyond the simple SIR-type differential equation models for analysing the early stages of an outbreak and assessing interventions. In particular, we focus on parameter estimation in the presence of known biases in the data, and the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions in enclosed subpopulations, such as households and care homes. We illustrate these methods by applying them to the COVID-19 pandemic.

7.
Thorax ; 77(3): 259-267, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. RESULTS: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aerosols , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Humans , RNA, Viral
8.
Thorax ; 77(2): 129-135, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247403

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Pandemics , Research , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
9.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 10(5)2021 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1223911

ABSTRACT

A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial co-infection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. This study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based survey of antimicrobial leads gathered data about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in Intensive Care Units (ICU) increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empiric antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety.

10.
J Med Microbiol ; 70(4)2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1189541

ABSTRACT

Introduction. During previous viral pandemics, reported co-infection rates and implicated pathogens have varied. In the 1918 influenza pandemic, a large proportion of severe illness and death was complicated by bacterial co-infection, predominantly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus.Gap statement. A better understanding of the incidence of co-infection in patients with COVID-19 infection and the pathogens involved is necessary for effective antimicrobial stewardship.Aim. To describe the incidence and nature of co-infection in critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection in England.Methodology. A retrospective cohort study of adults with COVID-19 admitted to seven intensive care units (ICUs) in England up to 18 May 2020, was performed. Patients with completed ICU stays were included. The proportion and type of organisms were determined at <48 and >48 h following hospital admission, corresponding to community and hospital-acquired co-infections.Results. Of 254 patients studied (median age 59 years (IQR 49-69); 64.6 % male), 139 clinically significant organisms were identified from 83 (32.7 %) patients. Bacterial co-infections/ co-colonisation were identified within 48 h of admission in 14 (5.5 %) patients; the commonest pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (four patients) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (two patients). The proportion of pathogens detected increased with duration of ICU stay, consisting largely of Gram-negative bacteria, particularly Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. The co-infection/ co-colonisation rate >48 h after admission was 27/1000 person-days (95 % CI 21.3-34.1). Patients with co-infections/ co-colonisation were more likely to die in ICU (crude OR 1.78,95 % CI 1.03-3.08, P=0.04) compared to those without co-infections/ co-colonisation.Conclusion. We found limited evidence for community-acquired bacterial co-infection in hospitalised adults with COVID-19, but a high rate of Gram-negative infection acquired during ICU stay.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Coinfection/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bacteria/classification , Bacteria/isolation & purification , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , COVID-19/microbiology , Coinfection/microbiology , Critical Illness , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/microbiology , England/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
11.
Med (N Y) ; 2(6): 720-735.e4, 2021 06 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1164202

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emerging studies indicate that some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients suffer from persistent symptoms, including breathlessness and chronic fatigue; however, the long-term immune response in these patients presently remains ill-defined. METHODS: Here, we describe the phenotypic and functional characteristics of B and T cells in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during acute disease and at 3-6 months of convalescence. FINDINGS: We report that the alterations in B cell subsets observed in acute COVID-19 patients were largely recovered in convalescent patients. In contrast, T cells from convalescent patients displayed continued alterations with persistence of a cytotoxic program evident in CD8+ T cells as well as elevated production of type 1 cytokines and interleukin-17 (IL-17). Interestingly, B cells from patients with acute COVID-19 displayed an IL-6/IL-10 cytokine imbalance in response to Toll-like receptor activation, skewed toward a pro-inflammatory phenotype. Whereas the frequency of IL-6+ B cells was restored in convalescent patients irrespective of clinical outcome, the recovery of IL-10+ B cells was associated with the resolution of lung pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Our data detail lymphocyte alterations in previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to 6 months following hospital discharge and identify 3 subgroups of convalescent patients based on distinct lymphocyte phenotypes, with 1 subgroup associated with poorer clinical outcome. We propose that alterations in B and T cell function following hospitalization with COVID-19 could affect longer-term immunity and contribute to some persistent symptoms observed in convalescent COVID-19 patients. FUNDING: Provided by UKRI, Lister Institute of Preventative Medicine, the Wellcome Trust, The Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research, and 3M Global Giving.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes , Cytokines , Humans , Interleukin-10 , Interleukin-6 , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 104(5): 1676-1686, 2021 Mar 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1128113

ABSTRACT

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6-12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Prone Position/physiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Acute Disease , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Health Personnel , Humans , Wakefulness
13.
BMJ Open ; 10(11): e043634, 2020 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-913772

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to researchers, funders, regulators and study delivery teams to ensure that research on COVID-19 is inclusive, particularly of groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and who may have been historically under-served by research. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 include (but are not limited to) older people, people with multiple long-term conditions, people with disabilities, people from Black, Asian and Ethnic minority groups, people living with obesity, people who are socioeconomically deprived and people living in care homes. All these groups are under-served by clinical research, and there is an urgent need to rectify this if COVID-19 research is to deliver relevant evidence for these groups who are most in need. We provide a framework and checklists for addressing key issues when designing and delivering inclusive COVID-19 research, based on the National Institute for Health Research INnovations in CLinical trial design and delivery for the UnDEr-served project roadmap. Strong community engagement, codevelopment and prioritisation of research questions and interventions are essential. Under-served groups should be represented on funding panels and ethics committees, who should insist on the removal of barriers to participation. Exclusion criteria should be kept to a minimum; intervention delivery and outcome measurement should be simple, flexible and tailored to the needs of different groups, and local advice on the best way to reach and engage with under-served communities should be taken by study delivery teams. Data on characteristics that allow identification of under-served groups must be collected, analyses should include these data to enable subgroup comparisons and results should be shared with under-served groups at an early stage. CONCLUSION: Inclusive COVID-19 research is a necessity, not a luxury, if research is to benefit all the communities it seeks to serve. It requires close engagement with under-served groups and attention to aspects of study topic, design, delivery, analysis and dissemination across the research life cycle.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , Minority Groups , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans
14.
Sci Immunol ; 5(51)2020 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781081

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 pathogenesis is associated with an exaggerated immune response. However, the specific cellular mediators and inflammatory components driving diverse clinical disease outcomes remain poorly understood. We undertook longitudinal immune profiling on both whole blood and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of hospitalized patients during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Here, we report key immune signatures present shortly after hospital admission that were associated with the severity of COVID-19. Immune signatures were related to shifts in neutrophil to T cell ratio, elevated serum IL-6, MCP-1 and IP-10, and most strikingly, modulation of CD14+ monocyte phenotype and function. Modified features of CD14+ monocytes included poor induction of the prostaglandin-producing enzyme, COX-2, as well as enhanced expression of the cell cycle marker Ki-67. Longitudinal analysis revealed reversion of some immune features back to the healthy median level in patients with a good eventual outcome. These findings identify previously unappreciated alterations in the innate immune compartment of COVID-19 patients and lend support to the idea that therapeutic strategies targeting release of myeloid cells from bone marrow should be considered in this disease. Moreover, they demonstrate that features of an exaggerated immune response are present early after hospital admission suggesting immune-modulating therapies would be most beneficial at early timepoints.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Immunity, Innate , Monocytes/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cyclooxygenase 2/immunology , Cyclooxygenase 2/metabolism , Disease Progression , Female , Host Microbial Interactions/immunology , Humans , Inflammation Mediators/blood , Inflammation Mediators/immunology , Ki-67 Antigen/immunology , Ki-67 Antigen/metabolism , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Monocytes/metabolism , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , United Kingdom/epidemiology
15.
Trials ; 21(1): 687, 2020 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684574

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The trial objective is to determine if Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is clinically effective compared to standard oxygen therapy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. TRIAL DESIGN: Adaptive (group-sequential), parallel group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness trial. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is being conducted across approximately 60 hospitals across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Inpatients at participating hospitals are eligible to participate if they have respiratory failure with suspected or proven COVID-19, and meet all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Adults ≥ 18 years; 2) Admitted to hospital with suspected or proven COVID-19; 3) Receiving oxygen with fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≥0.4 and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤94%; and 4) Plan for escalation to tracheal intubation if needed. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Planned tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation imminent within 1 hour; 2) Known or clinically apparent pregnancy; 3) Any absolute contraindication to CPAP or HFNO; 4) Decision not to intubate due to ceiling of treatment or withdrawal of treatment anticipated; and 5) Equipment for both CPAP and HFNO not available. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention one: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention two: High-flow nasal oxygen delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Comparator group: Standard care- oxygen delivered by face mask or nasal cannula (excluding the use of continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen). Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention delivery continues up to the point of death, tracheal intubation, or clinical determination that there is no ongoing need (palliation or improvement). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite outcome comprising tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days following randomisation. Secondary outcomes include tracheal intubation rate, time to tracheal intubation, duration of invasive ventilation, mortality rate, time to mortality, length of hospital stay, and length of critical care stay. RANDOMISATION: Participants are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either continuous positive airway pressure, high-flow nasal oxygen or standard care. Due to the challenging environment of study delivery, a specific intervention may not always be available at the hospital site. The study uses two integrated randomisation systems to allow, where required, the site to randomise between all three interventions, between CPAP and standard care, and between HFNO and standard care. System integration ensures maintenance of balance between interventions. Randomisation is performed using a telephone-based interactive voice response system to maintain allocation concealment. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated using the minimisation method. Participant randomisation is stratified by site, gender (M/F), and age (<50, >=50 years). BLINDING (MASKING): The nature of the trial interventions precludes blinding of the researcher, patient and clinical team. Primary and secondary outcomes are all objective outcomes, thereby minimising the risk of detection bias. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): 4002 participants (1334 to be randomized to each of the three study arms) TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 4.0, 29th May 2020. Recruitment began on April 6, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 5, 2021. The trial has been awarded Urgent Public Health status by the National Institute of Health Research on 13th April 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN16912075. Registered 6th April 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16912075 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0, 29th May 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Infect Dis Model ; 5: 409-441, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-632576

ABSTRACT

During an infectious disease outbreak, biases in the data and complexities of the underlying dynamics pose significant challenges in mathematically modelling the outbreak and designing policy. Motivated by the ongoing response to COVID-19, we provide a toolkit of statistical and mathematical models beyond the simple SIR-type differential equation models for analysing the early stages of an outbreak and assessing interventions. In particular, we focus on parameter estimation in the presence of known biases in the data, and the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions in enclosed subpopulations, such as households and care homes. We illustrate these methods by applying them to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL