Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 53
Filter
1.
Relph, Katharine A.; Russell, Clark D.; Fairfield, Cameron J.; Turtle, Lance, de Silva, Thushan I.; Siggins, Matthew K.; Drake, Thomas M.; Thwaites, Ryan S.; Abrams, Simon, Moore, Shona C.; Hardwick, Hayley E.; Oosthuyzen, Wilna, Harrison, Ewen M.; Docherty, Annemarie B.; Openshaw, Peter J. M.; Baillie, J. Kenneth, Semple, Malcolm G.; Ho, Antonia, Baillie, J. Kenneth, Semple, Malcolm G.; Openshaw, Peter J. M.; Carson, Gail, Alex, Beatrice, Bach, Benjamin, Barclay, Wendy S.; Bogaert, Debby, Chand, Meera, Cooke, Graham S.; Docherty, Annemarie B.; Dunning, Jake, Filipe, Ana da Silva, Fletcher, Tom, Green, Christopher A.; Harrison, Ewen M.; Hiscox, Julian A.; Ho, Antonia Ying Wai, Horby, Peter W.; Ijaz, Samreen, Khoo, Saye, Klenerman, Paul, Law, Andrew, Lim, Wei Shen, Mentzer, Alexander J.; Merson, Laura, Meynert, Alison M.; Noursadeghi, Mahdad, Moore, Shona C.; Palmarini, Massimo, Paxton, William A.; Pollakis, Georgios, Price, Nicholas, Rambaut, Andrew, Robertson, David L.; Russell, Clark D.; Sancho-Shimizu, Vanessa, Scott, Janet T.; de Silva, Thushan, Sigfrid, Louise, Solomon, Tom, Sriskandan, Shiranee, Stuart, David, Summers, Charlotte, Tedder, Richard S.; Thomson, Emma C.; Roger Thompson, A. A.; Thwaites, Ryan S.; Turtle, Lance C. W.; Gupta, Rishi K.; Zambon, Maria, Hardwick, Hayley, Donohue, Chloe, Lyons, Ruth, Griffiths, Fiona, Oosthuyzen, Wilna, Norman, Lisa, Pius, Riinu, Drake, Thomas M.; Fairfield, Cameron J.; Knight, Stephen R.; McLean, Kenneth A.; Murphy, Derek, Shaw, Catherine A.; Dalton, Jo, Girvan, Michelle, Saviciute, Egle, Roberts, Stephanie, Harrison, Janet, Marsh, Laura, Connor, Marie, Halpin, Sophie, Jackson, Clare, Gamble, Carrol, Leeming, Gary, Law, Andrew, Wham, Murray, Clohisey, Sara, Hendry, Ross, Scott-Brown, James, Greenhalf, William, Shaw, Victoria, McDonald, Sara, Keating, Seán, Ahmed, Katie A.; Armstrong, Jane A.; Ashworth, Milton, Asiimwe, Innocent G.; Bakshi, Siddharth, Barlow, Samantha L.; Booth, Laura, Brennan, Benjamin, Bullock, Katie, Catterall, Benjamin W. A.; Clark, Jordan J.; Clarke, Emily A.; Cole, Sarah, Cooper, Louise, Cox, Helen, Davis, Christopher, Dincarslan, Oslem, Dunn, Chris, Dyer, Philip, Elliott, Angela, Evans, Anthony, Finch, Lorna, Fisher, Lewis W. S.; Foster, Terry, Garcia-Dorival, Isabel, Greenhalf, William, Gunning, Philip, Hartley, Catherine, Jensen, Rebecca L.; Jones, Christopher B.; Jones, Trevor R.; Khandaker, Shadia, King, Katharine, Kiy, Robyn T.; Koukorava, Chrysa, Lake, Annette, Lant, Suzannah, Latawiec, Diane, Lavelle-Langham, Lara, Lefteri, Daniella, Lett, Lauren, Livoti, Lucia A.; Mancini, Maria, McDonald, Sarah, McEvoy, Laurence, McLauchlan, John, Metelmann, Soeren, Miah, Nahida S.; Middleton, Joanna, Mitchell, Joyce, Moore, Shona C.; Murphy, Ellen G.; Penrice-Randal, Rebekah, Pilgrim, Jack, Prince, Tessa, Reynolds, Will, Matthew Ridley, P.; Sales, Debby, Shaw, Victoria E.; Shears, Rebecca K.; Small, Benjamin, Subramaniam, Krishanthi S.; Szemiel, Agnieska, Taggart, Aislynn, Tanianis-Hughes, Jolanta, Thomas, Jordan, Trochu, Erwan, van Tonder, Libby, Wilcock, Eve, Eunice Zhang, J.; Flaherty, Lisa, Maziere, Nicole, Cass, Emily, Doce Carracedo, Alejandra, Carlucci, Nicola, Holmes, Anthony, Massey, Hannah, Murphy, Lee, Wrobel, Nicola, McCafferty, Sarah, Morrice, Kirstie, MacLean, Alan, Adeniji, Kayode, Agranoff, Daniel, Agwuh, Ken, Ail, Dhiraj, Aldera, Erin L.; Alegria, Ana, Angus, Brian, Ashish, Abdul, Atkinson, Dougal, Bari, Shahedal, Barlow, Gavin, Barnass, Stella, Barrett, Nicholas, Bassford, Christopher, Basude, Sneha, Baxter, David, Beadsworth, Michael, Bernatoniene, Jolanta, Berridge, John, Best, Nicola, Bothma, Pieter, Chadwick, David, Brittain-Long, Robin, Bulteel, Naomi, Burden, Tom, Burtenshaw, Andrew, Caruth, Vikki, Chadwick, David, Chambler, Duncan, Chee, Nigel, Child, Jenny, Chukkambotla, Srikanth, Clark, Tom, Collini, Paul, Cosgrove, Catherine, Cupitt, Jason, Cutino-Moguel, Maria-Teresa, Dark, Paul, Dawson, Chris, Dervisevic, Samir, Donnison, Phil, Douthwaite, Sam, DuRand, Ingrid, Dushianthan, Ahilanadan, Dyer, Tristan, Evans, Cariad, Eziefula, Chi, Fegan, Christopher, Finn, Adam, Fullerton, Duncan, Garg, Sanjeev, Garg, Sanjeev, Garg, Atul, Gkrania-Klotsas, Effrossyni, Godden, Jo, Goldsmith, Arthur, Graham, Clive, Hardy, Elaine, Hartshorn, Stuart, Harvey, Daniel, Havalda, Peter, Hawcutt, Daniel B.; Hobrok, Maria, Hodgson, Luke, Hormis, Anil, Jacobs, Michael, Jain, Susan, Jennings, Paul, Kaliappan, Agilan, Kasipandian, Vidya, Kegg, Stephen, Kelsey, Michael, Kendall, Jason, Kerrison, Caroline, Kerslake, Ian, Koch, Oliver, Koduri, Gouri, Koshy, George, Laha, Shondipon, Laird, Steven, Larkin, Susan, Leiner, Tamas, Lillie, Patrick, Limb, James, Linnett, Vanessa, Little, Jeff, Lyttle, Mark, MacMahon, Michael, MacNaughton, Emily, Mankregod, Ravish, Masson, Huw, Matovu, Elijah, McCullough, Katherine, McEwen, Ruth, Meda, Manjula, Mills, Gary, Minton, Jane, Mirfenderesky, Mariyam, Mohandas, Kavya, Mok, Quen, Moon, James, Moore, Elinoor, Morgan, Patrick, Morris, Craig, Mortimore, Katherine, Moses, Samuel, Mpenge, Mbiye, Mulla, Rohinton, Murphy, Michael, Nagel, Megan, Nagarajan, Thapas, Nelson, Mark, O’Shea, Matthew K.; Otahal, Igor, Ostermann, Marlies, Pais, Mark, Panchatsharam, Selva, Papakonstantinou, Danai, Paraiso, Hassan, Patel, Brij, Pattison, Natalie, Pepperell, Justin, Peters, Mark, Phull, Mandeep, Pintus, Stefania, Pooni, Jagtur Singh, Post, Frank, Price, David, Prout, Rachel, Rae, Nikolas, Reschreiter, Henrik, Reynolds, Tim, Richardson, Neil, Roberts, Mark, Roberts, Devender, Rose, Alistair, Rousseau, Guy, Ryan, Brendan, Saluja, Taranprit, Shah, Aarti, Shanmuga, Prad, Sharma, Anil, Shawcross, Anna, Sizer, Jeremy, Shankar-Hari, Manu, Smith, Richard, Snelson, Catherine, Spittle, Nick, Staines, Nikki, Stambach, Tom, Stewart, Richard, Subudhi, Pradeep, Szakmany, Tamas, Tatham, Kate, Thomas, Jo, Thompson, Chris, Thompson, Robert, Tridente, Ascanio, Tupper-Carey, Darell, Twagira, Mary, Ustianowski, Andrew, Vallotton, Nick, Vincent-Smith, Lisa, Visuvanathan, Shico, Vuylsteke, Alan, Waddy, Sam, Wake, Rachel, Walden, Andrew, Welters, Ingeborg, Whitehouse, Tony, Whittaker, Paul, Whittington, Ashley, Papineni, Padmasayee, Wijesinghe, Meme, Williams, Martin, Wilson, Lawrence, Cole, Sarah, Winchester, Stephen, Wiselka, Martin, Wolverson, Adam, Wootton, Daniel G.; Workman, Andrew, Yates, Bryan, Young, Peter.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 9(5), 2022.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1821760

ABSTRACT

Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).

3.
The Lancet. Digital health ; 4(4):e220-e234, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1755949

ABSTRACT

Background Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. Methods We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. Findings Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years;0·52 [0·46–0·58], p<0·0001, for >80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. Interpretation Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council.

4.
Diabetes Care ; 2022 Mar 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1742155

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between admission blood glucose levels and risk of in-hospital cardiovascular and renal complications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study of 36,269 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 6 February 2020 and 16 March 2021 (N = 143,266), logistic regression models were used to explore associations between admission glucose level (mmol/L and mg/dL) and odds of in-hospital complications, including heart failure, arrhythmia, cardiac ischemia, cardiac arrest, coagulation complications, stroke, and renal injury. Nonlinearity was investigated using restricted cubic splines. Interaction models explored whether associations between glucose levels and complications were modified by clinically relevant factors. RESULTS: Cardiovascular and renal complications occurred in 10,421 (28.7%) patients; median admission glucose level was 6.7 mmol/L (interquartile range 5.8-8.7) (120.6 mg/dL [104.4-156.6]). While accounting for confounders, for all complications except cardiac ischemia and stroke, there was a nonlinear association between glucose and cardiovascular and renal complications. For example, odds of heart failure, arrhythmia, coagulation complications, and renal injury decreased to a nadir at 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), 4.9 mmol/L (88.2 mg/dL), 4.7 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL), and 5.8 mmol/L (104.4 mg/dL), respectively, and increased thereafter until 26.0 mmol/L (468 mg/dL), 50.0 mmol/L (900 mg/dL), 8.5 mmol/L (153 mg/dL), and 32.4 mmol/L (583.2 mg/dL). Compared with 5 mmol/L (90 mg/dL), odds ratios at these glucose levels were 1.28 (95% CI 0.96, 1.69) for heart failure, 2.23 (1.03, 4.81) for arrhythmia, 1.59 (1.36, 1.86) for coagulation complications, and 2.42 (2.01, 2.92) for renal injury. For most complications, a modifying effect of age was observed, with higher odds of complications at higher glucose levels for patients age <69 years. Preexisting diabetes status had a similar modifying effect on odds of complications, but evidence was strongest for renal injury, cardiac ischemia, and any cardiovascular/renal complication. CONCLUSIONS: Increased odds of cardiovascular or renal complications were observed for admission glucose levels indicative of both hypo- and hyperglycemia. Admission glucose could be used as a marker for risk stratification of high-risk patients. Further research should evaluate interventions to optimize admission glucose on improving COVID-19 outcomes.

5.
PLoS Med ; 19(2): e1003927, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1705011

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sinus Thrombosis, Intracranial/etiology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United Kingdom , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Wales
6.
ERJ Open Res ; 8(1)2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690978

ABSTRACT

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

7.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-317336

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing healthcare crisis presented staff working in critical care with unprecedented demands. We sought to understand frontline staff’s experiences of working in critical care in the UK during the first wave of the outbreak.Methods: Between August and October 2020, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with forty NHS staff who worked in critical care during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK. Staff were recruited from four hospitals and included doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and ward clerks. We purposefully sought the experiences of trained and experienced critical care staff and those who were redeployed. We analysed the data using Rapid Analysis and subsequently interpreted the findings using Baehr’s sociological lens of ‘communities of fate’.Findings: COVID-19 presented staff with a situation of extreme stress, duress and social emergency, leading to a shared set of experiences which we have characterised as a community of fate. This involved fear and dread of working in critical care, but also a collective sense of duty and vocation. Caring for patients and families involved changes to usual ways of working, revolving around: reorganisation of space and personnel, personal protective equipment, lack of evidence for treating COVID-19, inability for families to be physically present, and the trauma of witnessing extreme patient acuity and death on a large scale. The stress and isolation of working in critical care during COVID-19 was mitigated by strong teamwork, camaraderie, pride and fulfilment.Interpretation: COVID-19 has changed working practices in critical care and profoundly affected staff physically, mentally and emotionally. Attention needs to be paid to the social and organisational conditions in which individuals work, addressing both practical resourcing and the interpersonal dynamics of critical care provision.Funding: Medical Research Scotland, Wellcome TrustDeclaration of Interests: CM reports a grant from Medical Research Scotland during the conduct of the study;SH reports a grant from Florence Nightingale Foundation, outside the submitted work;SS reports grants from Wellcome Trust, during the conduct of the study;CMC, AD and NP declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval was granted by the University of Edinburgh School of Social and Political Science Research Ethics Committee;HRA approval (20/HRA/3270) was also obtained.

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-323239

ABSTRACT

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).

9.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321605

ABSTRACT

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].

10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-320392

ABSTRACT

Background: Microbiological characterisation of co-infections and secondary infections in COVID-19 is lacking, while antimicrobial usage is high. We aimed to describe microbiologically-confirmed co-/secondary infections, and antimicrobial usage, in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.Methods: Hospitalised patients in England, Scotland, and Wales with confirmed/high likelihood SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) prospective cohort study. Patients admitted between 6th February–8th June 2020 with a recorded outcome 28 days after admission were included. Organisms considered clinically insignificant were excluded.Findings: Microbiological investigations were recorded for 8649/48 902 patients, with significant respiratory or bloodstream bacterial/fungal infections recorded for 1107 patients. These were mostly secondary infections diagnosed >2 days after admission (70·6%, 762/1080 with known sample timing). Staphylococcus aureus then Haemophilus influenzae were the most common pathogens causing respiratory co-infections (diagnosed ≤2 days after admission), with Enterobacteriaceae and S. aureus most common in secondary respiratory infections. Bloodstream infections were most frequently caused by Escherichia coli then S. aureus. Among patients with available data, 37·0% (13 390/36 145) received antimicrobials prior to admission and 85·2% (39 258/46 061) in hospital, highest in critical care. We identified frequent use of broad-spectrum agents and use of carbapenems over carbapenem-sparing alternatives.Interpretation: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19, microbiologically-confirmed bacterial/fungal infections are rare, and more likely to be secondary infections. Gram-negative organisms and S. aureus are the predominant pathogens. The frequency and nature of antimicrobial usage is concerning, but tractable targets for stewardship interventions exist.Funding: This work is supported by grants from: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [award CO-CIN-01], the Medical Research Council [grant MC_PC_19059] and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU)in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford [award 200907], NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE [award 200927], Wellcome Trust and Department for International Development [215091/Z/18/Z], and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation[OPP1209135], and Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (Grant Reference: C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London [IS-BRC-1215-20013], EU Platform foR European Preparedness Against (Re-) emerging Epidemics (PREPARE) [FP7 project 602525] and NIHR Clinical Research Network for providing infrastructure support for this research. LT is supported by a Wellcome Trust fellowship [205228/Z/16/Z]. PJMO is supported by a NIHR Senior Investigator Award [award 201385]. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust. For the purpose of Open Access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the DHSC, DID, NIHR, MRC, Wellcome Trust or PHE.Conflict of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Medical Research Council (MRC), the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at ImperialCollege Lo don, and NIHR Clinical Research Network for the submitted work;ABD reports grants fromDepartment of Health and Social Care (DHSC), during the conduct of the study, grants from Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work;PJMO reports personal fees from consultancies and from European RespiratorySociety, grants from MRC, MRC Global Challenge Research Fund, EU, NIHR BRC, MRC/GSK, WellcomeTrust, NIHR (Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Respiratory Infection), and is NIHR senior investigator outside the submitted work;his role as President of the British Society for Immunology was unpaid but travel and accommodation at some meetings was provided by the Society;JKB reports grants from MRC UK;MGS reportsgrants from DHSC NIHR UK, grants from MRC UK, grants from HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections,University of Liverpool, during the conduct of the study, other from Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA, outside the submitted work.Ethical Approval: Ethical approval was given by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (13/SC/0149), the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (20/SS/0028), and the WHO Ethics Review Committee (RPC571 and RPC572, April 2013).

11.
Nephrol Dial Transplant ; 37(2): 271-284, 2022 01 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1648225

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study investigated adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and hypothesized that risk factors for AKI would include comorbidities and non-White race. METHODS: A prospective multicentre cohort study was performed using patients admitted to 254 UK hospitals with COVID-19 between 17 January 2020 and 5 December 2020. RESULTS: Of 85 687 patients, 2198 (2.6%) received acute kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Of 41 294 patients with biochemistry data, 13 000 (31.5%) had biochemical AKI: 8562 stage 1 (65.9%), 2609 stage 2 (20.1%) and 1829 stage 3 (14.1%). The main risk factors for KRT were chronic kidney disease (CKD) [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.41: 95% confidence interval 3.06-3.81], male sex (aOR 2.43: 2.18-2.71) and Black race (aOR 2.17: 1.79-2.63). The main risk factors for biochemical AKI were admission respiratory rate >30 breaths per minute (aOR 1.68: 1.56-1.81), CKD (aOR 1.66: 1.57-1.76) and Black race (aOR 1.44: 1.28-1.61). There was a gradated rise in the risk of 28-day mortality by increasing severity of AKI: stage 1 aOR 1.58 (1.49-1.67), stage 2 aOR 2.41 (2.20-2.64), stage 3 aOR 3.50 (3.14-3.91) and KRT aOR 3.06 (2.75-3.39). AKI rates peaked in April 2020 and the subsequent fall in rates could not be explained by the use of dexamethasone or remdesivir. CONCLUSIONS: AKI is common in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and it is associated with a heightened risk of mortality. Although the rates of AKI have fallen from the early months of the pandemic, high-risk patients should have their kidney function and fluid status monitored closely.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , COVID-19 , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Cohort Studies , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom , World Health Organization
12.
ERJ open research ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1610380

ABSTRACT

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

13.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 25-35, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1586218

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , /administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Scotland/epidemiology , Time Factors , Vaccination
14.
Heart ; 2021 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583068

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Using a large national database of people hospitalised with COVID-19, we investigated the contribution of cardio-metabolic conditions, multi-morbidity and ethnicity on the risk of in-hospital cardiovascular complications and death. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective cohort study in 302 UK healthcare facilities of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 between 6 February 2020 and 16 March 2021. Logistic models were used to explore associations between baseline patient ethnicity, cardiometabolic conditions and multimorbidity (0, 1, 2, >2 conditions), and in-hospital cardiovascular complications (heart failure, arrhythmia, cardiac ischaemia, cardiac arrest, coagulation complications, stroke), renal injury and death. RESULTS: Of 65 624 patients hospitalised with COVID-19, 44 598 (68.0%) reported at least one cardiometabolic condition on admission. Cardiovascular/renal complications or death occurred in 24 609 (38.0%) patients. Baseline cardiometabolic conditions were independently associated with increased odds of in-hospital complications and this risk increased in the presence of cardiometabolic multimorbidity. For example, compared with having no cardiometabolic conditions, 1, 2 or ≥3 conditions was associated with 1.46 (95% CI 1.39 to 1.54), 2.04 (95% CI 1.93 to 2.15) and 3.10 (95% CI 2.92 to 3.29) times higher odds of any cardiovascular/renal complication, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for all-cause death. Compared with the white group, the South Asian (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.29) and black (OR 1.53 to 95% CI 1.37 to 1.72) ethnic groups had higher risk of any cardiovascular/renal complication. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular complications or death impacts just under half of all patients, with the highest risk in those of South Asian or Black ethnicity and in patients with cardiometabolic multimorbidity.

15.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296652

ABSTRACT

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.

16.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-294849

ABSTRACT

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

17.
Thorax ; 2021 Nov 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528562

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. RESULTS: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, -0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66726260.

18.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e054861, 2021 11 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526506

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has caused millions of hospitalisations and deaths globally. A range of vaccines have been developed and are being deployed at scale in the UK to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, which have reduced risk of infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Those with COVID-19 are now being treated with several repurposed drugs based on evidence emerging from recent clinical trials. However, there is currently limited real-world data available related to the use of these drugs in routine clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to address the prevailing knowledge gaps regarding the use of dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab by conducting an exploratory drug utilisation study, aimed at providing in-depth descriptions of patients receiving these drugs as well as the treatment patterns observed in Scotland. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Retrospective cohort study, comprising adult patients admitted to hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 across five Scottish Health Boards using data from in-hospital ePrescribing linked to the Early Estimation of Vaccine and Anti-Viral Effectiveness (EAVE II) COVID-19 surveillance platform. The primary outcome will be exposure to the medicines of interest (dexamethasone, remdesivir, tocilizumab), either alone or in combination; exposure will be described in terms of drug(s) of choice; prescribed and administered dose; treatment duration; and any changes in treatment, for example, dose escalation and/or switching to an alternative drug. Analyses will primarily be descriptive in nature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and information governance approvals have been obtained by the National Research Ethics Service Committee, South East Scotland 02 and the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care, respectively. Findings from this study will be presented at academic and clinical conferences, and to the funders and other interested parties as appropriate; study findings will also be published in peer-reviewed journals. Publications will be available on the EAVE II website (https://www.ed.ac.uk/usher/eave-ii/key-outputs/our-publications), alongside lay summaries and infographics aimed at the general public. Press releases will also be considered, if appropriate.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Antiviral Agents , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Scotland
19.
Thorax ; 77(5): 497-504, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526530

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The QCovid algorithm is a risk prediction tool that can be used to stratify individuals by risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. Version 1 of the algorithm was trained using data covering 10.5 million patients in England in the period 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. We carried out an external validation of version 1 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 PCR (RT-PCR) virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithm in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in our dataset for two time periods matching the original study: 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, and 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Our dataset comprised 5 384 819 individuals, representing 99% of the estimated population (5 463 300) resident in Scotland in 2020. The algorithm showed good calibration in the first period, but systematic overestimation of risk in the second period, prior to temporal recalibration. Harrell's C for deaths in females and males in the first period was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.93), respectively. Harrell's C for hospitalisations in females and males in the first period was 0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.82) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Version 1 of the QCovid algorithm showed high levels of discrimination in predicting the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in adults resident in Scotland for the original two time periods studied, but is likely to need ongoing recalibration prospectively.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Algorithms , Calibration , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Scotland/epidemiology
20.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(11): 1275-1287, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1514340

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Status , Mental Health , Acute Disease , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Cognition , Comorbidity , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL