Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 41
Filter
1.
Wellcome Open Res ; 6: 360, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1876163

ABSTRACT

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, "high-cost drugs" (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed; drug name; and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

2.
Wellcome open research ; 6, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1871648

ABSTRACT

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, “high-cost drugs” (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed;drug name;and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

4.
Rheumatol Adv Pract ; 6(1): rkab095, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1713732

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown and ongoing restrictions in the UK affected access to clinical care, self-management and mental health for many patients with inflammatory arthritis. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of lockdown on inflammatory arthritis clinical care, self-management, disease outcomes and mental health. METHODS: In total, 338 people with inflammatory arthritis participated in a prospective study, completing a series of online questionnaires. The questionnaires assessed demographics, inflammatory arthritis condition and management, clinical care, quality of life and mental health. Visual analogue scales (VASs) were completed at each assessment. Linear regression, controlling for confounders, was conducted to determine factors associated with physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: More than half of participants reported worsening VAS by >10 points for patient global assessment (PGA), pain, fatigue and emotional distress during the initial lockdown. Changes in clinical care were associated with worse PGA (b = 8.95, P = 0.01), pain (b = 7.13, P = 0.05), fatigue (b = 17.01, P < 0.01) and emotional distress (b = 12.78, P < 0.01). Emotional distress and depression were also associated with worse outcomes in PGA, pain and fatigue, whereas loneliness was not. In contrast, physical activity seemed to mitigate these effects. Loneliness did not show any associations with outcomes. Over time, these effects decreased or disappeared. CONCLUSION: Changes to clinical care owing to lockdown were associated with worse disease outcomes in patients with inflammatory arthritis. There has also been a clear impact on mental health, with possibly complex relationships between mental health and psychosocial factors. Physical activity emerged as a key influence on disease outcomes and mental health.

5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-313330

ABSTRACT

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and associated with worse prognosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology, risk factors and outcomes of AKI in patients with COVID-19 in a large UK tertiary centre. Methods: : We analysed data of consecutive adults admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 across two sites of a hospital in London, UK, from 1st January to 13th May 2020. Results: Of the 1248 inpatients included, 487 (39%) experienced AKI (51% stage 1, 13% stage 2,and 36% stage 3). The weekly AKI incidence rate gradually increased to peak at week 5 (3.12 cases/100 patient-days), before reducing to its nadir (0.83 cases/100 patient-days) at the end the study period (week 10). Among AKI survivors, 84.0% had recovered renal function to pre-admission levels before discharge and none required on-going renal replacement therapy (RRT). Pre-existing renal impairment [odds ratio (OR) 3.05, 95%CI 2.24-4,18;p<0.0001], and inpatient diuretic use (OR 1.79, 95%CI 1.27-2.53;p<0.005) were independently associated with a higher risk for AKI. AKI was a strong predictor of 30-day mortality with an increasing risk across AKI stages [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95%CI 1.19-2.13) for stage 1;p<0.005, 2.71(95%CI 1.82-4.05);p<0.001for stage 2 and 2.99 (95%CI 2.17-4.11);p<0.001for stage 3]. One third of AKI3 survivors (30.7%), had newly established renal impairment at 3 to 6 months. Conclusions: : This large UK cohort demonstrated a high AKI incidence with a changing pattern over time and was associated with increased mortality even at stage 1. Inpatient diuretic use was linked to a higher AKI risk. One third of survivors with AKI3 exhibited newly established renal impairment already at 3-6 months.

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307422

ABSTRACT

The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been hampered by lack of an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antiviral therapy. Here we report the successful use of remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19 and the prototypic genetic antibody deficiency X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA). Despite evidence of complement activation and a robust T cell response, the patient developed persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonitis, without progressing to multi-organ involvement. His unusual clinical course identifies a key role for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in both viral clearance and progression to severe disease. In the absence of these confounders, we took an experimental medicine approach to examine the in vivo utility of remdesivir. Over two independent courses of treatment, we observed a dramatic, temporally correlated clinical and virological response, leading to clinical resolution and viral clearance, with no evidence of acquired drug resistance. We therefore provide unambiguous evidence for the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in vivo , and its potential benefit in selected patients.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-306550

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves;the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes were different in the first and second waves.Methods: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and January 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone.Findings: There were 3,457 COVID-19 admissions, 2,494 hospital discharges and 619 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (25.7% versus 13.2%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.41(0.30, 0.56)p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 1.22(95%CI 0.91, 1.62),p=0.18] or dexamethasone [HR 1.31(95%CI 0.80, 2.14),p=0.29].Interpretation: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present.Funding: None.Conflict of Interest: None declared by authors.Ethical Approval: This project operated under London South East Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/LO/2048) approval granted to the King’s Electronic Records Research Interface (KERRI);specific work on COVID-19 research was reviewed with expert patient input on a virtual committee with Caldicott Guardian oversight.

8.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324881

ABSTRACT

Background: Understanding the spectrum and course of biological responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have important therapeutic implications. We sought to characterise biological responses among patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 based on their serial physiological and blood biomarker values.Methods and Findings: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1335 patients hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (median age 70 years, 56% male), between 1st March and 30th April, 2020. Latent profile analysis was performed on serial physiological and blood biomarkers. Patient characteristics, comorbidities and rates of death and admission to intensive care, were compared between the latent classes. A five class solution provided the best fit. Class 1 “Typical response” exhibited a moderately elevated and rising C-reactive protein (CRP), stable lymphopaenia, and the lowest rates of 14-day adverse outcomes. Class 2 “Rapid hyperinflammatory response” comprised older patients, with higher admission white cell and neutrophil counts, which declined over time, and were accompanied by a very high and rising CRP and platelet count, and the greatest risk of mortality. Class 3 “Progressive inflammatory response” was similar to the typical response except for a higher and rising CRP, though similar mortality rate. Class 4 “Inflammatory response with kidney injury” had prominent lymphopaenia, moderately elevated (and rising) CRP, and severe renal failure. Class 5 “Hyperinflammatory response with kidney injury” comprised older patients, with a very high and rising CRP, and severe renal failure that attenuated over time. Physiological measures did not substantially vary between classes at baseline or early admission.Conclusions and Relevance: Our identification of five distinct classes of biomarker profiles provides empirical evidence for heterogeneous biological responses to COVID-19. Early hyperinflammatory responses and kidney injury may signify unique pathophysiology that requires targeted therapy.Funding Statement: This paper represents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London AI Medical Imaging Centre for Value-Based Healthcare, and Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, both with King’s College London.Declaration of Interests: JTHT received research support and funding from InnovateUK, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, iRhythm Technologies, and holds shares <£5,000 in Glaxo Smithkline and Biogen. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: This project was conducted under London South East Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/LO/2048) approval granted to the King’s Electronic Records Research Interface (KERRI);specific work on COVID-19 research was reviewed with expert patient input on a virtual committee with Caldicott Guardian oversight.

9.
BMC Rheumatol ; 5(1): 58, 2021 Oct 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666685

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients have been identified as at greater risk of severe illness from COVID-19. It is likely that lockdown restrictions (enforced by the UK government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic) and subsequent changes made to healthcare provision could impact patients' abilities to effectively manage their condition. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore the impact of COVID-19 on self-management behaviours and healthcare access for people with IA. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 IA patients in June-July 2020, with nine follow-up interviews in November 2020. Interview schedules were developed with a Patient Research Partner and explored participants' experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were conducted via telephone and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants were aged between 24 and 79 years (mean = 50.1, SD = 15.8), largely female (71%) and White British (86%). Four initial themes were identified: (1) Impact of COVID-19 on medication adherence, (2) Impact of COVID-19 on physical activity, (3) Impact of COVID-19 on diet, and (4) Impact of COVID-19 on healthcare access and delivery. Subthemes focused on positive and negative changes made to these areas, as well as behaviours which remained consistent. Follow-up interviews highlighted differences in participants' experiences during the two lockdown periods. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has affected patients' abilities to manage their IA. Healthcare professionals need to recognise the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on patient self-management and healthcare access to ensure that adequate understanding and support is available to patients who may have inadequate disease control as a result.

10.
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform ; 26(1): 423-435, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666255

ABSTRACT

The ability to perform accurate prognosis is crucial for proactive clinical decision making, informed resource management and personalised care. Existing outcome prediction models suffer from a low recall of infrequent positive outcomes. We present a highly-scalable and robust machine learning framework to automatically predict adversity represented by mortality and ICU admission and readmission from time-series of vital signs and laboratory results obtained within the first 24 hours of hospital admission. The stacked ensemble platform comprises two components: a) an unsupervised LSTM Autoencoder that learns an optimal representation of the time-series, using it to differentiate the less frequent patterns which conclude with an adverse event from the majority patterns that do not, and b) a gradient boosting model, which relies on the constructed representation to refine prediction by incorporating static features. The model is used to assess a patient's risk of adversity and provides visual justifications of its prediction. Results of three case studies show that the model outperforms existing platforms in ICU and general ward settings, achieving average Precision-Recall Areas Under the Curve (PR-AUCs) of 0.891 (95% CI: 0.878-0.939) for mortality and 0.908 (95% CI: 0.870-0.935) in predicting ICU admission and readmission.


Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records , Machine Learning , Hospitalization , Humans , Length of Stay , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies
11.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0261142, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622334

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves; the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes for those admitted with severe Covid were different in the first and second waves. METHODS: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and March 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone. RESULTS: There were 3,949 COVID-19 admissions, 3,195 hospital discharges and 733 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (26.1% versus 13.1%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.49 (0.37, 0.65) p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 0.84 (95%CI 0.65, 1.08), p = 0.17] or dexamethasone [HR 0.97 (95%CI 0.70, 1.35) p = 0.87]. CONCLUSION: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality/trends , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity/trends , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , London , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Proportional Hazards Models
12.
Rheumatology advances in practice ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1602546

ABSTRACT

Objectives The COVID-19 lockdown and ongoing restrictions in the UK affected access to clinical care, self-management, and mental health for many patients with Inflammatory Arthritis (IA). This study aimed to determine the impact of lockdown on IA clinical care, self-management, disease outcomes, and mental health. Methods In total, 338 people with IA participated in a prospective study completing a series of online questionnaires. The questionnaires assessed demographics, IA condition and management, clinical care, quality of life, and mental health. Visual analogue scales (VAS) were completed at each assessment. Linear regression, controlling for confounders, was conducted to determine factors associated with physical and mental health outcomes. Results Over half of participants reported worsening VAS by more than 10 points for Patient Global Assessment (PGA), pain, fatigue, and emotional distress during the initial lockdown. Changes in clinical care were associated with worse PGA (b = 8.95, p = 0.01), pain (b = 7.13, p = 0.05), fatigue (b = 17.01, p < 0.01) and emotional distress (b = 12.78, p < 0.01). Emotional distress and depression were also associated with worse outcomes in PGA, pain, and fatigue, while loneliness was not. In contrast, physical activity seemed to mitigate these effects. Loneliness did not show any associations with outcomes. Over time, these effects decreased or disappeared. Conclusions Changes to clinical care due to lockdown were associated with worse disease outcomes in patients with IA. There has been a clear impact on mental health as well, with possibly complex relationships between mental health and psychosocial factors. Physical activity emerged as a key influence on disease outcomes and mental health.

13.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 4(1): e42-e52, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1595648

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have robust immunogenicity in the general population. However, data for individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants remains scarce. Our previously published cohort study showed that methotrexate, but not targeted biologics, impaired functional humoral immunity to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), whereas cellular responses were similar. Here, we aimed to assess immune responses following the second dose. METHODS: In this longitudinal cohort study, we recruited individuals with psoriasis who were receiving methotrexate or targeted biological monotherapy (ie, tumour necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitors, interleukin [IL]-17 inhibitors, or IL-23 inhibitors) from a specialist psoriasis centre serving London and South-East England. The healthy control cohort were volunteers without psoriasis, not receiving immunosuppression. Immunogenicity was evaluated immediately before, on day 28 after the first BNT162b2 vaccination and on day 14 after the second dose (administered according to an extended interval regimen). Here, we report immune responses following the second dose. The primary outcomes were humoral immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, defined as titres of total spike-specific IgG and of neutralising antibody to wild-type, alpha (B.1.1.7), and delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants, and cellular immunity defined as spike-specific T-cell responses (including numbers of cells producing interferon-γ, IL-2, IL-21). FINDINGS: Between Jan 14 and April 4, 2021, 121 individuals were recruited, and data were available for 82 participants after the second vaccination. The study population included patients with psoriasis receiving methotrexate (n=14), TNF inhibitors (n=19), IL-17 inhibitors (n=14), IL-23 inhibitors (n=20), and 15 healthy controls, who had received both vaccine doses. The median age of the study population was 44 years (IQR 33-52), with 43 (52%) males and 71 (87%) participants of White ethnicity. All participants had detectable spike-specific antibodies following the second dose, and all groups (methotrexate, targeted biologics, and healthy controls) demonstrated similar neutralising antibody titres against wild-type, alpha, and delta variants. By contrast, a lower proportion of participants on methotrexate (eight [62%] of 13, 95% CI 32-86) and targeted biologics (37 [74%] of 50, 60-85; p=0·38) had detectable T-cell responses following the second vaccine dose, compared with controls (14 [100%] of 14, 77-100; p=0·022). There was no difference in the magnitude of T-cell responses between patients receiving methotrexate (median cytokine-secreting cells per 106 cells 160 [IQR 10-625]), targeted biologics (169 [25-503], p=0·56), and controls (185 [133-328], p=0·41). INTERPRETATION: Functional humoral immunity (ie, neutralising antibody responses) at 14 days following a second dose of BNT162b2 was not impaired by methotrexate or targeted biologics. A proportion of patients on immunosuppression did not have detectable T-cell responses following the second dose. The longevity of vaccine-elicited antibody responses is unknown in this population. FUNDING: NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London; The Psoriasis Association.

15.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(2): 167-179, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517541

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. We therefore aimed to report the results of a substudy within a phase 3 UK trial, by evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 when co-administered with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. METHODS: We did a planned exploratory substudy as part of the randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) by co-administrating the influenza vaccine at four study hospitals in the UK. Approximately, the first 400 participants meeting the main study entry criteria-with no contraindications to influenza vaccination-were invited to join the substudy. Participants of the main study were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 µg) or placebo (normal saline) 21 days apart; participants enrolled into the substudy were co-vaccinated with a single (0·5 mL) intramuscular, age-appropriate (quadrivalent influenza cell-based vaccine [Flucelvax Quadrivalent; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those aged 18-64 years and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine [Fluad; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those ≥65 years), licensed, influenza vaccine on the opposite deltoid to that of the first study vaccine dose or placebo. The influenza vaccine was administered in an open-label manner and at the same time as the first study injection. Reactogenicity was evaluated via an electronic diary for 7 days after vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was assessed with influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein IgG assays. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed in participants who were seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study vaccine or placebo, had no major protocol deviations affecting the primary endpoint, and had no confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 from the first dose until 6 days after the second dose (per-protocol efficacy population). Immunogenicity was assessed in participants who received scheduled two doses of study vaccine, had a baseline sample and at least one post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol violations before unmasking (per-protocol immunogenicity population). Reactogenicity was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo and had data collected for reactogenicity events. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Comparisons were made between participants of the substudy and the main study (who were not co-vaccinated for influenza). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04583995. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2020, and Nov 28, 2020, a total of 15 187 participants were randomised into the main phase 3 trial, of whom 15 139 received treatment (7569 received dose one of NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received dose one of placebo). 431 participants were co-vaccinated with a seasonal influenza vaccine in the substudy (217 received NVX-CoV2373 plus the influenza vaccine and 214 received placebo plus the influenza vaccine). In general, the substudy participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than those in the main study. Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%]). Incidences of unsolicited adverse events, treatment-related medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events were low and balanced between the co-administration group and the NVX-CoV2373 alone group. No episodes of anaphylaxis or deaths were reported within the substudy. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response although a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. NVX-CoV2373 vaccine efficacy in the substudy (ie, participants aged 18 to <65 years) was 87·5% (95% CI -0·2 to 98·4) and in the main study was 89·8% (95% CI 79·7-95·5). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this substudy is the first to show the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines. Our results suggest concomitant vaccination might be a viable immunisation strategy. FUNDING: Novavax.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Seasons , Young Adult
16.
BMC Nephrol ; 22(1): 359, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496153

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and associated with worse prognosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology, risk factors and outcomes of AKI in patients with COVID-19 in a large UK tertiary centre. METHODS: We analysed data of consecutive adults admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 across two sites of a hospital in London, UK, from 1st January to 13th May 2020. RESULTS: Of the 1248 inpatients included, 487 (39%) experienced AKI (51% stage 1, 13% stage 2, and 36% stage 3). The weekly AKI incidence rate gradually increased to peak at week 5 (3.12 cases/100 patient-days), before reducing to its nadir (0.83 cases/100 patient-days) at the end the study period (week 10). Among AKI survivors, 84.0% had recovered renal function to pre-admission levels before discharge and none required on-going renal replacement therapy (RRT). Pre-existing renal impairment [odds ratio (OR) 3.05, 95%CI 2.24-4,18; p <  0.0001], and inpatient diuretic use (OR 1.79, 95%CI 1.27-2.53; p <  0.005) were independently associated with a higher risk for AKI. AKI was a strong predictor of 30-day mortality with an increasing risk across AKI stages [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95%CI 1.19-2.13) for stage 1; p < 0.005, 2.71(95%CI 1.82-4.05); p < 0.001for stage 2 and 2.99 (95%CI 2.17-4.11); p < 0.001for stage 3]. One third of AKI3 survivors (30.7%), had newly established renal impairment at 3 to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This large UK cohort demonstrated a high AKI incidence and was associated with increased mortality even at stage 1. Inpatient diuretic use was linked to a higher AKI risk. One third of survivors with AKI3 exhibited newly established renal impairment already at 3-6 months.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , COVID-19 , Renal Replacement Therapy , Acute Kidney Injury/diagnosis , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Acute Kidney Injury/mortality , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Kidney Function Tests/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Patient Acuity , Renal Replacement Therapy/methods , Renal Replacement Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , United Kingdom/epidemiology
17.
BMJ Open Gastroenterol ; 8(1)2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394098

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to describe community antibiotic prescribing patterns in individuals hospitalised with COVID-19, and to determine the association between experiencing diarrhoea, stratified by preadmission exposure to antibiotics, and mortality risk in this cohort. DESIGN/METHODS: Retrospective study of the index presentations of 1153 adult patients with COVID-19, admitted between 1 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 in a South London NHS Trust. Data on patients' medical history (presence of diarrhoea, antibiotic use in the previous 14 days, comorbidities); demographics (age, ethnicity, and body mass index); and blood test results were extracted. Time to event modelling was used to determine the risk of mortality for patients with diarrhoea and/or exposure to antibiotics. RESULTS: 19.2% of the cohort reported diarrhoea on presentation; these patients tended to be younger, and were less likely to have recent exposure to antibiotics (unadjusted OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97). 19.1% of the cohort had a course of antibiotics in the 2 weeks preceding admission; this was associated with dementia (unadjusted OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.49). After adjusting for confounders, neither diarrhoea nor recent antibiotic exposure was associated with increased mortality risk. However, the absence of diarrhoea in the presence of recent antibiotic exposure was associated with a 30% increased risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: Community antibiotic use in patients with COVID-19, prior to hospitalisation, is relatively common, and absence of diarrhoea in antibiotic-exposed patients may be associated with increased risk of mortality. However, it is unclear whether this represents a causal physiological relationship or residual confounding.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Diarrhea/chemically induced , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
19.
BMJ Leader ; 4(Suppl 1):A22-A23, 2020.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1318108

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on specialty training. All training days were cancelled and the majority of trainees were redeployed to general medicine.By early May 2020, there was a shift in the focus back towards specialty training as COVID-19 related hospital admissions continued to decrease. With the help of the team from King’s College London, a remote rheumatology training programme was developed and accessible to trainees from four different regions – South London, North West London, North East/North Central London and Kent/Surrey/Sussex. The collaboration between different regions gave access to a greater pool of speakers and reduced the administrative workload. Subsequent collaboration with the British Society for Rheumatology facilitated the delivery of the webinars on a national level, supporting other regions that had not yet set up any remote training.Feedback was particularly important for this innovative programme in order to understand how this experience could be optimised for trainees. There were no additional difficulties related to the training taking place online, with one trainee responding that it was ‘very easy to log on’. There was also positive feedback regarding the recording – ‘[it] was great to have a link to the recording to watch it later’.By having a shared vision for change, we were able to work across regions and organisations, delivering a high quality training programme on a national scale, benefitting a greater number of trainees. Remote training has the additional benefit of removing the need to travel between hospitals. Therefore, there may be a push towards blended learning (a combination of online and face-to-face learning) in the future. Using a robust feedback mechanism, we are confident that the programme will continue to improve as it evolves alongside the pandemic, aiming to at least in part, satisfy the speciality rheumatology training needs within our regions.

20.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(9): e627-e637, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301109

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients on therapeutic immunosuppressants for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases were excluded from COVID-19 vaccine trials. We therefore aimed to evaluate humoral and cellular immune responses to COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) in patients taking methotrexate and commonly used targeted biological therapies, compared with healthy controls. Given the roll-out of extended interval vaccination programmes to maximise population coverage, we present findings after the first dose. METHODS: In this cohort study, we recruited consecutive patients with a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis who were receiving methotrexate or targeted biological monotherapy (tumour necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitors, interleukin [IL]-17 inhibitors, or IL-23 inhibitors) from a specialist psoriasis centre serving London and South East England. Consecutive volunteers without psoriasis and not receiving systemic immunosuppression who presented for vaccination at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London, UK) were included as the healthy control cohort. All participants had to be eligible to receive the BNT162b2 vaccine. Immunogenicity was evaluated immediately before and on day 28 (±2 days) after vaccination. The primary outcomes were humoral immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, defined as neutralising antibody responses to wild-type SARS-CoV-2, and spike-specific T-cell responses (including interferon-γ, IL-2, and IL-21) 28 days after vaccination. FINDINGS: Between Jan 14 and April 4, 2021, 84 patients with psoriasis (17 on methotrexate, 27 on TNF inhibitors, 15 on IL-17 inhibitors, and 25 on IL-23 inhibitors) and 17 healthy controls were included. The study population had a median age of 43 years (IQR 31-52), with 56 (55%) males, 45 (45%) females, and 85 (84%) participants of White ethnicity. Seroconversion rates were lower in patients receiving immunosuppressants (60 [78%; 95% CI 67-87] of 77) than in controls (17 [100%; 80-100] of 17), with the lowest rate in those receiving methotrexate (seven [47%; 21-73] of 15). Neutralising activity against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 was significantly lower in patients receiving methotrexate (median 50% inhibitory dilution 129 [IQR 40-236]) than in controls (317 [213-487], p=0·0032), but was preserved in those receiving targeted biologics (269 [141-418]). Neutralising titres against the B.1.1.7 variant were similarly low in all participants. Cellular immune responses were induced in all groups, and were not attenuated in patients receiving methotrexate or targeted biologics compared with controls. INTERPRETATION: Functional humoral immunity to a single dose of BNT162b2 is impaired by methotrexate but not by targeted biologics, whereas cellular responses are preserved. Seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression. Real-world pharmacovigilance studies will determine how these findings reflect clinical effectiveness. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL