Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 19 de 19
Filter
1.
BMC Nephrol ; 23(1): 63, 2022 02 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690946

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 develop acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently, yet gaps remain in understanding why adults seem to have higher rates compared to children. Our objectives were to evaluate the epidemiology of SARS-CoV2-related AKI across the age spectrum and determine if known risk factors such as illness severity contribute to its pattern. METHODS: Secondary analysis of ongoing prospective international cohort registry. AKI was defined by KDIGO-creatinine only criteria. Log-linear, logistic and generalized estimating equations assessed odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AKI and mortality adjusting for sex, pre-existing comorbidities, race/ethnicity, illness severity, and clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses assessed different baseline creatinine estimators. RESULTS: Overall, among 6874 hospitalized patients, 39.6% (n = 2719) developed AKI. There was a bimodal distribution of AKI by age with peaks in older age (≥60 years) and middle childhood (5-15 years), which persisted despite controlling for illness severity, pre-existing comorbidities, or different baseline creatinine estimators. For example, the adjusted OR of developing AKI among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 was 2.74 (95% CI 1.66-4.56) for 10-15-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds and similarly was 2.31 (95% CI 1.71-3.12) for 70-75-year-olds, while adjusted OR dropped to 1.39 (95% CI 0.97-2.00) for 40-45-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV2-related AKI is common with a bimodal age distribution that is not fully explained by known risk factors or confounders. As the pandemic turns to disproportionately impacting younger individuals, this deserves further investigation as the presence of AKI and SARS-CoV2 infection increases hospital mortality risk.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Comorbidity , Confidence Intervals , Creatinine/blood , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Registries/statistics & numerical data , Severity of Illness Index
2.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-315607

ABSTRACT

Leading up to August 2020, COVID-19 has spread to almost every country in the world, causing millions of infected and hundreds of thousands of deaths. In this paper, we first verify the assumption that clinical variables could have time-varying effects on COVID-19 outcomes. Then, we develop a temporal stratification approach to make daily predictions on patients' outcome at the end of hospital stay. Training data is segmented by the remaining length of stay, which is a proxy for the patient's overall condition. Based on this, a sequence of predictive models are built, one for each time segment. Thanks to the publicly shared data, we were able to build and evaluate prototype models. Preliminary experiments show 0.98 AUROC, 0.91 F1 score and 0.97 AUPR on continuous deterioration prediction, encouraging further development of the model as well as validations on different datasets. We also verify the key assumption which motivates our method. Clinical variables could have time-varying effects on COVID-19 outcomes. That is to say, the feature importance of a variable in the predictive model varies at different disease stages.

4.
Critical Care Medicine ; 50:10-10, 2022.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1593598

ABSTRACT

B Conclusions: b MetS, diagnosed by the clustering of obesity, prediabetes/DM, HTN, and dyslipidemia, is associated with significantly increased mortality and ARDS in a global population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. B Introduction/Hypothesis: b Little is known about metabolic syndrome (MetS) and ARDS in COVID-19. However, patients from non-US hospitals had significantly higher hospital mortality as compared with US hospitals (24.5% vs 15.7%, aOR 1.58 [CI 1.41-1.77]) with similar findings noted when patients were stratified by MetS (34.1% vs 21.3%, aOR 1.49 [CI 1.08-2.06]). [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2140568, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592803

ABSTRACT

Importance: Obesity, diabetes, and hypertension are common comorbidities in patients with severe COVID-19, yet little is known about the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or death in patients with COVID-19 and metabolic syndrome. Objective: To determine whether metabolic syndrome is associated with an increased risk of ARDS and death from COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Respiratory Illness Universal Study collected from 181 hospitals across 26 countries from February 15, 2020, to February 18, 2021. Outcomes were compared between patients with metabolic syndrome (defined as ≥3 of the following criteria: obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia) and a control population without metabolic syndrome. Participants included adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the study period who had a completed discharge status. Data were analyzed from February 22 to October 5, 2021. Exposures: Exposures were SARS-CoV-2 infection, metabolic syndrome, obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ARDS, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and length of stay (LOS). Results: Among 46 441 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 29 040 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [17.8] years; 13 059 [45.0%] women and 15713 [54.1%] men; 6797 Black patients [23.4%], 5325 Hispanic patients [18.3%], and 16 507 White patients [57.8%]) met inclusion criteria. A total of 5069 patients (17.5%) with metabolic syndrome were compared with 23 971 control patients (82.5%) without metabolic syndrome. In adjusted analyses, metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risk of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.14-1.53]), invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.28-1.65]), ARDS (aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.12-1.66]), and mortality (aOR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31]) and prolonged hospital LOS (median [IQR], 8.0 [4.2-15.8] days vs 6.8 [3.4-13.0] days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median [IQR], 7.0 [2.8-15.0] days vs 6.4 [2.7-13.0] days; P < .001). Each additional metabolic syndrome criterion was associated with increased risk of ARDS in an additive fashion (1 criterion: 1147 patients with ARDS [10.4%]; P = .83; 2 criteria: 1191 patients with ARDS [15.3%]; P < .001; 3 criteria: 817 patients with ARDS [19.3%]; P < .001; 4 criteria: 203 patients with ARDS [24.3%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risks of ARDS and death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The association with ARDS was cumulative for each metabolic syndrome criteria present.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization , Metabolic Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Comorbidity , Critical Care , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
6.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 22(1): 953, 2021 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526624

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis is a common and disabling problem without effective therapies. Accumulating evidence suggests the role of local inflammation in causing pain and structural progression in hand osteoarthritis, and hand osteoarthritis with synovitis is a commonly encountered clinical phenotype. Methotrexate is a well-established, low-cost, and effective treatment for inflammatory arthritis with a well-described safety profile. The aim of this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is to determine whether methotrexate reduces pain over 6 months in patients with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis. METHODS: Ninety-six participants with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis will be recruited through the Osteoarthritis Clinical Trial Network (Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, and Perth), and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either methotrexate 20 mg or identical placebo once weekly for 6 months. The primary outcome is pain reduction (assessed by 100 mm visual analogue scale) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes include changes in physical function and quality of life assessed using Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, Short-Form-36, tender and swollen joint count, and grip strength, and structural progression assessed using progression of synovitis and bone marrow lesions from magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic progression at 6 months. Adverse events will be recorded. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat, including all participants in their randomised groups. DISCUSSION: This study will provide high-quality evidence to address whether methotrexate has an effect on reducing pain over 6 months in patients with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis, with major clinical and public health importance. While a positive trial will inform international clinical practice guidelines for the management of hand osteoarthritis, a negative trial would be highly topical and change current trends in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12617000877381. Registered 15 June 2017, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373124.


Subject(s)
Osteoarthritis , Synovitis , Australia , Canada , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Methotrexate/therapeutic use , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Osteoarthritis/diagnostic imaging , Osteoarthritis/drug therapy , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Synovitis/diagnostic imaging , Synovitis/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome
7.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(12): e855-e864, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1500370

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica might be at a high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes due to the treatments used, the potential organ damage cause by primary systemic vasculitis, and the demographic factors associated with these conditions. We therefore aimed to investigate factors associated with COVID-19 outcomes in patients with primary systemic vasculitis or polymyalgia rheumatica. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and April 12, 2021, who had a history of primary systemic vasculitis (antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]-associated vasculitis, giant cell arteritis, Behçet's syndrome, or other vasculitis) or polymyalgia rheumatica, and were reported to the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry were included. To assess COVID-19 outcomes in patients, we used an ordinal COVID-19 severity scale, defined as: (1) no hospitalisation; (2) hospitalisation without supplemental oxygen; (3) hospitalisation with any supplemental oxygen or ventilation; or (4) death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs), adjusting for age, sex, time period, number of comorbidities, smoking status, obesity, glucocorticoid use, disease activity, region, and medication category. Analyses were also stratified by type of rheumatic disease. FINDINGS: Of 1202 eligible patients identified in the registry, 733 (61·0%) were women and 469 (39·0%) were men, and their mean age was 63·8 years (SD 17·1). A total of 374 (31·1%) patients had polymyalgia rheumatica, 353 (29·4%) had ANCA-associated vasculitis, 183 (15·2%) had giant cell arteritis, 112 (9·3%) had Behçet's syndrome, and 180 (15·0%) had other vasculitis. Of 1020 (84·9%) patients with outcome data, 512 (50·2%) were not hospitalised, 114 (11·2%) were hospitalised and did not receive supplemental oxygen, 239 (23·4%) were hospitalised and received ventilation or supplemental oxygen, and 155 (15·2%) died. A higher odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes were observed in patients who were older (per each additional decade of life OR 1·44 [95% CI 1·31-1·57]), were male compared with female (1·38 [1·05-1·80]), had more comorbidities (per each additional comorbidity 1·39 [1·23-1·58]), were taking 10 mg/day or more of prednisolone compared with none (2·14 [1·50-3·04]), or had moderate, or high or severe disease activity compared with those who had disease remission or low disease activity (2·12 [1·49-3·02]). Risk factors varied among different disease subtypes. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with primary systemic vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica, severe COVID-19 outcomes were associated with variable and largely unmodifiable risk factors, such as age, sex, and number of comorbidities, as well as treatments, including high-dose glucocorticoids. Our results could be used to inform mitigation strategies for patients with these diseases. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

8.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(10): e707-e714, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486373

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease are unclear. We developed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease worldwide. METHODS: Survey questions were developed by key stakeholder groups and disseminated worldwide through social media, websites, and patient support organisations. Questions included demographics, rheumatic disease diagnosis, COVID-19 diagnosis, adoption of protective behaviours to mitigate COVID-19 exposure, medication access and changes, health-care access and communication with rheumatologists, and changes in employment or schooling. Adults age 18 years and older with inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded participants reporting only non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis. FINDINGS: 12 117 responses to the survey were received between April 3 and May 8, 2020, and of these, 10 407 respondents had included appropriate age data. We included complete responses from 9300 adults with rheumatic disease (mean age 46·1 years; 8375 [90·1%] women, 893 [9·6%] men, and 32 [0·3%] participants who identified as non-binary). 6273 (67·5%) of respondents identified as White, 1565 (16·8%) as Latin American, 198 (2·1%) as Black, 190 (2·0%) as Asian, and 42 (0·5%) as Native American or Aboriginal or First Nation. The most common rheumatic disease diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis (3636 [39·1%] of 9300), systemic lupus erythematosus (2882 [31·0%]), and Sjögren's syndrome (1290 [13·9%]). Most respondents (6921 [82·0%] of 8441) continued their antirheumatic medications as prescribed. Almost all (9266 [99·7%] of 9297) respondents adopted protective behaviours to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure. A change in employment status occurred in 2524 (27·1%) of 9300) of respondents, with a 13·6% decrease in the number in full-time employment (from 4066 to 3514). INTERPRETATION: People with rheumatic disease maintained therapy and followed public health advice to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Substantial employment status changes occurred, with potential implications for health-care access, medication affordability, mental health, and rheumatic disease activity. FUNDING: American College of Rheumatology.

9.
RMD Open ; 7(3)2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398725

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We describe the early experiences of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: From 2 April to 30 April 2021, we conducted an online, international survey of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected patient-reported data on clinician communication, beliefs and intent about discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around the time of vaccination, and patient-reported adverse events after vaccination. RESULTS: We analysed 2860 adults with systemic rheumatic diseases who received COVID-19 vaccination (mean age 55.3 years, 86.7% female, 86.3% white). Types of COVID-19 vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (53.2%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (22.6%), Moderna (21.3%), Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (1.7%) and others (1.2%). The most common rheumatic disease was rheumatoid arthritis (42.3%), and 81.2% of respondents were on a DMARD. The majority (81.9%) reported communicating with clinicians about vaccination. Most (66.9%) were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy, although many (44.3%) were concerned about rheumatic disease flares. After vaccination, the most reported patient-reported adverse events were fatigue/somnolence (33.4%), headache (27.7%), muscle/joint pains (22.8%) and fever/chills (19.9%). Rheumatic disease flares that required medication changes occurred in 4.6%. CONCLUSION: Among adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination, patient-reported adverse events were typical of those reported in the general population. Most patients were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy. The relatively low frequency of rheumatic disease flare requiring medications was reassuring.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Rheumatic Diseases , Rheumatology , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination
10.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(8): e0514, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1393343

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Even with its proclivity for older age, coronavirus disease 2019 has been shown to affect all age groups. However, there remains a lack of research focused primarily on the young adult population. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and identify the risk factors associated with critical illness and mortality in hospitalized young adults. DESIGN SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry. Patients 18-40 years old, hospitalized from coronavirus disease 2019 from March 2020 to April 2021, were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Critical illness was defined as a composite of mortality and 21 predefined interventions and complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with critical illness and mortality. RESULTS: Data from 4,005 patients (152 centers, 19 countries, 18.6% non-U.S. patients) were analyzed. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 27-37 yr); 51% were female, 29.4% Hispanic, and 42.9% had obesity. Most patients (63.2%) had comorbidities, the most common being hypertension (14.5%) and diabetes (13.7%). Hospital and ICU mortality were 3.2% (129/4,005) and 8.3% (109/1,313), respectively. Critical illness occurred in 25% (n = 996), and 34.3% (n = 1,376) were admitted to the ICU. Older age (p = 0.03), male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.2-2.6]), and obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4]) were associated with hospital mortality. In addition to the above factors, the presence of any comorbidity was associated with critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019. Multiple sensitivity analyses, including analysis with U.S. patients only and patients admitted to high-volume sites, showed similar risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized young adults, obese males with comorbidities are at higher risk of developing critical illness or dying from coronavirus disease 2019.

11.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 22(1): 738, 2021 Aug 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376576

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established benefits of physical activity for knee osteoarthritis (OA), nine of ten people with knee OA are inactive. People with knee OA who are inactive often believe that physical activity is dangerous, fearing that it will further damage their joint(s). Such unhelpful beliefs can negatively influence physical activity levels. We aim to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of integrating physiotherapist-delivered pain science education (PSE), an evidence-based conceptual change intervention targeting unhelpful pain beliefs by increasing pain knowledge, with an individualised walking, strengthening, and general education program. METHODS: Two-arm, parallel-design, multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 198 people aged ≥50 years with painful knee OA who do not meet physical activity guideline recommendations or walk regularly for exercise. Both groups receive an individualised physiotherapist-led walking, strengthening, and OA/activity education program via 4x weekly in-person treatment sessions, followed by 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly check-in via telehealth), with follow-up sessions at 3 months (telehealth) and 5 and 9 months (in-person). The EPIPHA-KNEE group also receives contemporary PSE about OA/pain and activity, embedded into all aspects of the intervention. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are physical activity level (step count; wrist-based accelerometry) and self-reported knee symptoms (WOMAC Total score) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain intensity, global rating of change, self-efficacy, pain catastrophising, depression, anxiety, stress, fear of movement, knee awareness, OA/activity conceptualisation, and self-regulated learning ability. Additional measures include adherence, adverse events, blinding success, COVID-19 impact on activity, intention to exercise, treatment expectancy/perceived credibility, implicit movement/environmental bias, implicit motor imagery, two-point discrimination, and pain sensitivity to activity. Cost-utility analysis of the EPIPHA-KNEE intervention will be undertaken, in addition to evaluation of cost-effectiveness in the context of primary trial outcomes. DISCUSSION: We will determine whether the integration of PSE into an individualised OA education, walking, and strengthening program is more effective than receiving the individualised program alone. Findings will inform the development and implementation of future delivery of PSE as part of best practice for people with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620001041943 (13/10/2020).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Osteoarthritis, Knee , Australia , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Exercise , Exercise Therapy , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Osteoarthritis, Knee/diagnosis , Osteoarthritis, Knee/therapy , Pain , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): 437-448, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1298993

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care Outcomes , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Registries , Adult , Aged , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Renal Replacement Therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Vasoconstrictor Agents
13.
Intern Med J ; 51(7): 1028-1037, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1295022

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Outpatient clinics were shifted rapidly to telehealth in Australia during the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, drastically altering patient care and experience. AIMS: To investigate patient satisfaction and acceptability of telehealth consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Prospective observation study conducted in two hospital rheumatology outpatient departments (OPD) undertaking telehealth consultations during COVID-19. A modified version of a validated telehealth evaluation survey was posted to all patients attending the telehealth OPD rheumatology clinics, including balanced 5-point Likert scales and free-text responses. Cluster analysis was applied to the Likert-scale questions, alongside thematic analysis of free-text responses. RESULTS: There were 128 respondents (29% response rate), of which 69.5% were women and the majority (87.5%) was aged 50 years or older. All telehealth consultations were conducted by telephone. Nearly one-fifth of patients indicated consistent dissatisfaction with telehealth across the range of questions. These patients were older, reported lower educational qualifications and lower health literacy scores and lacked access to the Internet. While many patients found this mode of consultation to be convenient, patients expressed concerns regarding absence of physical examination. A recurrent theme was a desire for a mixed-model clinic in the future, with flexibility of having both telehealth and face-to-face consultations. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers unique insights into patients' experiences with telehealth, which until the current global pandemic, has been an uncommon mode of consultation delivery in urban areas. This study suggests when defining the place of telehealth in future healthcare delivery, patient perspective and careful patient selection will be key. Disease progression, language and cognitive ability, health literacy, technology access and patient and clinician preference are important considerations when deciding how effectively to embed and integrate telehealth into consultations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Australia/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
14.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253007, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1264226

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered. METHODS: In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words "(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])" applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model. FINDINGS: A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5-94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4-89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1-94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. INTERPRETATION: Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and "en masse" screening of populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Humans , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling/methods
15.
Int J Rheum Dis ; 24(6): 733-745, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1214741

ABSTRACT

AIM: To update previous guidance of the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) on the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Research questions were formulated focusing on diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with RMD within the context of the pandemic, including the management of RMD in patients who developed COVID-19. MEDLINE was searched for eligible studies to address the questions, and the APLAR COVID-19 task force convened 2 meetings through video conferencing to discuss its findings and integrate best available evidence with expert opinion. Consensus statements were finalized using the modified Delphi process. RESULTS: Agreement was obtained around key aspects of screening for or diagnosis of COVID-19; management of patients with RMD without confirmed COVID-19; and management of patients with RMD with confirmed COVID-19. The task force achieved consensus on 25 statements covering the potential risk of acquiring COVID-19 in RMD patients, advice on RMD medication adjustment and continuation, the roles of telemedicine and vaccination, and the impact of the pandemic on quality of life and on treatment adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence primarily from descriptive research supported new recommendations for aspects of RMD care not covered in the previous document, particularly with regard to risk factors for complicated COVID-19 in RMD patients, modifications to RMD treatment regimens in the context of the pandemic, and COVID-19 vaccination in patients with RMD.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Consensus , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Comorbidity , Humans , Rheumatic Diseases/epidemiology , Rheumatology , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Lancet ; 397(10277): 881-891, 2021 03 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174543

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Schedule , Immunization, Secondary , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibody Formation , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Young Adult
18.
SSRN; 2021.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-6412
19.
Lancet ; 397(10269): 99-111, 2021 01 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1057535

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Brazil , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , South Africa , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL