Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
Filter
1.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ; 19(1): 94, 2022 Jul 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1962853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals recovering from severe COVID-19 is increasing rapidly. However, little is known about physical behaviours that make up the 24-h cycle within these individuals. This study aimed to describe physical behaviours following hospital admission for COVID-19 at eight months post-discharge including associations with acute illness severity and ongoing symptoms. METHODS: One thousand seventy-seven patients with COVID-19 discharged from hospital between March and November 2020 were recruited. Using a 14-day wear protocol, wrist-worn accelerometers were sent to participants after a five-month follow-up assessment. Acute illness severity was assessed by the WHO clinical progression scale, and the severity of ongoing symptoms was assessed using four previously reported data-driven clinical recovery clusters. Two existing control populations of office workers and individuals with type 2 diabetes were comparators. RESULTS: Valid accelerometer data from 253 women and 462 men were included. Women engaged in a mean ± SD of 14.9 ± 14.7 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 12.1 ± 1.7 h/day spent inactive and 7.2 ± 1.1 h/day asleep. The values for men were 21.0 ± 22.3 and 12.6 ± 1.7 h /day and 6.9 ± 1.1 h/day, respectively. Over 60% of women and men did not have any days containing a 30-min bout of MVPA. Variability in sleep timing was approximately 2 h in men and women. More severe acute illness was associated with lower total activity and MVPA in recovery. The very severe recovery cluster was associated with fewer days/week containing continuous bouts of MVPA, longer total sleep time, and higher variability in sleep timing. Patients post-hospitalisation with COVID-19 had lower levels of physical activity, greater sleep variability, and lower sleep efficiency than a similarly aged cohort of office workers or those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Those recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19 have low levels of physical activity and disrupted patterns of sleep several months after discharge. Our comparative cohorts indicate that the long-term impact of COVID-19 on physical behaviours is significant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Accelerometry/methods , Aftercare , Aged , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Exercise , Female , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Patient Discharge , Sleep
2.
Br J Anaesth ; 128(6): 980-989, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1828009

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 can require critical care for prolonged periods. Patients with persistent critical Illness can have complex recovery trajectories, but this has not been studied for patients with COVID-19. We examined the prevalence, risk factors, and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and persistent critical illness. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of all adults admitted to Scottish critical care units with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020 to September 4, 20. Persistent critical illness was defined as a critical care length of stay (LOS) of ≥10 days. Outcomes included 1-yr mortality and hospital readmission after critical care discharge. Fine and Gray competing risk analysis was used to identify factors associated with persistent critical Illness with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: A total of 2236 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to critical care; 1045 patients were identified as developing persistent critical Illness, comprising 46.7% of the cohort but using 80.6% of bed-days. Patients with persistent critical illness used more organ support, had longer post-critical care LOS, and longer total hospital LOS. Persistent critical illness was not significantly associated with long-term mortality or hospital readmission. Risk factors associated with increased hazard of persistent critical illness included age, illness severity, organ support on admission, and fewer comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of all patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care developed persistent critical illness, with high resource use in critical care and beyond. However, persistent critical illness was not associated with significantly worse long-term outcomes compared with patients who were critically ill for shorter periods.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies
4.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264971, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1742014

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Families of intensive care unit (ICU) decedents are at increased risk of experiencing complicated grief. However, factors associated with complicated grief in ICU and bereavement needs assessment are not available routinely. We aimed to conduct a systematic review identifying risk factors associated with complicated grief among family members of ICU decedents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant articles. Observational studies and randomised and non-randomised controlled trials were included. Studies were screened and quality appraised in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Seven studies conducted across three continents were eligible. Four studies were of high quality. 61 risk factors were investigated across the studies. Factors associated with a decreased risk of complicated grief included age, patient declining treatment and involvement in decision-making. Factors associated with increased risk included living alone, partner, dying while intubated, problematic communication, and not having the opportunity to say goodbye. CONCLUSION: This systematic review has identified risk factors which may help identify family members at increased risk of complicated grief. Many of the studies has small sample sizes increasing the risk of erroneously reporting no effect due to type II error. Some factors are specific to the ICU setting and are potentially modifiable. Bereavement services tailored to the needs of bereaved family members in ICU settings are required. (PROSPERO registration ID 209503).


Subject(s)
Bereavement , Grief , Family , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Risk Factors
5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316787

ABSTRACT

Background: Although COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to have high efficacy in the general population, it has not been established whether this applies to vulnerable groups. The objective of this study was to estimate the efficacy of vaccination in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 among those designated as clinically extremely vulnerable in Scotland. Methods: : In a matched case-control design (REACT-SCOT), all 111295 cases of COVID-19 in Scotland diagnosed from 1 December 2020 to 16 March 2021 were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 1093449 controls from the general population. This was linked to national data on vaccinations and those designated as clinically extremely vulnerable and thus eligible for shielding support. Severe COVID-19 was defined as cases with entry to critical care or fatal outcome. Rate ratios associated with vaccination within risk groups were estimated by conditional logistic regression. Results: : The rate ratio for severe COVID-19 associated with vaccination at least 14 days before was 0.29 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.37) in those eligible for shielding, compared with 0.29 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.34) in those ineligible for shielding. The rate ratio for hospitalized or fatal COVID-19 was 0.39 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.46) in those eligible and 0.37 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.41) in those not eligible for shielding. Examined by specific shielding conditions, the rate ratio for hospitalized or fatal COVID-19 ranged from 0.33 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.51) in those with specific cancers to 0.74 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.51) in solid organ transplant recipients, and 0.53 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.84) in others on immunosuppressants (excluding solid organ transplant recipients). Conclusions: : These results are reassuring with respect to efficacy in clinically vulnerable individuals including immunocompromised individuals, but studies in larger populations are needed to estimate efficacy in solid organ transplant recipients.

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-315782

ABSTRACT

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to significant respiratory failure with between 14% and 18% of hospitalised patients requiring critical care admission. This study describes the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on 30-day survival following critical care admission for COVID-19, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care capacity in Scotland.Methods: This cohort study used linked national hospital records including ICU, virology testing and national death records to identify and describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to a critical care unit in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the impact of deprivation on 30-day mortality. Critical care capacity was described by reporting the percentage of baseline ICU bed utilisation required.Results: There were 735 patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care units across Scotland from 1/3/2020 to 20/6/2020. There was a higher proportion of patients from more deprived areas, with 183 admissions (24.9%) from the most deprived quintile and 100 (13.6%) from the least deprived quintile. 30-day mortality was 34.8%. After adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity, mortality was significantly higher in patients from the most deprived quintile (OR 1.97, 95%CI 1.13, 3.41, p=0.016). ICUs serving populations with higher levels of deprivation spent a greater amount of time over their baseline ICU bed capacity.Conclusion: Patients with COVID-19 living in areas with greater socioeconomic deprivation had a higher frequency of critical care admission and a higher adjusted 30-day mortality. ICUs in health boards with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation had both higher peak occupancy and longer duration of occupancy over normal maximum capacity.Funding Statement: None.Declaration of Interests: All authors declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work;no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years;NL is Director of Research, Intensive Care Society;JM is funded by a THIS.Institute (University of Cambridge) Research Fellowship (PD-2019-02-16). Ethics Approval Statement: The Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group in Public Health Scotland has a legislative remit to process personal data in relation to public health. Linkage to additional datasets was approved following scrutiny by the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (ref 1920-0093). Access and use of the data for the purpose of this work were approved following a Public Health Scotland information governance review of linking additional internal datasets to identify patients with COVID-19. Only analysts working in Public Health Scotland had access to the linked patient data which could only be accessed via an NHS secure network.

7.
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.

8.
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

9.
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
10.
Journal of the Intensive Care Society ; : 17511437211052226, 2021.
Article in English | Sage | ID: covidwho-1480400

ABSTRACT

Background:We aimed to compare the prevalence and severity of fatigue in survivors of Covid-19 versus non-Covid-19 critical illness, and to explore potential associations between baseline characteristics and worse recovery.Methods:We conducted a secondary analysis of two prospectively collected datasets. The population included was 92 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with Covid-19, and 240 patients who received IMV with non-Covid-19 illness before the pandemic. Follow-up data were collected post-hospital discharge using self-reported questionnaires. The main outcome measures were self-reported fatigue severity and the prevalence of severe fatigue (severity >7/10) 3 and 12-months post-hospital discharge.Results:Covid-19 IMV-patients were significantly younger with less prior comorbidity, and more males, than pre-pandemic IMV-patients. At 3-months, the prevalence (38.9% [7/18] vs. 27.1% [51/188]) and severity (median 5.5/10 vs 5.0/10) of fatigue were similar between the Covid-19 and pre-pandemic populations, respectively. At 6-months, the prevalence (10.3% [3/29] vs. 32.5% [54/166]) and severity (median 2.0/10 vs. 5.7/10) of fatigue were less in the Covid-19 cohort. In the total sample of IMV-patients included (i.e. all Covid-19 and pre-pandemic patients), having Covid-19 was significantly associated with less severe fatigue (severity <7/10) after adjusting for age, sex and prior comorbidity (adjusted OR 0.35 (95%CI 0.15?0.76, p=0.01).Conclusion:Fatigue may be less severe after Covid-19 than after other critical illness.

11.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 8: 100186, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397545

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study sought to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation. METHODS: 327 hospitalised participants, with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a prospective multicentre cohort study at least 3 months post-discharge. The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). FINDINGS: 55% of participants reported not feeling fully recovered. 93% reported persistent symptoms, with fatigue the most common (83%), followed by breathlessness (54%). 47% reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24% of participants. The EQ5D-5L summary index was significantly worse following acute illness (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

12.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(7): 773-785, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337040

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the UK appeared to decline during the first wave of the pandemic. We aimed to quantify potential drivers of this change and identify groups of patients who remain at high risk of dying in hospital. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK recruited a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 247 acute hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales during the first wave of the pandemic (between March 9 and Aug 2, 2020). We included all patients aged 18 years and older with clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19 (by RT-PCR test) from assumed community-acquired infection. We did a three-way decomposition mediation analysis using natural effects models to explore associations between week of admission and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for confounders (demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness) and quantifying potential mediators (level of respiratory support and steroid treatment). The primary outcome was weekly in-hospital mortality at 28 days, defined as the proportion of patients who had died within 28 days of admission of all patients admitted in the observed week, and it was assessed in all patients with an outcome. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between March 9, and Aug 2, 2020, we recruited 80 713 patients, of whom 63 972 were eligible and included in the study. Unadjusted weekly in-hospital mortality declined from 32·3% (95% CI 31·8-32·7) in March 9 to April 26, 2020, to 16·4% (15·0-17·8) in June 15 to Aug 2, 2020. Reductions in mortality were observed in all age groups, in all ethnic groups, for both sexes, and in patients with and without comorbidities. After adjustment, there was a 32% reduction in the risk of mortality per 7-week period (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·65-0·71]). The higher proportions of patients with severe disease and comorbidities earlier in the first wave (March and April) than in June and July accounted for 10·2% of this reduction. The use of respiratory support changed during the first wave, with gradually increased use of non-invasive ventilation over the first wave. Changes in respiratory support and use of steroids accounted for 22·2%, OR 0·95 (0·94-0·95) of the reduction in in-hospital mortality. INTERPRETATION: The reduction in in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in the UK was partly accounted for by changes in the case-mix and illness severity. A significant reduction in in-hospital mortality was associated with differences in respiratory support and critical care use, which could partly reflect accrual of clinical knowledge. The remaining improvement in in-hospital mortality is not explained by these factors, and could be associated with changes in community behaviour, inoculum dose, and hospital capacity strain. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Protocols , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology , World Health Organization
13.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 149, 2021 06 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1277942

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinically vulnerable individuals have been advised to shield themselves during the COVID-19 epidemic. The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) the rate ratio of severe COVID-19 associated with eligibility for the shielding programme in Scotland across the first and second waves of the epidemic and (2) the relation of severe COVID-19 to transmission-related factors in those in shielding and the general population. METHODS: In a matched case-control design, all 178,578 diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in Scotland from 1 March 2020 to 18 February 2021 were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 1,744,283 controls from the general population. This dataset (REACT-SCOT) was linked to the list of 212,702 individuals identified as eligible for shielding. Severe COVID-19 was defined as cases that entered critical care or were fatal. Rate ratios were estimated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: With those without risk conditions as reference category, the univariate rate ratio for severe COVID-19 was 3.21 (95% CI 3.01 to 3.41) in those with moderate risk conditions and 6.3 (95% CI 5.8 to 6.8) in those eligible for shielding. The highest rate was in solid organ transplant recipients: rate ratio 13.4 (95% CI 9.6 to 18.8). Risk of severe COVID-19 increased with the number of adults but decreased with the number of school-age children in the household. Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with recent exposure to hospital (defined as 5 to 14 days before presentation date): rate ratio 12.3 (95% CI 11.5 to 13.2) overall. The population attributable risk fraction for recent exposure to hospital peaked at 50% in May 2020 and again at 65% in December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of shielding vulnerable individuals was limited by the inability to control transmission in hospital and from other adults in the household. Mitigating the impact of the epidemic requires control of nosocomial transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Critical Care , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Pregnancy , Primary Health Care , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Scotland/epidemiology
14.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 1: 100005, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1265776

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to significant respiratory failure with between 14% and 18% of hospitalised patients requiring critical care admission. This study describes the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on 30-day survival following critical care admission for COVID-19, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care capacity in Scotland. METHODS: This cohort study used linked national hospital records including ICU, virology testing and national death records to identify and describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care units in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the impact of deprivation on 30-day mortality. Critical care capacity was described by reporting the percentage of baseline ICU bed utilisation required. FINDINGS: There were 735 patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care units across Scotland from 1/3/2020 to 20/6/2020. There was a higher proportion of patients from more deprived areas, with 183 admissions (24.9%) from the most deprived quintile and 100 (13.6%) from the least deprived quintile. Overall, 30-day mortality was 34.8%. After adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity, mortality was significantly higher in patients from the most deprived quintile (OR 1.97, 95%CI 1.13, 3.41, p=0.016). ICUs serving populations with higher levels of deprivation spent a greater amount of time over their baseline ICU bed capacity. INTERPRETATION: Patients with COVID-19 living in areas with greatest socioeconomic deprivation had a higher frequency of critical care admission and a higher adjusted 30-day mortality. ICUs in health boards with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation had both higher peak occupancy and longer duration of occupancy over normal maximum capacity. FUNDING: None.

15.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e043887, 2021 03 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127585

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Very little is known about possible clinical sequelae that may persist after resolution of acute COVID-19. A recent longitudinal cohort from Italy including 143 patients followed up after hospitalisation with COVID-19 reported that 87% had at least one ongoing symptom at 60-day follow-up. Early indications suggest that patients with COVID-19 may need even more psychological support than typical intensive care unit patients. The assessment of risk factors for longer term consequences requires a longitudinal study linked to data on pre-existing conditions and care received during the acute phase of illness. The primary aim of this study is to characterise physical and psychosocial sequelae in patients post-COVID-19 hospital discharge. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an international open-access prospective, observational multisite study. This protocol is linked with the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) and the WHO's Clinical Characterisation Protocol, which includes patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 during hospitalisation. This protocol will follow-up a subset of patients with confirmed COVID-19 using standardised surveys to measure longer term physical and psychosocial sequelae. The data will be linked with the acute phase data. Statistical analyses will be undertaken to characterise groups most likely to be affected by sequelae of COVID-19. The open-access follow-up survey can be used as a data collection tool by other follow-up studies, to facilitate data harmonisation and to identify subsets of patients for further in-depth follow-up. The outcomes of this study will inform strategies to prevent long-term consequences; inform clinical management, interventional studies, rehabilitation and public health management to reduce overall morbidity; and improve long-term outcomes of COVID-19. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and survey are open access to enable low-resourced sites to join the study to facilitate global standardised, longitudinal data collection. Ethical approval has been given by sites in Colombia, Ghana, Italy, Norway, Russia, the UK and South Africa. New sites are welcome to join this collaborative study at any time. Sites interested in adopting the protocol as it is or in an adapted version are responsible for ensuring that local sponsorship and ethical approvals in place as appropriate. The tools are available on the ISARIC website (www.isaric.org). PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/c5rw3/ PROTOCOL VERSION: 3 August 2020 EUROQOL ID: 37035.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/psychology , Colombia , Ghana , Humans , Italy , Longitudinal Studies , Norway , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Russia , South Africa , United Kingdom
16.
Emerg Med J ; 38(5): 366-370, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1116575

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To understand the effect of COVID-19 lockdown measures on severity of illness and mortality in non-COVID-19 acute medical admissions. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: 3 large acute medical receiving units in NHS Lothian, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Non-COVID-19 acute admissions (n=1682) were examined over the first 31 days after the implementation of the COVID-19 lockdown policy in the UK on 23 March 2019. Patients admitted over a matched interval in the previous 5 years were used as a comparator cohort (n=14 954). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demography, biochemical markers of clinical acuity and 7-day hospital inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Non-COVID-19 acute medical admissions reduced by 44.9% across all three sites in comparison with the mean of the preceding 5 years (p<0.001). Patients arriving during this period were more likely to be male, of younger age and to arrive by emergency ambulance transport. Non-COVID-19 admissions during lockdown had a greater incidence of acute kidney injury, lactic acidaemia and an increased risk of hospital death within 7 days (4.2% vs 2.5%), which persisted after adjustment for confounders (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.41, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate a significant reduction in non-COVID-19 acute medical admissions during the early weeks of lockdown. Patients admitted during this period were of higher clinical acuity with a higher incidence of early inpatient mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospital Administration/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality/trends , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Ambulances/statistics & numerical data , Biomarkers , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , Time-to-Treatment , United Kingdom
17.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 51, 2021 02 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1094033

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the relation of severe COVID-19 to prior drug prescribing. METHODS: Severe cases were defined by entry to critical care or fatal outcome. For this matched case-control study (REACT-SCOT), all 4251 cases of severe COVID-19 in Scotland since the start of the epidemic were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 36,738 controls from the population register. Records were linked to hospital discharges since June 2015 and dispensed prescriptions issued in primary care during the last 240 days. RESULTS: Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with the number of non-cardiovascular drug classes dispensed. This association was strongest in those not resident in a care home, in whom the rate ratio (95% CI) associated with dispensing of 12 or more drug classes versus none was 10.8 (8.8, 13.3), and in those without any of the conditions designated as conferring increased risk of COVID-19. Of 17 drug classes postulated at the start of the epidemic to be "medications compromising COVID", all were associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 and these associations were present in those without any of the designated risk conditions. The fraction of cases in the population attributable to exposure to these drug classes was 38%. The largest effect was for antipsychotic agents: rate ratio 4.18 (3.42, 5.11). Other drug classes with large effects included proton pump inhibitors (rate ratio 2.20 (1.72, 2.83) for = 2 defined daily doses/day), opioids (3.66 (2.68, 5.01) for = 50 mg morphine equivalent/day) and gabapentinoids. These associations persisted after adjusting for covariates and were stronger with recent than with non-recent exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 is associated with polypharmacy and with drugs that cause sedation, respiratory depression, or dyskinesia; have anticholinergic effects; or affect the gastrointestinal system. These associations are not easily explained by co-morbidity. Measures to reduce the burden of mortality and morbidity from COVID-19 should include reinforcing existing guidance on reducing overprescribing of these drug classes and limiting inappropriate polypharmacy. REGISTRATION: ENCEPP number EUPAS35558.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/trends , Polypharmacy , Psychotropic Drugs/adverse effects , Severity of Illness Index , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/chemically induced , Case-Control Studies , Comorbidity , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Prescriptions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Psychotropic Drugs/therapeutic use , Scotland/epidemiology
18.
World J Crit Care Med ; 10(1): 1-11, 2021 Jan 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1052533

ABSTRACT

The ongoing outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 [SARS-CoV-2, or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. Worldwide, more than 65 million people have been infected with this SARS-CoV-2 virus, and over 1.5 million people have died due to the viral illness. Although a tremendous amount of medical progress has been made since its inception, there continues to be ongoing research regarding the pathophysiology, treatments, and vaccines. While a vast majority of those infected develop only mild to moderate symptoms, about 5% of people have severe forms of infection resulting in respiratory failure, myocarditis, septic shock, or multi-organ failure. Despite maximal cardiopulmonary support and invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality remains high. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains a valid treatment option when maximal conventional strategies fail. Utilization of ECMO in the pandemic is challenging from both resource allocation and ethical standpoints. This article reviews the rationale behind its use, current status of utilization, and future considerations for ECMO in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

19.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(2): 82-93, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-989524

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to ascertain the cumulative risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes and compare it with that of people without diabetes, and to investigate risk factors for and build a cross-validated predictive model of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 among people with diabetes. METHODS: In this cohort study, we captured the data encompassing the first wave of the pandemic in Scotland, from March 1, 2020, when the first case was identified, to July 31, 2020, when infection rates had dropped sufficiently that shielding measures were officially terminated. The participants were the total population of Scotland, including all people with diabetes who were alive 3 weeks before the start of the pandemic in Scotland (estimated Feb 7, 2020). We ascertained how many people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in this period from the Electronic Communication of Surveillance in Scotland database (on virology), the RAPID database of daily hospitalisations, the Scottish Morbidity Records-01 of hospital discharges, the National Records of Scotland death registrations data, and the Scottish Intensive Care Society and Audit Group database (on critical care). Among people with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19, diabetes status was ascertained by linkage to the national diabetes register, Scottish Care Information Diabetes. We compared the cumulative incidence of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with and without diabetes using logistic regression. For people with diabetes, we obtained data on potential risk factors for fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 from the national diabetes register and other linked health administrative databases. We tested the association of these factors with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes, and constructed a prediction model using stepwise regression and 20-fold cross-validation. FINDINGS: Of the total Scottish population on March 1, 2020 (n=5 463 300), the population with diabetes was 319 349 (5·8%), 1082 (0·3%) of whom developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 by July 31, 2020, of whom 972 (89·8%) were aged 60 years or older. In the population without diabetes, 4081 (0·1%) of 5 143 951 people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19. As of July 31, the overall odds ratio (OR) for diabetes, adjusted for age and sex, was 1·395 (95% CI 1·304-1·494; p<0·0001, compared with the risk in those without diabetes. The OR was 2·396 (1·815-3·163; p<0·0001) in type 1 diabetes and 1·369 (1·276-1·468; p<0·0001) in type 2 diabetes. Among people with diabetes, adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes duration and type, those who developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 were more likely to be male, live in residential care or a more deprived area, have a COVID-19 risk condition, retinopathy, reduced renal function, or worse glycaemic control, have had a diabetic ketoacidosis or hypoglycaemia hospitalisation in the past 5 years, be on more anti-diabetic and other medication (all p<0·0001), and have been a smoker (p=0·0011). The cross-validated predictive model of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes had a C-statistic of 0·85 (0·83-0·86). INTERPRETATION: Overall risks of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 were substantially elevated in those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared with the background population. The risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19, and therefore the need for special protective measures, varies widely among those with diabetes but can be predicted reasonably well using previous clinical history. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Population Surveillance , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Critical Care/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Scotland/epidemiology , Young Adult
20.
J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep ; 8: 2324709620972243, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-919056

ABSTRACT

Globally, health care providers have been challenged to provide adequate care during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to the ever changing and rapidly evolving nature of the novel coronavirus, there is increased public anxiety and knowledge gaps that have created major dilemmas in health care delivery. In this environment, there is tremendous pressure on clinicians to diagnose each and every case of COVID-19. This has led to a situation in which clinicians are primed to suspect all respiratory illness is due to COVID-19 infection until proven otherwise. Because of this, providers may misdiagnose patients who have illnesses that are distinct from COVID-19 but present in a similar manner. In the current article, we present the case of e-cigarette- and vaping-associated acute lung injury (EVALI) mimicking pneumonia secondary to the novel coronavirus. It is unknown if vaping puts patients at higher risk of respiratory failure if coinfected with COVID-19. Therefore, exposure history in patients presenting with pneumonia-like syndrome is important. Physicians should be aware of the overlap between these conditions and should pay particular attention during history taking to distinguish EVALI from COVID-19 pneumonia.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Lung Diseases, Interstitial/etiology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Vaping/adverse effects , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Cough/diagnosis , Cough/etiology , Diagnosis, Differential , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Habits , Humans , Lung Diseases, Interstitial/diagnostic imaging , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Risk Assessment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL