Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 25
Filter
1.
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.

2.
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.

3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-312779

ABSTRACT

Purpose This study aimed to explore the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic including Government-enforced restrictions, on women diagnosed with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer in the UK using a mixed-methods approach. MethodsDepression (PHQ-2), anxiety (GAD-7), optimism (LOT-R) and perceived risk of recurrence (IPQ-BCS) were measured pre-COVID-19 outbreak and perceived vulnerability, severity and impact of COVID-19 were measured during the UK lockdown period of 23rd March-13th May 2020. Free text responses provided qualitative data. Descriptive statistics regarding COVID-19-specific behaviours and correlations between pre-COVID-19 psychosocial factors and COVID-19 outcomes were conducted. Thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative responses. Quantitative and qualitative data are presented together.Results253 responses were received during the UK lockdown period. Twenty-six percent of the sample were shielding and 15% felt at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Higher pre-COVID-19 depression and anxiety and lower optimism were associated with higher perceived vulnerability to and severity of COVID-19 and lower confidence in protecting oneself. There were positive and negative effects of lockdown on exercise and relationships and 42% reported negative impacts on anxiety. Participants reported fear of COVID-19, difficulties with adapting to isolation and using technology, and anxiety about the impact of delayed cancer treatment on their cancer recovery and recurrence. ConclusionsNegative effects of lockdown, particularly for delayed cancer treatment should be considered to manage ongoing anxiety. Screening of state depression and anxiety is suggested for intervention prioritisation, but more longitudinal research is needed to understand the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer survivors.

4.
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.

5.
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.

6.
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
8.
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
9.
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.

10.
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.

12.
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
13.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e053971, 2021 10 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484035

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 30% of people with long-term physical health conditions (LTCs) experience mental health problems, with negative consequences and costs for individuals and healthcare services. Access to psychological treatment is scarce and, when available, often focuses on treating primary mental health problems rather than illness-related anxiety/depression. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a newly developed, therapist-supported, digital cognitive-behavioural treatment (COMPASS) for reducing LTC-related psychological distress (anxiety/depression), compared with standard charity support (SCS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (1:1 ratio) with nested qualitative study will be conducted. Two-hundred adults with LTC-related anxiety and depression will be recruited through national LTC charities. They will be randomly allocated to receive COMPASS or SCS only. An independent administrator will use Qualtrics randomiser for treatment allocation, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants will access treatment from home over 10 weeks. The COMPASS group will have access to the digital programme and six therapist contacts: one welcome message and five fortnightly phone calls. Data will be collected online at baseline, 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-randomisation for primary outcome (Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale) and secondary outcomes (anxiety, depression, daily functioning, COVID-19-related distress, illness-related distress, quality of life, knowledge and confidence for illness self-management, symptom severity and improvement). Analyses will be conducted following the intention-to-treat principle by a data analyst blinded to treatment allocation. A purposively sampled group of COMPASS participants and therapists will be interviewed. Interviews will be thematically analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by King's College London's Psychiatry, Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Subcommittee (reference: LRS-19/20-20347). All participants will provide informed consent to take part if eligible. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04535778.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy , Adult , Anxiety/therapy , Depression/therapy , Humans , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
14.
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.

15.
Future Sci OA ; 7(7): FSO733, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270969

ABSTRACT

AIM: We propose a method for screening full blood count metadata for evidence of communicable and noncommunicable diseases using machine learning (ML). MATERIALS & METHODS: High dimensional hematology metadata was extracted over an 11-month period from Sysmex hematology analyzers from 43,761 patients. Predictive models for age, sex and individuality were developed to demonstrate the personalized nature of hematology data. Both numeric and raw flow cytometry data were used for both supervised and unsupervised ML to predict the presence of pneumonia, urinary tract infection and COVID-19. Heart failure was used as an objective to prove method generalizability. RESULTS: Chronological age was predicted by a deep neural network with R2: 0.59; mean absolute error: 12; sex with AUROC: 0.83, phi: 0.47; individuality with 99.7% accuracy, phi: 0.97; pneumonia with AUROC: 0.74, sensitivity 58%, specificity 79%, 95% CI: 0.73-0.75, p < 0.0001; urinary tract infection AUROC: 0.68, sensitivity 52%, specificity 79%, 95% CI: 0.67-0.68, p < 0.0001; COVID-19 AUROC: 0.8, sensitivity 82%, specificity 75%, 95% CI: 0.79-0.8, p = 0.0006; and heart failure area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC): 0.78, sensitivity 72%, specificity 72%, 95% CI: 0.77-0.78; p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: ML applied to hematology data could predict communicable and noncommunicable diseases, both at local and global levels.

16.
J Infect ; 82(5): 178-185, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1144824

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Multiple RCTs of interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitors in COVID-19 have been published, with conflicting conclusions. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the impact of IL-6 inhibition on mortality from COVID-19, utilising meta-regression to explore differences in study results. METHODS: Systematic database searches were performed to identify RCTs comparing IL-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab) to placebo or standard of care in adults with COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative risk of mortality at 28 days between arms, expressed as a risk ratio. Within-study mortality rates were compared, and meta-regression was used to investigate treatment effect modification. RESULTS: Data from nine RCTs were included. The combined mortality rate across studies was 19% (95% CI: 18, 20%), ranging from 2% to 31%. The overall risk ratio for 28-day mortality was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.99), in favour of benefit for IL-6 inhibition over placebo or standard of care, with low treatment effect heterogeneity: I2 0% (95% CI: 0, 53%). Meta-regression showed no evidence of treatment effect modification by patient characteristics. Trial-specific mortality rates were explained by known patient-level predictors of COVID-19 outcome (male sex, CRP, hypertension), and country-level COVID-19 incidence. CONCLUSIONS: IL-6 inhibition is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes for patients admitted with COVID-19. Long-term benefits of IL-6 inhibition, its effectiveness across healthcare systems, and implications for differing standards of care are currently unknown.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Interleukin-6 , Adult , Humans , Male , Odds Ratio , SARS-CoV-2
17.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(1)2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081206

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A standardised approach to assessing COVID-19 survivors has not been established, largely due to the paucity of data on medium- and long-term sequelae. Interval chest radiography is recommended following community-acquired pneumonia; however, its utility in monitoring recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia remains unclear. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre observational cohort study. Patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (admission duration ≥48 h and oxygen requirement ≥40% or critical care admission) underwent face-to-face assessment at 4-6 weeks post-discharge. The primary outcome was radiological resolution of COVID-19 pneumonitis (Radiographic Assessment of Lung Oedema score <5). Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, symptom questionnaires, mental health screening (Trauma Screening Questionnaire, seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder assessment and nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire) and physiological testing (4-m gait speed (4MGS) and 1-min Sit-to-Stand (STS) tests). RESULTS: 119 patients were assessed between June 3, 2020 and July 2, 2020 at median (interquartile range (IQR)) 61 (51-67) days post-discharge: mean±sd age 58.7±14.4 years, median (IQR) body mass index 30.0 (25.9-35.2) kg·m-2, 62% male and 70% ethnic minority. Despite radiographic resolution of pulmonary infiltrates in 87%, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea (breathlessness) scale grades were above pre-COVID-19 baseline in 44%, and patients reported persistent fatigue (68%), sleep disturbance (57%) and breathlessness (32%). Screening thresholds were breached for post-traumatic stress disorder (25%), anxiety (22%) and depression (18%). 4MGS was slow (<0.8 m·s-1) in 38% and 35% desaturated by ≥4% during the STS test. Of 56 thoracic computed tomography scans performed, 75% demonstrated COVID-19-related interstitial and/or airways disease. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent symptoms, adverse mental health outcomes and physiological impairment are common 2 months after severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Follow-up chest radiography is a poor marker of recovery; therefore, holistic face-to-face assessment is recommended to facilitate early recognition and management of post-COVID-19 sequelae.

18.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ ; 37(12):843-844, 2020.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-939893

ABSTRACT

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate. There is urgent need to stratify patients. Understanding risk of deterioration will assist in admission and discharge decisions, and help selection for clinical studies to indicate where risk of therapy-related complications is justified.Methods/DesignAn observational cohort of patients acutely admitted to two London hospitals with COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 swab results was assessed. Demographic details, clinical data, comorbidities, blood parameters and chest radiograph severity scores were collected from electronic health records. Endpoints assessed were critical care admission and death. A risk score was developed to predict outcomes.Results/ConclusionsAnalyses included 1,157 patients. Older age, male sex, comorbidities, respiratory rate, oxygenation, radiographic severity, higher neutrophils, higher CRP and lower albumin at presentation predicted critical care admission and mortality. Non-white ethnicity predicted critical care admission but not death. Social deprivation was not predictive of outcome. A risk score was developed incorporating twelve characteristics: age>40, male, non-white ethnicity, oxygen saturations<93%, radiological severity score>3, neutrophil count>8.0 x109/L, CRP>40 mg/L, albumin<34 g/L, creatinine>100 µmol/L, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and chronic lung disease. Risk scores of 4 or higher corresponded to a 28-day cumulative incidence of critical care admission or death of 40.7% (95% CI: 37.1 to 44.4), versus 12.4% (95% CI: 8.2 to 16.7) for scores less than 4.ConclusionOur study identified predictors of critical care admission and death in people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. These predictors were incorporated into a risk score that will inform clinical care and stratify patients for clinical trials.

19.
EClinicalMedicine ; 28: 100574, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-846813

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: People of minority ethnic backgrounds may be disproportionately affected by severe COVID-19. Whether this relates to increased infection risk, more severe disease progression, or worse in-hospital survival is unknown. The contribution of comorbidities or socioeconomic deprivation to ethnic patterning of outcomes is also unclear. METHODS: We conducted a case-control and a cohort study in an inner city primary and secondary care setting to examine whether ethnic background affects the risk of hospital admission with severe COVID-19 and/or in-hospital mortality. Inner city adult residents admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 (n = 872 cases) were compared with 3,488 matched controls randomly sampled from a primary healthcare database comprising 344,083 people residing in the same region. For the cohort study, we studied 1827 adults consecutively admitted with COVID-19. The primary exposure variable was self-defined ethnicity. Analyses were adjusted for socio-demographic and clinical variables. FINDINGS: The 872 cases comprised 48.1% Black, 33.7% White, 12.6% Mixed/Other and 5.6% Asian patients. In conditional logistic regression analyses, Black and Mixed/Other ethnicity were associated with higher admission risk than white (OR 3.12 [95% CI 2.63-3.71] and 2.97 [2.30-3.85] respectively). Adjustment for comorbidities and deprivation modestly attenuated the association (OR 2.24 [1.83-2.74] for Black, 2.70 [2.03-3.59] for Mixed/Other). Asian ethnicity was not associated with higher admission risk (adjusted OR 1.01 [0.70-1.46]). In the cohort study of 1827 patients, 455 (28.9%) died over a median (IQR) of 8 (4-16) days. Age and male sex, but not Black (adjusted HR 1.06 [0.82-1.37]) or Mixed/Other ethnicity (adjusted HR 0.72 [0.47-1.10]), were associated with in-hospital mortality. Asian ethnicity was associated with higher in-hospital mortality but with a large confidence interval (adjusted HR 1.71 [1.15-2.56]). INTERPRETATION: Black and Mixed ethnicity are independently associated with greater admission risk with COVID-19 and may be risk factors for development of severe disease, but do not affect in-hospital mortality risk. Comorbidities and socioeconomic factors only partly account for this and additional ethnicity-related factors may play a large role. The impact of COVID-19 may be different in Asians. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation; the National Institute for Health Research; Health Data Research UK.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL