Directions of change in intrinsic case severity across successive SARS-CoV-2 variant waves have been inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how the intrinsic severity of successively dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants changed over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHS GGC) Health Board. All sequenced non-nosocomial adult COVID-19 cases in NHS GGC with relevant SARS-CoV-2 lineages (B.1.177/Alpha, Alpha/Delta, AY.4.2 Delta/non-AY.4.2 Delta, non-AY.4.2 Delta/Omicron, and BA.1 Omicron/BA.2 Omicron) during analysis periods were included. Outcome measures were hospital admission, ICU admission, or death within 28 days of positive COVID-19 test. We report the cumulative odds ratio; the ratio of the odds that an individual experiences a severity event of a given level vs all lower severity levels for the resident and the replacement variant after adjustment. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, the cumulative odds ratio was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.08-2.11) for Alpha versus B.1.177, 2.09 (95% CI: 1.42-3.08) for Delta versus Alpha, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.76-1.27) for AY.4.2 Delta versus non-AY.4.2 Delta, 0.49 (95% CI: 0.22-1.06) for Omicron versus non-AY.4.2 Delta, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.68-1.09) for BA.2 Omicron versus BA.1 Omicron. CONCLUSIONS: The direction of change in intrinsic severity between successively emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants was inconsistent, reminding us that the intrinsic severity of future SARS-CoV-2 variants remains uncertain.

The SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was associated with increased clinical severity of COVID-19 in Scotland: A genomics-based retrospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was associated with increased transmission relative to other variants present at the time of its emergence and several studies have shown an association between Alpha variant infection and increased hospitalisation and 28-day mortality. However, none have addressed the impact on maximum severity of illness in the general population classified by the level of respiratory support required, or death. We aimed to do this. METHODS: In this retrospective multi-centre clinical cohort sub-study of the COG-UK consortium, 1475 samples from Scottish hospitalised and community cases collected between 1st November 2020 and 30th January 2021 were sequenced. We matched sequence data to clinical outcomes as the Alpha variant became dominant in Scotland and modelled the association between Alpha variant infection and severe disease using a 4-point scale of maximum severity by 28 days: 1. no respiratory support, 2. supplemental oxygen, 3. ventilation and 4. death. RESULTS: Our cumulative generalised linear mixed model analyses found evidence (cumulative odds ratio: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.93) of a positive association between increased clinical severity and lineage (Alpha variant versus pre-Alpha variants). CONCLUSIONS: The Alpha variant was associated with more severe clinical disease in the Scottish population than co-circulating lineages.

Critical care pharmacy workforce: a 2020 re-evaluation of the UK deployment and characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: Critical care pharmacists improve the quality and efficiency of medication therapy whilst reducing treatment costs where they are available. UK critical care pharmacist deployment was described in 2015, highlighting a deficit in numbers, experience level, and critical care access to pharmacy services over the 7-day week. Since then, national workforce standards have been emphasised, quality indicators published, and service commissioning documents produced, reinforced by care quality assessments. Whether these initiatives have resulted in further development of the UK critical care pharmacy workforce is unknown. This evaluation provides a 2020 status update. METHODS: The 2015 electronic data entry tool was updated and circulated for completion by UK critical care pharmacists. The tool captured workforce data disposition as it was just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, at critical care unit level. MAIN FINDINGS: Data were received for 334 critical care units from 203 organisations (96% of UK critical care units). Overall, 98.2% of UK critical care units had specific clinical pharmacist time dedicated to the unit. The median weekday pharmacist input to each level 3 equivalent bed was 0.066 (0.043-0.088) whole time equivalents, a significant increase from the median position in 2015 (+ 0.021, p < 0.0001). Despite this progress, pharmacist availability remains below national minimum standards (0.1/level 3 equivalent bed). Most units (71.9%) had access to prescribing pharmacists. Geographical variation in pharmacist staffing levels were evident, and weekend services remain extremely limited. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of clinical pharmacists in UK adult critical care units is improving. However, national standards are not routinely met despite widely publicised quality indicators, commissioning specifications, and assessments. Additional measures are needed to address persistent deficits and realise gains in organisational and patient-level outcomes. These measures must include promotion of cross-professional collaborative working, adjusted funding models, and a nationally recognised training pathway for critical care pharmacists.

Implementing an innovative, patient-centered approach to day case arthroplasty: improving patient outcomes through remote preoperative pharmacist consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Elective surgery suffered significant loss of capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this, hip and knee arthroplasties are being conducted as day case procedures. Pre-admission pharmacist consultations were introduced (the intervention) for these patients. This consultation aimed to address perioperative medicines issues, promote patient empowerment, improve prescribing quality and contribute to reduction in length of stay (LoS). METHODS: All patients listed for a total/unicompartmental knee replacement (TKR/UKR) or total hip replacement (THR) at an ambulatory care hospital were identified by a pharmacist prescriber 1-2 weeks before the operation. Pharmacist consultations were conducted remotely with discharge prescriptions written electronically and dispensed before admission. Prescribing data were collected for both pre-intervention (n=80) and post-intervention (n=129) groups along with all interventions undertaken during consultations. Staff opinion was sought via online questionnaire and patient opinion was gathered via post-discharge telephone calls. RESULTS: A total of 115 interventions took place during 129 patient consultations and >75% of interventions were of a significance expected to improve patient care. Prescribing standards were improved in the intervention group compared with patients whose arthroplasty was before the introduction of this service. The pharmacy service would have produced a different prescription in 38.8% of the pre-intervention group. Staff and patient feedback was extremely positive and all patients with previous surgical experience in the health board reported an improved experience. There was a statistically significant reduction in post-discharge healthcare encounters (such as general practitioner (GP) visits) in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: This novel remote preoperative pharmacist consultation improved prescribing standards, enhanced the patient's surgical experience and reduced the burden on post-discharge healthcare systems.

Evaluation of medication changes following severe COVID-19 infection: a multicentre evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients often experience several transitions of care following critical illness. Research has explored the challenges which patients have with medication management across these transitions. It is unclear whether patients admitted to critical care due to COVID-19 will have similar challenges. The aim of this study was to explore medication management in critical care survivors following severe COVID-19. METHODS: Between 3 and 7 months post hospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. During the clinic consultation a medication review was performed by a pharmacist. This included medicines reconciliation, assessing the appropriateness of each of the prescribed medications and identification of medication changes. We also assessed changes to pain management in the discharge period. RESULTS: In total, 78 patients had a full medication review available. Over 70% of patients were taking an increased dose of medicine or a new medicine at clinic. There was a significant overall increase in new medication during the clinic consultation, across different British National Formulary classifications (OR: 1.73 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.34), p<0.001). Compared with pre critical care admission, there was a significant increase in the number of patients taking regular analgesia following severe COVID-19 infection (23 (29.5%) vs 39 (50%), p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Following severe COVID-19, patients may require new or increasing doses of medicines. Ongoing review of these patients is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes.