Identifying risk factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality in the UK Biobank

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus has infected over 114 million people worldwide as of March 2021, with worldwide mortality rates ranging between 1-10%. We use information on up to 421,111 UK Biobank participants to identify possible predictors for long-term susceptibility to severe COVID-19 infection (N =1,088) and mortality (N =376). We include 36,168 predictors in our analyses and use a gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) algorithm and feature attribution based on Shapley values, together with traditional epidemiological approaches to identify possible risk factors. Our analyses show associations between socio-demographic factors (e.g. age, sex, ethnicity, education, material deprivation, accommodation type) and lifestyle indicators (e.g. smoking, physical activity, walking pace, tea intake, and dietary changes) with risk of developing severe COVID-19 symptoms. Blood (cystatin C, C-reactive protein, gamma glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase) and urine (microalbuminuria) biomarkers measured more than 10 years earlier predicted severe COVID-19. We also confirm increased risks for several pre-existing disease outcomes (e.g. lung diseases, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, circulatory diseases, anemia, and mental disorders). Analyses on mortality were possible within a sub-group testing positive for COVID-19 infection (N =1,953) with our analyses confirming association between age, smoking status, and prior primary diagnosis of urinary tract infection. SUMMARYOur hypothesis-free approach combining machine learning with traditional epidemiological methods finds a number of risk factors (sociodemographic, lifestyle, and psychosocial factors, biomarkers, disease outcomes and treatments) associated with developing severe COVID-19 symptoms and COVID-19 mortality.

Expert consensus on prevention and cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest in COVID-19

Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) strategies in COVID-19 patients differ from those in patients suffering from cardiogenic cardiac arrest. During CPR, both healthcare and non-healthcare workers who provide resuscitation are at risk of infection. The Working Group for Expert Consensus on Prevention and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Cardiac Arrest in COVID-19 has developed this Chinese Expert Consensus to guide clinical practice of CPR in COVID-19 patients. Main recommendations: 1) A medical team should be assigned to evaluate severe and critical COVID-19 for early monitoring of cardiac-arrest warning signs. 2) Psychological counseling and treatment are highly recommended, since sympathetic and vagal abnormalities induced by psychological stress from the COVID-19 pandemic can induce cardiac arrest. 3) Healthcare workers should wear personal protective equipment (PPE). 4) Mouth-to-mouth ventilation should be avoided on patients suspected of having or diagnosed with COVID-19. 5) Hands-only chest compression and mechanical chest compression are recommended. 6) Tracheal-intubation procedures should be optimized and tracheal-intubation strategies should be implemented early. 7) CPR should be provided for 20-30 min. 8) Various factors should be taken into consideration such as the interests of patients and family members, ethics, transmission risks, and laws and regulations governing infectious disease control. Changes in management: The following changes or modifications to CPR strategy in COVID-19 patients are proposed: 1) Healthcare workers should wear PPE. 2) Hands-only chest compression and mechanical chest compression can be implemented to reduce or avoid the spread of viruses by aerosols. 3) Both the benefits to patients and the risk of infection should be considered. 4) Hhealthcare workers should be fully aware of and trained in CPR strategies and procedures specifically for patients with COVID-19.

The women's heart health programme: a pilot trial of sex-specific cardiovascular management.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing knowledge of sex-specific differences in cardiovascular disease and recognition of sex disparities in management. In our study, we investigated whether a cardiovascular programme tailored to the specific needs of women could lead to improved outcomes. METHODS: We randomised 100 female patients to receive cardiology follow-up with the conventional sex-neutral cardiac programme (control), or the sex-tailored Women's Heart Health Programme (intervention). The intervention group was managed by an all-women multidisciplinary team and received culture-centred health intervention workshops, designed through in-depth interviews with the participants. The primary outcome was cardiovascular risk factor improvement at 1 year. Secondary outcomes include cardiovascular event rates, quality of life scores, and self-reported improvement in knowledge, attitudes, intentions and practices. Generalised structural equation model analysis was used to determine if the intervention group had better outcomes at alpha level 0.1. RESULTS: The mean age was 67.3 ± 12.7 years, with an ethnic distribution of 70% Chinese, 18% Malays, and 12% Indians. The majority of these patients had no formal or primary level of education (63%), and were mostly unemployed (78%). Patients in intervention group had better control of diabetes mellitus (lower HbA1c of 0.63% [CI 0.21-1.04], p = 0.015) and lower body-mass-index (0.74 kg/m2 [CI 0.02-1.46], p = 0.092) at 1 year, but there was no significant difference in blood pressure or lipid control. Overall, there was a trend towards better risk factor control, 31.6% of intervention group versus 26.5% of control group achieved improvement in at least 1 CV risk factor control to target range. There was no significant difference in incidence of cardiovascular events, quality of life, or domains in knowledge, attitudes, intention and practices. CONCLUSION: This pilot study is the first of its kind evaluating a new model of care for women with heart disease. The potential to improve outcomes needs to be studied in a larger trial with longer follow up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered clinicaltrials.gov on 6 May 2013. Trial Number: 2013/00088. Identifier: NCT02017470.

Exploration and Practices of Drug Cost Control in Large Public Hospital / 中国卫生经济

Cancelling drug price addition is one of public hospital reform content, under the condition of insufficient financial input, public hospitals should enhance the drug cost management, taking measures to reduce drug proportion, to deal with all kinds of hospital operation problems produced by hospital income decline due to the cancellation of drug addition. Through years of exploration and practice, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University has controlled the rising of drug cost effectively and received better effect, which built a good foundation of public hospital reform.