Multiple house occupancy is associated with mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries mandated staying at home to reduce transmission. This study examined the association between living arrangements (house occupancy numbers) and outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: Study population was drawn from the COPE study, a multicentre cohort study. House occupancy was defined as: living alone; living with one other person; living with multiple other people; or living in a nursing/residential home. Outcomes were time from admission to mortality and discharge (Cox regression), and Day 28 mortality (logistic regression) analyses were adjusted for key comorbidities and covariates including admission: age, sex, smoking, heart failure, admission C-reactive protein (CRP), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, frailty and others. RESULTS: A total of 1584 patients were included from 13 hospitals across UK and Italy: 676 (42.7%) were female, 907 (57.3%) were male, median age was 74 years (range: 19-101). At 28 days, 502 (31.7%) had died. Median admission CRP was 67, 82, 79.5 and 83 mg/l for those living alone, with someone else, in a house of multiple occupancy and in a nursing/residential home, respectively. Compared to living alone, living with anyone was associated with increased mortality: within a couple [adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) = 1.39, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.09-1.77, P = 0.007]; living in a house of multiple occupancy (aHR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.38, P = 0.005); and living in a residential home (aHR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.03-1.80, P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: For patients hospitalized with COVID-19, those living with one or more people had an increased association with mortality, they also exhibited higher CRP indicating increased disease severity suggesting they delayed seeking care.

The pandemic and resilience for the future: AccBio 2021.

The year 2020 brought the onslaught of a global crisis in the form of the COVID-19 pandemic. While nearly every facet of everyday life and work was impacted by the pandemic, the biopharmaceutical industry found silver linings in innovation, partnership, and resiliency, all of which contributed to unprecedented speed in developing and delivering vaccines and therapies. The 7th International Conference on Accelerating Biopharmaceutical Development (AccBio 2021) brought together industry leaders to share experiences from the past year and discuss how lessons learned from the pandemic can be carried forward into the future of biopharmaceutical development. Presenters highlighted examples such as introducing biotherapeutics derived from non-clonal cell pools into the clinic, developing modular or platform technologies, and taking novel risks, among others. These strategies for enabling speed to clinic and launch, as well as for sustaining a robust supply chain, are likely to be integrated into future programs to ensure biomanufacturing resiliency and get medicines to patients faster than pre-pandemic times.

Routine use of immunosuppressants is associated with mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Whilst there is literature on the impact of SARS viruses in the severely immunosuppressed, less is known about the link between routine immunosuppressant use and outcome in COVID-19. Consequently, guidelines on their use vary depending on specific patient populations. METHODS: The study population was drawn from the COPE Study (COVID-19 in Older People), a multicentre observational cohort study, across the UK and Italy. Data were collected between 27 February and 28 April 2020 by trained data-collectors and included all unselected consecutive admissions with COVID-19. Load (name/number of medications) and dosage of immunosuppressant were collected along with other covariate data. Primary outcome was time-to-mortality from the date of admission (or) date of diagnosis, if diagnosis was five or more days after admission. Secondary outcomes were Day-14 mortality and time-to-discharge. Data were analysed with mixed-effects, Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models using non-users of immunosuppressants as the reference group. RESULTS: In total 1184 patients were eligible for inclusion. The median (IQR) age was 74 (62-83), 676 (57%) were male, and 299 (25.3%) died in hospital (total person follow-up 15,540 days). Most patients exhibited at least one comorbidity, and 113 (~10%) were on immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased mortality: aHR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.69 (time to mortality) and aOR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.01-2.88 (14-day mortality). There also appeared to be a dose-response relationship. CONCLUSION: Despite possible indication bias, until further evidence emerges we recommend adhering to public health measures, a low threshold to seek medical advice and close monitoring of symptoms in those who take immunosuppressants routinely regardless of their indication. However, it should be noted that the inability to control for the underlying condition requiring immunosuppressants is a major limitation, and hence caution should be exercised in interpretation of the results. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Regular Use of Immune Suppressing Drugs is Associated with Increased Risk of Death in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 Background: We do not have much information on how the COVID-19 virus affects patients who use immunosuppressants, drugs which inhibit or reduce the activity of the immune system. There are various conflicting views on whether immune-suppressing drugs are beneficial or detrimental in patients with the disease. Methods: This study collected data from 10 hospitals in the UK and one in Italy between February and April 2020 in order to identify any association between the regular use of immunosuppressant medicines and survival in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Results: 1184 patients were included in the study, and 10% of them were using immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased risk of death, and the risk appeared to increase if the dose of the medicine was higher. Conclusion: We therefore recommend that patients who take immunosuppressant medicines routinely should carefully adhere to social distancing measures, and seek medical attention early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prior Routine Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and Important Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection causes acute lung injury, resulting from aggressive inflammation initiated by viral replication. There has been much speculation about the potential role of non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which increase the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a binding target for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to enter the host cell, which could lead to poorer outcomes in COVID-19 disease. The aim of this study was to examine the association between routine use of NSAIDs and outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. This was a multicentre, observational study, with data collected from adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to eight UK hospitals. Of 1222 patients eligible to be included, 54 (4.4%) were routinely prescribed NSAIDs prior to admission. Univariate results suggested a modest protective effect from the use of NSAIDs, but in the multivariable analysis, there was no association between prior NSAID use and time to mortality (adjusted HR (aHR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.52-1.53, p = 0.67) or length of stay (aHR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.35, p = 0.58). This study found no evidence that routine NSAID use was associated with higher COVID-19 mortality in hospitalised patients; therefore, patients should be advised to continue taking these medications until further evidence emerges. Our findings suggest that NSAID use might confer a modest benefit with regard to survival. However, as this finding was underpowered, further research is required.

Test Accuracy of Informant-Based Cognitive Screening Tests for Diagnosis of Dementia and Multidomain Cognitive Impairment in Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Poststroke cognitive assessment can be performed using standardized questionnaires designed for family or care givers. We sought to describe the test accuracy of such informant-based assessments for diagnosis of dementia/multidomain cognitive impairment in stroke. METHODS: We performed a systematic review using a sensitive search strategy across multidisciplinary electronic databases. We created summary test accuracy metrics and described reporting and quality using STARDdem and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools, respectively. RESULTS: From 1432 titles, we included 11 studies. Ten papers used the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Four studies described IQCODE for diagnosis of poststroke dementia (n=1197); summary sensitivity: 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93); summary specificty: 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.93). Five studies described IQCODE as tool for predicting future dementia (n=837); summary sensitivity: 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.83); summary specificity: 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.00). All papers had issues with at least 1 aspect of study reporting or quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is a limited literature on informant cognitive assessments in stroke. IQCODE as a diagnostic tool has test properties similar to other screening tools, IQCODE as a prognostic tool is specific but insensitive. We found no papers describing test accuracy of informant tests for diagnosis of prestroke cognitive decline, few papers on poststroke dementia and all included papers had issues with potential bias.