scispace - formally typeset
Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00013-8

Risk of adverse outcomes in patients with underlying respiratory conditions admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a national, multicentre prospective cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK.

04 Mar 2021-The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (Elsevier)-Vol. 9, Iss: 7, pp 699-711
Abstract: Summary Background Studies of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have found varying mortality outcomes associated with underlying respiratory conditions and inhaled corticosteroid use. Using data from a national, multicentre, prospective cohort, we aimed to characterise people with COVID-19 admitted to hospital with underlying respiratory disease, assess the level of care received, measure in-hospital mortality, and examine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid use. Methods We analysed data from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study. All patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 across England, Scotland, and Wales between Jan 17 and Aug 3, 2020, were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Patients with asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, or both, were identified and stratified by age ( Findings 75 463 patients from 258 participating health-care facilities were included in this analysis: 860 patients younger than 16 years (74 [8·6%] with asthma), 8950 patients aged 16–49 years (1867 [20·9%] with asthma), and 65 653 patients aged 50 years and older (5918 [9·0%] with asthma, 10 266 [15·6%] with chronic pulmonary disease, and 2071 [3·2%] with both asthma and chronic pulmonary disease). Patients with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to receive critical care (patients aged 16–49 years: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·20 [95% CI 1·05–1·37]; p=0·0080; patients aged ≥50 years: adjusted OR 1·17 [1·08–1·27]; p Interpretation Underlying respiratory conditions are common in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Regardless of the severity of symptoms at admission and comorbidities, patients with asthma were more likely, and those with chronic pulmonary disease less likely, to receive critical care than patients without an underlying respiratory condition. In patients aged 16 years and older, severe asthma was associated with increased mortality compared to non-severe asthma. In patients aged 50 years and older, inhaled corticosteroid use in those with asthma was associated with lower mortality than in patients without an underlying respiratory condition; patients with chronic pulmonary disease had significantly increased mortality compared to those with no underlying respiratory condition, regardless of inhaled corticosteroid use. Our results suggest that the use of inhaled corticosteroids, within 2 weeks of admission, improves survival for patients aged 50 years and older with asthma, but not for those with chronic pulmonary disease. Funding National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, NIHR Health Protection Research Units in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at the University of Liverpool and in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England.

... read more

Topics: Asthma (55%), Respiratory disease (54%), Cohort study (52%) ... show more

36 results found

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00160-0
Abstract: Summary Background Multiple early reports of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented in these cohorts. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids among these patients was responsible for this finding, and tested if inhaled glucocorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19. Methods We performed an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised controlled trial (Steroids in COVID-19; STOIC) of inhaled budesonide, compared with usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The trial was done in the community in Oxfordshire, UK. Participants were randomly assigned to inhaled budsonide or usual care stratified for age (≤40 years or >40 years), sex (male or female), and number of comorbidities (≤1 and ≥2). Randomisation was done using random sequence generation in block randomisation in a 1:1 ratio. Budesonide dry powder was delivered using a turbohaler at a dose of 400 μg per actuation. Participants were asked to take two inhalations twice a day until symptom resolution. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, including emergency department assessment or hospitalisation, analysed for both the per-protocol and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The secondary outcomes were self-reported clinical recovery (symptom resolution), viral symptoms measured using the Common Cold Questionnare (CCQ) and the InFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome Questionnaire (FLUPro), body temperature, blood oxygen saturations, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. This trial is registered with, NCT04416399. Findings From July 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 167 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 21 did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. 146 participants were randomly assigned—73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the usual care group and one (1%) of 69 participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·131, 95% CI 0·043 to 0·218; p=0·004). For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·123, 95% CI 0·033 to 0·213; p=0·009). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was eight. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days [95% CI 6 to 9] in the budesonide group vs 8 days [7 to 11] in the usual care group; log-rank test p=0·007). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group (2%, SD 6) than the usual care group (8%, SD 18; Wilcoxon test p=0·051) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. As-needed antipyretic medication was required for fewer proportion of days in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (27% [IQR 0–50] vs 50% [15–71]; p=0·025) Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28 compared with participants receiving usual care (difference in proportions 0·204, 95% CI 0·075 to 0·334; p=0·003). The mean total score change in the CCQ and FLUPro over 14 days was significantly better in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (CCQ mean difference −0·12, 95% CI −0·21 to −0·02 [p=0·016]; FLUPro mean difference −0·10, 95% CI −0·21 to −0·00 [p=0·044]). Blood oxygen saturations and SARS-CoV-2 load, measured by cycle threshold, were not different between the groups. Budesonide was safe, with only five (7%) participants reporting self-limiting adverse events. Interpretation Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19. Funding National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.

... read more

Topics: Budesonide (52%), Population (51%)

99 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1183/13993003.04474-2020
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Influenza epidemics were initially considered to be a suitable model for the COVID-19 epidemic, but there is a lack of data concerning patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRD), who were supposed to be at risk of severe forms of COVID-19. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study describes patients with prior lung disease hospitalised for COVID-19 (March-April 2020) or influenza (2018-2019 influenza outbreak). We compare the resulting pulmonary complications, need for intensive care and in-hospital mortality depending on respiratory history and virus. RESULTS: In the 89 530 COVID-19 cases, 16.03% had at least one CRD, which was significantly less frequently than in the 45 819 seasonal influenza patients. Patients suffering from chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis and pulmonary hypertension were underrepresented, contrary to those with lung cancer, sleep apnea, emphysema, and interstitial pulmonary diseases (ILD). COVID-19 patients with CRD developed significantly more ventilator-associated pneumonia and pulmonary embolism than influenza patients. They needed intensive care significantly more often and had a higher mortality rate (except for asthma) when compared to patients with COVID-19 but without CRD, or patients with influenza. CONCLUSION: Patients with prior respiratory diseases were globally less likely to be hospitalised for COVID-19 than for influenza but were at higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 and had a higher mortality rate compared to influenza patients and patients without a history of respiratory illness.Our data suggest that these patients should have priority access to SARS-CoV2 vaccination.

... read more

Topics: Pneumonia (56%), Intensive care (56%), Asthma (52%) ... show more

11 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1111/ALL.14972
Lauren E. Eggert1, Ziyuan He1, William Collins1, Alexandra S. Lee1  +17 moreInstitutions (2)
03 Jun 2021-Allergy
Abstract: Background It is unclear whether asthma and its allergic phenotype are risk factors for hospitalization or severe disease from SARS-CoV-2. Methods All patients over 28 days old testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1 and September 30, 2020, were retrospectively identified and characterized through electronic analysis at Stanford. A sub-cohort was followed prospectively to evaluate long-term COVID-19 symptoms. Results 168,190 patients underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, and 6,976 (4.15%) tested positive. In a multivariate analysis, asthma was not an independent risk factor for hospitalization (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.86, 1.45], p = .40). Among SARS-CoV-2-positive asthmatics, allergic asthma lowered the risk of hospitalization and had a protective effect compared with non-allergic asthma (OR 0.52 [0.28, 0.91], p = .026); there was no association between baseline medication use as characterized by GINA and hospitalization risk. Patients with severe COVID-19 disease had lower eosinophil levels during hospitalization compared with patients with mild or asymptomatic disease, independent of asthma status (p = .0014). In a patient sub-cohort followed longitudinally, asthmatics and non-asthmatics had similar time to resolution of COVID-19 symptoms, particularly lower respiratory symptoms. Conclusions Asthma is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 disease. Allergic asthmatics were half as likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with non-allergic asthmatics. Lower levels of eosinophil counts (allergic biomarkers) were associated with a more severe COVID-19 disease trajectory. Recovery was similar among asthmatics and non-asthmatics with over 50% of patients reporting ongoing lower respiratory symptoms 3 months post-infection.

... read more

Topics: Asthma (57%), Risk factor (56%), Asymptomatic (54%)

6 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/J.LANEPE.2021.100151
27 Jun 2021-
Abstract: Background The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial differences in incidence rates across Germany. Methods Assumption-free k-nearest neighbour clustering from the principal component analysis of weekly incidence rates of German counties groups similar spreading behaviour. Different spreading dynamics was analysed by the derivative plots of the temporal evolution of tuples [x(t),x’(t)] of weekly incidence rates and their derivatives. The effectiveness of the different shutdown measures in Germany during the second wave is assessed by the difference of weekly incidences before and after the respective time periods. Findings The implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions of different extents resulted in four distinct time periods of complex, spatially diverse, and age-related spreading patterns during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Clustering gave three regions of coincident spreading characteristics. October 2020 showed a nationwide exponential growth of weekly incidence rates with a doubling time of 10 days. A partial shutdown during November 2020 decreased the overall infection rates by 20–40% with a plateau-like behaviour in northern and southwestern Germany. The eastern parts exhibited a further near-linear growth by 30–80%. Allover the incidence rates among people above 60 years still increased by 15–35% during partial shutdown measures. Only an extended shutdown led to a substantial decrease in incidence rates. These measures decreased the numbers among all age groups and in all regions by 15–45%. This decline until January 2021 was about -1•25 times the October 2020 growth rates with a strong correlation of -0•96. Interpretation Three regional groups with different dynamics and different degrees of effectiveness of the applied measures were identified. The partial shutdown was moderately effective and at most stopped the exponential growth, but the spread remained partly plateau-like and regionally continued to grow in a nearly linear fashion. Only the extended shutdown reversed the linear growth. Funding Institutional support and physical resources were provided by the University Witten/ Herdecke and Kliniken der Stadt Koln, German ministry of education and research ‘Netzwerk Universitatsmedizin’ (NUM), egePan Unimed (01KX2021).

... read more

4 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/J.JACI.2021.06.006
Abstract: Background Managing severe asthma during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is challenging, particularly due to safety concerns regarding the use of systemic corticosteroids and biologics. Objectives We sought to determine the association between biologics or systemic corticosteroids use and PCR positivity for SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes among asthmatic patients. Methods We used the computerized database of Clalit Health Services, the largest health care provider in Israel, to identify all asthmatic adult patients who underwent PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, between March 1, 2020, and December 7, 2020. A cohort approach was used to assess the association between biologics use and steroids treatment and COVID-19 severity and 90-day mortality. Results Overall, 8,242 of 80,602 tested asthmatic patients had positive PCR testing result for SARS-CoV-2. Both biologics and systemic corticosteroids were not associated with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multivariate analyses revealed that biologics were not associated with a significantly increased risk of moderate to severe COVID-19, nor with the composite end point of moderate to severe COVID-19 or all-cause mortality within 90 days. Chronic systemic corticosteroid use was associated with significantly increased risk of all tested outcome. Recent (within the previous 120 days) systemic corticosteroid use, but not former use, was significantly associated with increased risk of both moderate to severe COVID-19 and the composite of moderate to severe COVID-19 or all-cause mortality. Conclusions Biologics approved for asthma and systemic corticosteroids are not associated with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In contrast, systemic corticosteroids are an independent risk factor for worst COVID-19 severity and all-cause mortality. Our findings underscore the risk of recent or current exposure to systemic corticosteroids in asthmatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

... read more

Topics: Risk factor (57%)

4 Citations


34 results found

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1001/JAMA.2020.1585
Dawei Wang1, Bo Hu1, Chang Hu1, Fangfang Zhu1  +10 moreInstitutions (1)
17 Mar 2020-JAMA
Abstract: Importance In December 2019, novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, China. The number of cases has increased rapidly but information on the clinical characteristics of affected patients is limited. Objective To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of NCIP. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective, single-center case series of the 138 consecutive hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in Wuhan, China, from January 1 to January 28, 2020; final date of follow-up was February 3, 2020. Exposures Documented NCIP. Main Outcomes and Measures Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, and treatment data were collected and analyzed. Outcomes of critically ill patients and noncritically ill patients were compared. Presumed hospital-related transmission was suspected if a cluster of health professionals or hospitalized patients in the same wards became infected and a possible source of infection could be tracked. Results Of 138 hospitalized patients with NCIP, the median age was 56 years (interquartile range, 42-68; range, 22-92 years) and 75 (54.3%) were men. Hospital-associated transmission was suspected as the presumed mechanism of infection for affected health professionals (40 [29%]) and hospitalized patients (17 [12.3%]). Common symptoms included fever (136 [98.6%]), fatigue (96 [69.6%]), and dry cough (82 [59.4%]). Lymphopenia (lymphocyte count, 0.8 × 109/L [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.6-1.1]) occurred in 97 patients (70.3%), prolonged prothrombin time (13.0 seconds [IQR, 12.3-13.7]) in 80 patients (58%), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (261 U/L [IQR, 182-403]) in 55 patients (39.9%). Chest computed tomographic scans showed bilateral patchy shadows or ground glass opacity in the lungs of all patients. Most patients received antiviral therapy (oseltamivir, 124 [89.9%]), and many received antibacterial therapy (moxifloxacin, 89 [64.4%]; ceftriaxone, 34 [24.6%]; azithromycin, 25 [18.1%]) and glucocorticoid therapy (62 [44.9%]). Thirty-six patients (26.1%) were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (22 [61.1%]), arrhythmia (16 [44.4%]), and shock (11 [30.6%]). The median time from first symptom to dyspnea was 5.0 days, to hospital admission was 7.0 days, and to ARDS was 8.0 days. Patients treated in the ICU (n = 36), compared with patients not treated in the ICU (n = 102), were older (median age, 66 years vs 51 years), were more likely to have underlying comorbidities (26 [72.2%] vs 38 [37.3%]), and were more likely to have dyspnea (23 [63.9%] vs 20 [19.6%]), and anorexia (24 [66.7%] vs 31 [30.4%]). Of the 36 cases in the ICU, 4 (11.1%) received high-flow oxygen therapy, 15 (41.7%) received noninvasive ventilation, and 17 (47.2%) received invasive ventilation (4 were switched to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). As of February 3, 47 patients (34.1%) were discharged and 6 died (overall mortality, 4.3%), but the remaining patients are still hospitalized. Among those discharged alive (n = 47), the median hospital stay was 10 days (IQR, 7.0-14.0). Conclusions and Relevance In this single-center case series of 138 hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP in Wuhan, China, presumed hospital-related transmission of 2019-nCoV was suspected in 41% of patients, 26% of patients received ICU care, and mortality was 4.3%.

... read more

Topics: Interquartile range (51%)

13,270 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1001/JAMA.2020.6775
26 May 2020-JAMA
Abstract: Importance There is limited information describing the presenting characteristics and outcomes of US patients requiring hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants Case series of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 12 hospitals in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County, New York, within the Northwell Health system. The study included all sequentially hospitalized patients between March 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020, inclusive of these dates. Exposures Confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by positive result on polymerase chain reaction testing of a nasopharyngeal sample among patients requiring admission. Main Outcomes and Measures Clinical outcomes during hospitalization, such as invasive mechanical ventilation, kidney replacement therapy, and death. Demographics, baseline comorbidities, presenting vital signs, and test results were also collected. Results A total of 5700 patients were included (median age, 63 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-75; range, 0-107 years]; 39.7% female). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (3026; 56.6%), obesity (1737; 41.7%), and diabetes (1808; 33.8%). At triage, 30.7% of patients were febrile, 17.3% had a respiratory rate greater than 24 breaths/min, and 27.8% received supplemental oxygen. The rate of respiratory virus co-infection was 2.1%. Outcomes were assessed for 2634 patients who were discharged or had died at the study end point. During hospitalization, 373 patients (14.2%) (median age, 68 years [IQR, 56-78]; 33.5% female) were treated in the intensive care unit care, 320 (12.2%) received invasive mechanical ventilation, 81 (3.2%) were treated with kidney replacement therapy, and 553 (21%) died. As of April 4, 2020, for patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 1151, 20.2%), 38 (3.3%) were discharged alive, 282 (24.5%) died, and 831 (72.2%) remained in hospital. The median postdischarge follow-up time was 4.4 days (IQR, 2.2-9.3). A total of 45 patients (2.2%) were readmitted during the study period. The median time to readmission was 3 days (IQR, 1.0-4.5) for readmitted patients. Among the 3066 patients who remained hospitalized at the final study follow-up date (median age, 65 years [IQR, 54-75]), the median follow-up at time of censoring was 4.5 days (IQR, 2.4-8.1). Conclusions and Relevance This case series provides characteristics and early outcomes of sequentially hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in the New York City area.

... read more

Topics: Interquartile range (55%), Respiratory virus (51%)

5,140 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1001/JAMA.2020.5394
28 Apr 2020-JAMA
Abstract: Importance In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) emerged in China and has spread globally, creating a pandemic. Information about the clinical characteristics of infected patients who require intensive care is limited. Objective To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective case series of 1591 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinator center (Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network and treated at one of the ICUs of the 72 hospitals in this network between February 20 and March 18, 2020. Date of final follow-up was March 25, 2020. Exposures SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasal and pharyngeal swabs. Main Outcomes and Measures Demographic and clinical data were collected, including data on clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality. Data were recorded by the coordinator center on an electronic worksheet during telephone calls by the staff of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network. Results Of the 1591 patients included in the study, the median (IQR) age was 63 (56-70) years and 1304 (82%) were male. Of the 1043 patients with available data, 709 (68%) had at least 1 comorbidity and 509 (49%) had hypertension. Among 1300 patients with available respiratory support data, 1287 (99% [95% CI, 98%-99%]) needed respiratory support, including 1150 (88% [95% CI, 87%-90%]) who received mechanical ventilation and 137 (11% [95% CI, 9%-12%]) who received noninvasive ventilation. The median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 14 (IQR, 12-16) cm H2O, and Fio2was greater than 50% in 89% of patients. The median Pao2/Fio2was 160 (IQR, 114-220). The median PEEP level was not different between younger patients (n = 503 aged ≤63 years) and older patients (n = 514 aged ≥64 years) (14 [IQR, 12-15] vs 14 [IQR, 12-16] cm H2O, respectively; median difference, 0 [95% CI, 0-0];P = .94). Median Fio2was lower in younger patients: 60% (IQR, 50%-80%) vs 70% (IQR, 50%-80%) (median difference, −10% [95% CI, −14% to 6%];P = .006), and median Pao2/Fio2was higher in younger patients: 163.5 (IQR, 120-230) vs 156 (IQR, 110-205) (median difference, 7 [95% CI, −8 to 22];P = .02). Patients with hypertension (n = 509) were older than those without hypertension (n = 526) (median [IQR] age, 66 years [60-72] vs 62 years [54-68];P Conclusions and Relevance In this case series of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, the majority were older men, a large proportion required mechanical ventilation and high levels of PEEP, and ICU mortality was 26%.

... read more

Topics: Intensive care (53%)

3,154 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1038/S41586-020-2521-4
08 Jul 2020-Nature
Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly affected mortality worldwide1. There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, and this requires new approaches for the timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England, we created OpenSAFELY-a secure health analytics platform that covers 40% of all patients in England and holds patient data within the existing data centre of a major vendor of primary care electronic health records. Here we used OpenSAFELY to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19-related deaths. COVID-19-related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.53-1.65)); greater age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared with people of white ethnicity, Black and South Asian people were at higher risk, even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48 (1.29-1.69) and 1.45 (1.32-1.58), respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical factors associated with COVID-19-related death in one of the largest cohort studies on this topic so far. More patient records are rapidly being added to OpenSAFELY, we will update and extend our results regularly.

... read more

Topics: Cohort study (53%), Hazard ratio (51%), Risk assessment (50%)

2,257 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1136/BMJ.M1985
22 May 2020-BMJ
Abstract: Objective To characterise the clinical features of patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United Kingdom during the growth phase of the first wave of this outbreak who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study, and to explore risk factors associated with mortality in hospital. Design Prospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real time analysis. Setting 208 acute care hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland between 6 February and 19 April 2020. A case report form developed by ISARIC and WHO was used to collect clinical data. A minimal follow-up time of two weeks (to 3 May 2020) allowed most patients to complete their hospital admission. Participants 20 133 hospital inpatients with covid-19. Main outcome measures Admission to critical care (high dependency unit or intensive care unit) and mortality in hospital. Results The median age of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, or with a diagnosis of covid-19 made in hospital, was 73 years (interquartile range 58-82, range 0-104). More men were admitted than women (men 60%, n=12 068; women 40%, n=8065). The median duration of symptoms before admission was 4 days (interquartile range 1-8). The commonest comorbidities were chronic cardiac disease (31%, 5469/17 702), uncomplicated diabetes (21%, 3650/17 599), non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease (18%, 3128/17 634), and chronic kidney disease (16%, 2830/17 506); 23% (4161/18 525) had no reported major comorbidity. Overall, 41% (8199/20 133) of patients were discharged alive, 26% (5165/20 133) died, and 34% (6769/20 133) continued to receive care at the reporting date. 17% (3001/18 183) required admission to high dependency or intensive care units; of these, 28% (826/3001) were discharged alive, 32% (958/3001) died, and 41% (1217/3001) continued to receive care at the reporting date. Of those receiving mechanical ventilation, 17% (276/1658) were discharged alive, 37% (618/1658) died, and 46% (764/1658) remained in hospital. Increasing age, male sex, and comorbidities including chronic cardiac disease, non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease and obesity were associated with higher mortality in hospital. Conclusions ISARIC WHO CCP-UK is a large prospective cohort study of patients in hospital with covid-19. The study continues to enrol at the time of this report. In study participants, mortality was high, independent risk factors were increasing age, male sex, and chronic comorbidity, including obesity. This study has shown the importance of pandemic preparedness and the need to maintain readiness to launch research studies in response to outbreaks. Study registration ISRCTN66726260.

... read more

Topics: Intensive care (59%), Acute care (57%), Cohort study (56%) ... show more

1,607 Citations