RESUMO
BACKGROUND: While clinical coding is intended to be an objective and standardized practice, it is important to recognize that it is not entirely the case. The clinical and bureaucratic practices from event of death to a case being entered into a research dataset are important context for analysing and interpreting this data. Variation in practices can influence the accuracy of the final coded record in two different stages: the reporting of the death certificate, and the International Classification of Diseases (Version 10; ICD-10) coding of that certificate. METHODS: This study investigated 91,022 deaths recorded in the Scottish Asthma Learning Healthcare System dataset between 2000 and 2017. Asthma-related deaths were identified by the presence of any of ICD-10 codes J45 or J46, in any position. These codes were categorized either as relating to asthma attacks specifically (status asthmatic; J46) or generally to asthma diagnosis (J45). RESULTS: We found that one in every 200 deaths in this were coded as being asthma related. Less than 1% of asthma-related mortality records used both J45 and J46 ICD-10 codes as causes. Infection (predominantly pneumonia) was more commonly reported as a contributing cause of death when J45 was the primary coded cause, compared to J46, which specifically denotes asthma attacks. CONCLUSION: Further inspection of patient history can be essential to validate deaths recorded as caused by asthma, and to identify potentially mis-recorded non-asthma deaths, particularly in those with complex comorbidities.
Assuntos
Asma , Causas de Morte , Codificação Clínica , Atestado de Óbito , Classificação Internacional de Doenças , Humanos , Asma/mortalidade , Asma/diagnóstico , Codificação Clínica/métodos , Codificação Clínica/estatística & dados numéricos , Codificação Clínica/normas , Masculino , Feminino , Escócia/epidemiologia , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , IdosoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments against new circulating variants remains unclear. We sought to describe characteristics and clinical outcomes of highest risk patients with COVID-19 receiving early COVID-19 treatments in Scotland. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from December 1, 2021-October 25, 2022, using Scottish administrative health data. We included adult patients who met ≥ 1 of the National Health Service highest risk criteria for early COVID-19 treatment and received outpatient treatment with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or no early COVID-19 treatment. Index date was defined as the earliest of COVID-19 diagnosis or early COVID-19 treatment. Baseline characteristics and acute clinical outcomes in the 28 days following index were reported. Values of ≤ 5 were suppressed. RESULTS: In total, 2548 patients were included (492: sotrovimab, 276: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 71: molnupiravir, and 1709: eligible highest risk untreated). Patients aged ≥ 75 years accounted for 6.9% (n = 34/492), 21.0% (n = 58/276), 16.9% (n = 12/71) and 13.2% (n = 225/1709) of the cohorts, respectively. Advanced renal disease was reported in 6.7% (n = 33/492) of sotrovimab-treated and 4.7% (n = 81/1709) of untreated patients, and ≤ 5 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated and molnupiravir-treated patients. All-cause hospitalizations were experienced by 5.3% (n = 25/476) of sotrovimab-treated patients, 6.9% (n = 12/175) of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated patients, ≤ 5 (suppressed number) molnupiravir-treated patients and 13.3% (n = 216/1622) of untreated patients. There were no deaths in the treated cohorts; mortality was 4.3% (n = 70/1622) among untreated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab was often used by patients who were aged < 75 years. Among patients receiving early COVID-19 treatment, proportions of 28-day all-cause hospitalization and death were low.
Assuntos
Antivirais , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Progressão da Doença , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , SARS-CoV-2/efeitos dos fármacos , COVID-19/mortalidade , Adulto , Resultado do Tratamento , Escócia/epidemiologia , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Citidina/análogos & derivados , HidroxilaminasRESUMO
Prognostic models hold great potential for predicting asthma exacerbations, providing opportunities for early intervention, and are a popular area of current research. However, it is unclear how models should be compared and contrasted, given their differences in both design and performance, particularly with a view to potential implementation in routine practice. This systematic review aimed to identify novel predictive models of asthma attacks in adults and compare differences in construction related to populations, outcome definitions, prediction time horizons, algorithms, validation, and performance estimation. Twenty-five studies were identified for comparison, with varying definitions of asthma attacks and prediction event time horizons ranging from 15 days to 30 months. The most commonly used algorithm was logistic regression (20/25 studies); however, none of the six which tested multiple algorithms identified it as highest performing algorithm. The effect of various study design characteristics on performance was evaluated in order to provide context to the limitations of highly performing models. Models used a variety of constructs, which affected both their performance and their viability for implementation in routine practice. Consultation with stakeholders is necessary to identify priorities for model refinement and to create a benchmark of acceptable performance for implementation in clinical practice.
RESUMO
We sought to investigate the incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes after treatment with antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies, and estimate the comparative effectiveness of treatments in community-based individuals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating clinical outcomes of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission and death, in those treated with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in Scotland between December 2021 and September 2022. We compared the effect of various treatments on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, stratified by most prevalent sub-lineage at that time, and controlling for comorbidities and other patient characteristics. We identified 14,365 individuals treated for COVID-19 during our study period, some of whom were treated for multiple infections. The incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in community-treated patients (81% of all treatment episodes) was 1.2% (n = 137/11894, 95% CI 1.0-1.4), compared to 32.8% in those treated in hospital for acute COVID-19 (re-admissions or death; n = 40/122, 95% CI 25.1-41.5). For community-treated patients, there was a lower risk of severe outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in younger patients, and in those who had received three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. During the period in which BA.2 was the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, sotrovimab was associated with a reduced treatment effect compared to nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir. However, since BA.5 has been the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, both sotrovimab and nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir were associated with similarly lower incidence of severe outcomes than molnupiravir. Around 1% of those treated for COVID-19 with antivirals or neutralising monoclonal antibodies required hospital admission. During the period in which BA.5 was the prevalent sub-lineages in the UK, molnupiravir was associated with the highest incidence of severe outcomes in community-treated patients.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais , Antivirais , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hospitalização , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Escócia/epidemiologia , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Anticorpos Neutralizantes/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Resultado do Tratamento , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricos , IncidênciaRESUMO
Purpose: We describe how well general pain reported in multidomain assessment tools correlated with pain-specific assessment tools; associations between general pain, activities of daily living and independence after stroke. Materials and methods: Analyses of individual participant data (IPD) from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA) described correlation coefficients examining (i) direct comparisons of assessments from pain-specific and multidomain assessment tools that included pain, (ii) indirect comparisons of pain assessments with the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and (iii) whether pain identification could be enhanced by accounting for reported usual activities, self-care, mobility and anxiety/depression; factors associated with pain. Results: European Quality of Life 3- and 5-Level (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L), RAND 36 Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36) or the 0-10 Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were available from 10/94 studies (IPD = 10,002). The 0-10 NPRS was the only available pain-specific assessment tool and was a reference for comparison with other tools. Pearson correlation coefficients between the 0-10 NPRS and (A) the EQ-5D-3L and (B) EQ5D-5 L were r = 0.572 (n = 436) and r = 0.305 (n = 1,134), respectively. mRS was better aligned with pain by EQ-5D-3L (n = 8,966; r = 0.340) than by SF-36 (n = 623; r = 0.318). BI aligned better with pain by SF-36 (n = 623; r = -0.320). Creating a composite score using the EQ-5D 3 L and 5 L comprising pain, mobility, usual-activities, self-care and anxiety/depression did not improve correlation with the 0-10 NPRS. Discussion: The EQ-5D-3L pain domain aligned better than the EQ-5D-5L with the 0-10 NPRS and may inform general pain description where resources and assessment burden hinder use of additional, pain-specific assessments.
RESUMO
Several population-level studies have described individual clinical risk factors associated with suboptimal antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination, but none have examined multimorbidity. Others have shown that suboptimal post-vaccination responses offer reduced protection to subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the level of protection from COVID-19 hospitalisation/death remains unconfirmed. We use national Scottish datasets to investigate the association between multimorbidity and testing antibody-negative, examining the correlation between antibody levels and subsequent COVID-19 hospitalisation/death among double-vaccinated individuals. We found that individuals with multimorbidity ( ≥ five conditions) were more likely to test antibody-negative post-vaccination and 13.37 [6.05-29.53] times more likely to be hospitalised/die from COVID-19 than individuals without conditions. We also show a dose-dependent association between post-vaccination antibody levels and COVID-19 hospitalisation or death, with those with undetectable antibody levels at a significantly higher risk (HR 9.21 [95% CI 4.63-18.29]) of these serious outcomes compared to those with high antibody levels.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms are risk prediction tools developed during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that can be used to predict the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality, taking vaccination status into account. In this study, we assess their performance in Scotland. METHODS: We used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 national data platform consisting of individual-level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021. RESULTS: Our validation dataset comprised 465 058 individuals, aged 19-100. We found the following performance metrics (95% CIs) for QCovid 2 and 3: Harrell's C 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) for hospitalisation, and 0.92 (0.90 to 0.94) for death, observed-expected ratio of 0.24 for hospitalisation and 0.26 for death (ie, both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated), and a Brier score of 0.0009 (0.00084 to 0.00096) for hospitalisation and 0.00036 (0.00032 to 0.0004) for death. CONCLUSIONS: We found good discrimination of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in Scotland, although performance was worse in higher age groups. Both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated.