Incidence, prevalence and mortality of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in England from 2008 to 2018: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Owing to discrepancies in methodologies and how idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is diagnosed it is challenging to establish a consistent understanding of the disease burden In the UK, over 10 years ago, the incidence and prevalence of IPF were reported as 2.8-8.7 per 100 000 person-years (from 2000 to 2012) and 39 per 100 000 persons (in 2012), respectively. Here, we estimated the incidence and prevalence of IPF in England from 2008 to 2018 and investigated IPF mortality. METHODS: Using Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) linked datasets, we estimated incidence and prevalence using four validated diagnostic-code-based algorithms. Using the registered number of deaths (from Office of National Statistics) with the underlying cause being recorded as IPF, we estimated IPF mortality for the same period. RESULTS: Using Aurum-based definitions, incidence increased over time by 100% for Aurum narrow (3-6.1 per 100 000 person-years) and by 25% for Aurum broad (22.4-28.6 per 100 000 person-years). However, using HES-based definitions showed a decrease in incidence over the same period and lay between the two extremes derived for Aurum-based definition. IPF mortality in 2018 was 7.9 per 100 000 person-years and increased by 53% between 2008 and 2018. INTERPRETATION: When using best-case definitions, incidence rose throughout the study period. Scaling this to England's population (2018), our best estimate would be in the range of 8000-9000 new cases per year which is higher than previously reported estimates (5000-6000). This increased burden in the new cases of IPF each year impacts future health service planning and resource allocation.

Remdesivir Is Associated With Reduced Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen Including Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Across SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

Background: This comparative effectiveness study investigated the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring supplemental oxygen including low-flow oxygen (LFO), high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation (HFO/NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (IMV/ECMO) across variant of concern (VOC) periods. Methods: Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 and administered remdesivir upon admission were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients not administered remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by supplemental oxygen requirement upon admission and VOC period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 14- and 28-day mortality. Results: Patients treated with remdesivir (67 582 LFO, 34 857 HFO/NIV, and 4164 IMV/ECMO) were matched to non-remdesivir patients. Unadjusted mortality rates were significantly lower for remdesivir-treated patients at 14 days (LFO: 6.4% vs. 8.8%; HFO/NIV: 16.8% vs. 19.4%; IMV/ECMO: 27.8% vs. 35.3%) and 28 days (LFO: 9.8% vs. 12.3%; HFO/NIV: 25.8% vs. 28.3%; IMV/ECMO: 41.4% vs. 50.6%). After adjustment, remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in in-hospital mortality at 14 days (LFO: aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and 28 days (LFO: aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82) compared with non-remdesivir treatment. Lower risk of mortality among remdesivir-treated patients was observed across VOC periods. Conclusions: Remdesivir treatment is associated with significantly reduced mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen upon admission, including those requiring HFO/NIV or IMV/ECMO with severe or critical disease, across VOC periods.

Remdesivir Reduced Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Across Variant Waves: Findings From Routine Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, yet treatment strategies for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 reflect variations in clinical practice. In this comparative effectiveness study, we investigated the effect of remdesivir treatment on inpatient mortality among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across all variants of concern (VOC) periods. METHODS: Data for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AITM Healthcare Database. Patients who received remdesivir within 2 days of hospitalization were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching to patients who did not receive remdesivir. Additional matching criteria included admission month, age group, and hospital. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the effect of remdesivir on risk of 14- and 28-day mortality during VOC periods. RESULTS: A total of 19 184 remdesivir patients were matched to 11 213 non-remdesivir patients. Overall, 11.1% and 17.7% of remdesivir patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 22.4% of non-remdesivir patients. Remdesivir was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval, .62-.78) and 28 days (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, .68-.83). The survival benefit remained significant during the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron periods. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt initiation of remdesivir in immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is associated with significant survival benefit across all variant waves. These findings provide much-needed evidence relating to the effectiveness of a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients among a high-risk population.

Validation of the recording of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in routinely collected electronic healthcare records in England.

BACKGROUND: Routinely-collected healthcare data provide a valuable resource for epidemiological research. Validation studies have shown that for most conditions, simple lists of clinical codes can reliably be used for case finding in primary care, however, studies exploring the robustness of this approach are lacking for diseases such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) which are largely managed in secondary care. METHOD: Using the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum dataset, which comprises patient-level primary care records linked to national hospital admissions and cause-of-death data, we compared the positive predictive value (PPV) of eight diagnostic algorithms. Algorithms were developed based on the literature and IPF diagnostic guidelines using combinations of clinical codes in primary and secondary care (SNOMED-CT or ICD-10) with/without additional information. The positive predictive value (PPV) was estimated for each algorithm using the death record as the gold standard. Utilization of the reviewed codes across the study period was observed to evaluate any change in coding practices over time. RESULT: A total of 17,559 individuals had a least one record indicative of IPF in one or more of our three linked datasets between 2008 and 2018. The PPV of case-finding algorithms based on clinical codes alone ranged from 64.4% (95%CI:63.3-65.3) for a "broad" codeset to 74.9% (95%CI:72.8-76.9) for a "narrow" codeset comprising highly-specific codes. Adding confirmatory evidence, such as a CT scan, increased the PPV of our narrow code-based algorithm to 79.2% (95%CI:76.4-81.8) but reduced the sensitivity to under 10%. Adding evidence of hospitalisation to the standalone code-based algorithms also improved PPV, (PPV = 78.4 vs. 64.4%; sensitivity = 53.5% vs. 38.1%). IPF coding practices changed over time, with the increased use of specific IPF codes. CONCLUSION: High diagnostic validity was achieved by using a restricted set of IPF codes. While adding confirmatory evidence increased diagnostic accuracy, the benefits of this approach need to be weighed against the inevitable loss of sample size and convenience. We would recommend use of an algorithm based on a broader IPF code set coupled with evidence of hospitalisation.

SARS-CoV-2 post-acute sequelae in previously hospitalised patients: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals hospitalised with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection experience post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), sometimes referred to as "long COVID". Our objective was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify PASC-associated symptoms in previously hospitalised patients and determine the frequency and temporal nature of PASC. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library (2019-2021), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and reference lists were performed from November to December 2021. Articles were assessed by two reviewers against eligibility criteria and a risk of bias tool. Symptom data were synthesised by random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Of 6942 records, 52 studies with at least 100 patients were analysed; ∼70% were Europe-based studies. Most data were from the first wave of the pandemic. PASC symptoms were analysed from 28 days after hospital discharge. At 1-4 months post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, the most frequent individual symptoms were fatigue (29.3% (95% CI 20.1-40.6%)) and dyspnoea (19.6% (95% CI 12.8-28.7%)). Many patients experienced at least one symptom at 4-8 months (73.1% (95% CI 44.2-90.3%)) and 8-12 months (75.0% (95% CI 56.4-87.4%)). CONCLUSIONS: A wide spectrum of persistent PASC-associated symptoms were reported over the 1-year follow-up period in a significant proportion of participants. Further research is needed to better define PASC duration and determine whether factors such as disease severity, vaccination and treatments have an impact on PASC.

Incidence and prevalence of interstitial lung diseases worldwide: a systematic literature review.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a collective term representing a diverse group of pulmonary fibrotic and inflammatory conditions. Due to the diversity of ILD conditions, paucity of guidance and updates to diagnostic criteria over time, it has been challenging to precisely determine ILD incidence and prevalence. This systematic review provides a synthesis of published data at a global level and highlights gaps in the current knowledge base. Medline and Embase databases were searched systematically for studies reporting incidence and prevalence of various ILDs. Randomised controlled trials, case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. 80 studies were included, the most described subgroup was autoimmune-related ILD, and the most studied conditions were rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated ILD, systemic sclerosis associated (SSc) ILD and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The prevalence of IPF was mostly established using healthcare datasets, whereas the prevalence of autoimmune ILD tended to be reported in smaller autoimmune cohorts. The prevalence of IPF ranged from 7 to 1650 per 100 000 persons. Prevalence of SSc ILD and RA ILD ranged from 26.1% to 88.1% and 0.6% to 63.7%, respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the reported incidence of various ILD subtypes. This review demonstrates the challenges in establishing trends over time across regions and highlights a need to standardise ILD diagnostic criteria.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020203035.

GP consultation rates for sequelae after acute covid-19 in patients managed in the community or hospital in the UK: population based study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the rates for consulting a general practitioner (GP) for sequelae after acute covid-19 in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and those managed in the community, and to determine how the rates change over time for patients in the community and after vaccination for covid-19. DESIGN: Population based study. SETTING: 1392 general practices in England contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database. PARTICIPANTS: 456 002 patients with a diagnosis of covid-19 between 1 August 2020 and 14 February 2021 (44.7% men; median age 61 years), admitted to hospital within two weeks of diagnosis or managed in the community, and followed-up for a maximum of 9.2 months. A negative control group included individuals without covid-19 (n=38 511) and patients with influenza before the pandemic (n=21 803). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of rates for consulting a GP for new symptoms, diseases, prescriptions, and healthcare use in individuals admitted to hospital and those managed in the community, separately, before and after covid-19 infection, using Cox regression and negative binomial regression for healthcare use. The analysis was repeated for the negative control and influenza cohorts. In individuals in the community, outcomes were also described over time after a diagnosis of covid-19, and compared before and after vaccination for individuals who were symptomatic after covid-19 infection, using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Relative to the negative control and influenza cohorts, patients in the community (n=437 943) had significantly higher GP consultation rates for multiple sequelae, and the most common were loss of smell or taste, or both (adjusted hazard ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 3.89 to 7.17, P<0.001); venous thromboembolism (3.35, 2.87 to 3.91, P<0.001); lung fibrosis (2.41, 1.37 to 4.25, P=0.002), and muscle pain (1.89, 1.63 to 2.20, P<0.001); and also for healthcare use after a diagnosis of covid-19 compared with 12 months before infection. For absolute proportions, the most common outcomes ≥4 weeks after a covid-19 diagnosis in patients in the community were joint pain (2.5%), anxiety (1.2%), and prescriptions for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (1.2%). Patients admitted to hospital (n=18 059) also had significantly higher GP consultation rates for multiple sequelae, most commonly for venous thromboembolism (16.21, 11.28 to 23.31, P<0.001), nausea (4.64, 2.24 to 9.21, P<0.001), prescriptions for paracetamol (3.68, 2.86 to 4.74, P<0.001), renal failure (3.42, 2.67 to 4.38, P<0.001), and healthcare use after a covid-19 diagnosis compared with 12 months before infection. For absolute proportions, the most common outcomes ≥4 weeks after a covid-19 diagnosis in patients admitted to hospital were venous thromboembolism (3.5%), joint pain (2.7%), and breathlessness (2.8%). In patients in the community, anxiety and depression, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, general pain, nausea, chest tightness, and tinnitus persisted throughout follow-up. GP consultation rates were reduced for all symptoms, prescriptions, and healthcare use, except for neuropathic pain, cognitive impairment, strong opiates, and paracetamol use in patients in the community after the first vaccination dose for covid-19 relative to before vaccination. GP consultation rates were also reduced for ischaemic heart disease, asthma, and gastro-oesophageal disease. CONCLUSIONS: GP consultation rates for sequelae after acute covid-19 infection differed between patients with covid-19 who were admitted to hospital and those managed in the community. For individuals in the community, rates of some sequelae decreased over time but those for others, such as anxiety and depression, persisted. Rates of some outcomes decreased after vaccination in this group.