Changes in hospital mortality in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic (ISARIC-CCP-UK): a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than many other patient groups. However, how this risk evolved during the pandemic remains unclear. We aimed to determine, on the basis of the UK national pandemic protocol, how factors influencing hospital mortality from COVID-19 could differentially affect patients undergoing cancer treatment. We also examined changes in hospital mortality and escalation of care in patients on cancer treatment during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients aged older than 19 years and admitted to 306 health-care facilities in the UK with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol (CCP) across the UK from April 23, 2020, to Feb 28, 2022; this analysis included all patients in the complete dataset when the study closed. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality, comparing patients on cancer treatment and those without cancer. The study was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref: 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/SS/0028), and is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN66726260). FINDINGS: 177 871 eligible adult patients either with no history of cancer (n=171 303) or on cancer treatment (n=6568) were enrolled; 93 205 (52·4%) were male, 84 418 (47·5%) were female, and in 248 (13·9%) sex or gender details were not specified or data were missing. Patients were followed up for a median of 13 (IQR 6-21) days. Of the 6568 patients receiving cancer treatment, 2080 (31·7%) died at 30 days, compared with 30 901 (18·0%) of 171 303 patients without cancer. Patients aged younger than 50 years on cancer treatment had the highest age-adjusted relative risk (hazard ratio [HR] 5·2 [95% CI 4·0-6·6], p<0·0001; vs 50-69 years 2·4 [2·2-2·6], p<0·0001; 70-79 years 1·8 [1·6-2·0], p<0·0001; and >80 years 1·5 [1·3-1·6], p<0·0001) but a lower absolute risk (51 [6·7%] of 763 patients <50 years died compared with 459 [30·2%] of 1522 patients aged >80 years). In-hospital mortality decreased for all patients during the pandemic but was higher for patients on cancer treatment than for those without cancer throughout the study period. INTERPRETATION: People with cancer have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 than those without cancer. Patients younger than 50 years with cancer treatment have the highest relative risk of death. Continued action is needed to mitigate the poor outcomes in patients with cancer, such as through optimising vaccination, long-acting passive immunisation, and early access to therapeutics. These findings underscore the importance of the ISARIC-WHO pandemic preparedness initiative. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council.

Outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalised immunocompromised patients: An analysis of the WHO ISARIC CCP-UK prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients may be at higher risk of mortality if hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with immunocompetent patients. However, previous studies have been contradictory. We aimed to determine whether immunocompromised patients were at greater risk of in-hospital death and how this risk changed over the pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included patients > = 19 years with symptomatic community-acquired COVID-19 recruited to the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK prospective cohort study. We defined immunocompromise as immunosuppressant medication preadmission, cancer treatment, organ transplant, HIV, or congenital immunodeficiency. We used logistic regression to compare the risk of death in both groups, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, vaccination, and comorbidities. We used Bayesian logistic regression to explore mortality over time. Between 17 January 2020 and 28 February 2022, we recruited 156,552 eligible patients, of whom 21,954 (14%) were immunocompromised. In total, 29% (n = 6,499) of immunocompromised and 21% (n = 28,608) of immunocompetent patients died in hospital. The odds of in-hospital mortality were elevated for immunocompromised patients (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI [1.39, 1.50], p < 0.001). Not all immunocompromising conditions had the same risk, for example, patients on active cancer treatment were less likely to have their care escalated to intensive care (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI [0.7, 0.85], p < 0.001) or ventilation (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.56, 0.76], p < 0.001). However, cancer patients were more likely to die (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI [1.87, 2.15], p < 0.001). Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidities, and vaccination status. As the pandemic progressed, in-hospital mortality reduced more slowly for immunocompromised patients than for immunocompetent patients. This was particularly evident with increasing age: the probability of the reduction in hospital mortality being less for immunocompromised patients aged 50 to 69 years was 88% for men and 83% for women, and for those >80 years was 99% for men and 98% for women. The study is limited by a lack of detailed drug data prior to admission, including steroid doses, meaning that we may have incorrectly categorised some immunocompromised patients as immunocompetent. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocompromised patients remain at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Targeted measures such as additional vaccine doses, monoclonal antibodies, and nonpharmaceutical preventive interventions should be continually encouraged for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 66726260.

SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. METHODS: In this follow up study, plasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FINDINGS: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. INTERPRETATION: The decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. FUNDING: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript.

Risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations among school-aged children in Scotland: A national incident cohort study.

Background: There is considerable policy, clinical and public interest about whether children should be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and, if so, which children should be prioritised (particularly if vaccine resources are limited). To inform such deliberations, we sought to identify children and young people at highest risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. Methods: We used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) platform to undertake a national incident cohort analysis to investigate the risk of hospitalization among 5-17 years old living in Scotland in risk groups defined by the living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID). A Cox proportional hazard model was used to derive hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between risk groups and COVID-19 hospital admission. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic status, co-morbidity, and prior hospitalization. Results: Between March 1, 2020 and November 22, 2021, there were 146 183 (19.4% of all 752 867 children in Scotland) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among 5-17 years old. Of those with confirmed infection, 973 (0.7%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was higher in those within each QCOVID risk group compared to those without the condition. Similar results were found in age stratified analyses (5-11 and 12-17 years old). Risk groups associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admission, included (adjusted HR, 95% CIs): sickle cell disease 14.35 (8.48-24.28), chronic kidney disease 11.34 (4.61-27.87), blood cancer 6.32 (3.24-12.35), rare pulmonary diseases 5.04 (2.58-9.86), type 2 diabetes 3.04 (1.34-6.92), epilepsy 2.54 (1.69-3.81), type 1 diabetes 2.48 (1.47-4.16), Down syndrome 2.45 (0.96-6.25), cerebral palsy 2.37 (1.26-4.47), severe mental illness 1.43 (0.63-3.24), fracture 1.41 (1.02-1.95), congenital heart disease 1.35 (0.82-2.23), asthma 1.28 (1.06-1.55), and learning disability (excluding Down syndrome) 1.08 (0.82-1.42), when compared to those without these conditions. Although our Cox models were adjusted for a number of potential confounders, residual confounding remains a possibility. Conclusions: In this national study, we observed an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admissions among school-aged children with specific underlying long-term health conditions compared with children without these conditions.

Device-assessed sleep and physical activity in individuals recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals recovering from severe COVID-19 is increasing rapidly. However, little is known about physical behaviours that make up the 24-h cycle within these individuals. This study aimed to describe physical behaviours following hospital admission for COVID-19 at eight months post-discharge including associations with acute illness severity and ongoing symptoms. METHODS: One thousand seventy-seven patients with COVID-19 discharged from hospital between March and November 2020 were recruited. Using a 14-day wear protocol, wrist-worn accelerometers were sent to participants after a five-month follow-up assessment. Acute illness severity was assessed by the WHO clinical progression scale, and the severity of ongoing symptoms was assessed using four previously reported data-driven clinical recovery clusters. Two existing control populations of office workers and individuals with type 2 diabetes were comparators. RESULTS: Valid accelerometer data from 253 women and 462 men were included. Women engaged in a mean ± SD of 14.9 ± 14.7 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 12.1 ± 1.7 h/day spent inactive and 7.2 ± 1.1 h/day asleep. The values for men were 21.0 ± 22.3 and 12.6 ± 1.7 h /day and 6.9 ± 1.1 h/day, respectively. Over 60% of women and men did not have any days containing a 30-min bout of MVPA. Variability in sleep timing was approximately 2 h in men and women. More severe acute illness was associated with lower total activity and MVPA in recovery. The very severe recovery cluster was associated with fewer days/week containing continuous bouts of MVPA, longer total sleep time, and higher variability in sleep timing. Patients post-hospitalisation with COVID-19 had lower levels of physical activity, greater sleep variability, and lower sleep efficiency than a similarly aged cohort of office workers or those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Those recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19 have low levels of physical activity and disrupted patterns of sleep several months after discharge. Our comparative cohorts indicate that the long-term impact of COVID-19 on physical behaviours is significant.

Obesity, chronic disease, age, and in-hospital mortality in patients with covid-19: analysis of ISARIC clinical characterisation protocol UK cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although age, obesity and pre-existing chronic diseases are established risk factors for COVID-19 outcomes, their interactions have not been well researched. METHODS: We used data from the Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) for Severe Emerging Infection developed by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC). Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 from 6th February to 12th October 2020 were included where there was a coded outcome following hospital admission. Obesity was determined by an assessment from a clinician and chronic disease by medical records. Chronic diseases included: chronic cardiac disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes and cancer. Mutually exclusive categories of obesity, with or without chronic disease, were created. Associations with in-hospital mortality were examined across sex and age categories. RESULTS: The analysis included 27,624 women with 6407 (23.2%) in-hospital deaths and 35,065 men with 10,001 (28.5%) in-hospital deaths. The prevalence of chronic disease in women and men was 66.3 and 68.5%, respectively, while that of obesity was 12.9 and 11.1%, respectively. Association of obesity and chronic disease status varied by age (p < 0.001). Under 50 years of age, obesity and chronic disease were associated with in-hospital mortality within 28 days of admission in a dose-response manner, such that patients with both obesity and chronic disease had the highest risk with a hazard ratio (HR) of in-hospital mortality of 2.99 (95% CI: 2.12, 4.21) in men and 2.16 (1.42, 3.26) in women compared to patients without obesity or chronic disease. Between the ages of 50-69 years, obesity and chronic disease remained associated with in-hospital COVID-19 mortality, but survival in those with obesity was similar to those with and without prevalent chronic disease. Beyond the age of 70 years in men and 80 years in women there was no meaningful difference between those with and without obesity and/or chronic disease. CONCLUSION: Obesity and chronic disease are important risk factors for in-hospital mortality in younger age groups, with the combination of chronic disease and obesity being particularly important in those under 50 years of age. These findings have implications for targeted public health interventions, vaccination strategies and in-hospital clinical decision making.

A restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy to prevent myocardial injury in patients undergoing surgery for fractured neck of femur: a feasibility randomised trial (RESULT-NOF).

BACKGROUND: The optimum transfusion strategy in patients with fractured neck of femur is uncertain, particularly if there is coexisting cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-centre, randomised feasibility trial of two transfusion strategies. We randomly assigned patients undergoing surgery for fractured neck of femur to a restrictive (haemoglobin, 70-90 g L-1) or liberal (haemoglobin, 90-110 g L-1) transfusion strategy throughout their hospitalisation. Feasibility outcomes included: enrolment rate, protocol compliance, difference in haemoglobin, and blood exposure. The primary clinical outcome was myocardial injury using troponin estimations. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, postoperative complications, duration of hospitalisation, mortality, and quality of life. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 (22%) of 907 eligible patients, and 62 (31%) showed decreased haemoglobin (to 90 g L-1 or less) and were thus exposed to the intervention. The overall protocol compliance was 81% in the liberal group and 64% in the restrictive group. Haemoglobin concentrations were similar preoperatively and at postoperative day 1 but lower in the restrictive group on day 2 (mean difference [MD], 7.0 g L-1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-12.4). Lowest haemoglobin within 30 days/before discharge was lower in the restrictive group (MD, 5.3 g L-1; 95% CI, 1.7-9.0). Overall, 58% of patients in the restrictive group received no transfusion compared with 4% in the liberal group (difference in proportion, 54.5%; 95% CI, 36.8-72.2). The proportion with the primary clinical outcome was 14/26 (54%, liberal) vs 24/34 (71%, restrictive), and the difference in proportion was -16.7% (95% CI, -41.3 to 7.8; P=0.18). CONCLUSION: A clinical trial of two transfusion strategies in hip fracture with a clinically relevant cardiac outcome is feasible. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03407573.

Perioperative care of people with dementia.

As the population ages, there is a higher prevalence of both dementia and conditions that require major surgery. However, patients with dementia undergoing surgery have poorer outcomes than surgical patients without dementia. This article explores new guidance about delivering perioperative care for patients with dementia presenting for surgery. Management of patients with cognitive changes begins with developing an understanding of the classifications and pathophysiology of these disease processes, and addressing any modifiable risk factors for developing dementia, postoperative cognitive decline and postoperative delirium. Thorough preoperative assessment provides the opportunity to identify patients with and at risk of these cognitive impairments and to involve the appropriate multidisciplinary team in care planning. Once patients are identified, an individualised perioperative management plan addressing any issues surrounding capacity and consent, conduct of anaesthesia, possible polypharmacy and potential drug interactions, and postoperative pain management can improve quality of care and outcomes for these patients.

Effect of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies on outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in a non-cardiac surgery setting: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcomes of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease not undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Randomised controlled trials involving a threshold for red blood cell transfusion in hospital. We searched (to 2 November 2015) CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, LILACS, NHSBT Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN Register, and EU Clinical Trials Register. Authors were contacted for data whenever possible. TRIAL SELECTION: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing a restrictive with liberal transfusion threshold and that included patients with cardiovascular disease. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was completed in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methods. Relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were presented in all meta-analyses. Mantel-Haenszel random effects models were used to pool risk ratios. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30 day mortality, and cardiovascular events. RESULTS: 41 trials were identified; of these, seven included data on patients with cardiovascular disease. Data from a further four trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease were obtained from the authors. In total, 11 trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease (n=3033) were included for meta-analysis (restrictive transfusion, n=1514 patients; liberal transfusion, n=1519). The pooled risk ratio for the association between transfusion thresholds and 30 day mortality was 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.50, P=0.50), with little heterogeneity (I(2)=14%). The risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients managed with restrictive compared with liberal transfusion was increased (nine trials; risk ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.70, P=0.01, I(2)=0%). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that it may not be safe to use a restrictive transfusion threshold of less than 80 g/L in patients with ongoing acute coronary syndrome or chronic cardiovascular disease. Effects on mortality and other outcomes are uncertain. These data support the use of a more liberal transfusion threshold (>80 g/L) for patients with both acute and chronic cardiovascular disease until adequately powered high quality randomised trials have been undertaken in patients with cardiovascular disease. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014014251.