Objective and subjective cognitive status after intensive care unit treatment for COVID-19.

Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) survivors can experience wide-ranging and long-lasting symptoms after hospital discharge. Cognitive impairment has received increased attention in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and can affect patients' long-term quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cognitive impairment using an objective neurocognitive test 6 and 12 months following ICU admission and possible predictive factors for scoring below the defined cut-off. We also explored the prevalence of subjective cognitive complaints at 12 months, including the associated factors. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of a national cohort of COVID-19 ICU survivors during the three first pandemic waves in Norway. Data was collected by the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry and the study group. Results: At the six-month follow-up, 23.1% (95% CI [18.2─28.5]) of the 273 respondents scored below the cut-off on the Mini-MoCA, indicating mild cognitive impairment. At the 12-month follow-up, the prevalence declined to 11.1% (95% CI [7.5─15.6]) in 253 respondents. Older age (OR 1.06, 95% CI [1.02─1.12]) and depression (OR 1.25, 95% CI [1.07─1.55]) were associated with cognitive impairment at six months. At 12 months, almost half of the patients reported subjective cognitive complaints. Symptoms of mental health problems and fatigue were associated with subjective cognitive complaints in our exploratory analyses. Conclusion: Cognitive impairment declined significantly from 6 to 12 months in this cohort of COVID-19 ICU patients, while subjective cognitive complaints remained high at 12 months, perhaps attributed to a high total symptom burden.

Post-traumatic stress symptoms six months after ICU admission with COVID-19: Prospective observational study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms, and to identify possible predictive factors in Norwegian intensive care unit survivors, 6 months after admission to the intensive care unit with COVID-19. BACKGROUND: The SARS CoV-2 virus causing COVID-19 has spread worldwide since it was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The most severely ill patients have been treated in the intensive care due to acute respiratory failure and also acute respiratory distress syndrome. It is well documented that these severe conditions can lead to complex and long-lasting symptoms, such as psychological distress, and was, therefore, investigated for the specific COVID-19 population. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: Clinical data and patient reported outcome measures were collected by the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry and by the study group 6 months after admission to an intensive care unit. RESULTS: Among 222 COVID-19 patients admitted to Norwegian intensive care units between 10 March and 6 July 2020, 175 survived. The study sample consisted of 131 patients who responded to at least one patient reported outcome measure at 6 months following admission. The primary outcome was self-reported post-traumatic stress symptoms, using the Impact of Event Scale-6 (n = 89). Of those, 22.5% reported post-traumatic stress symptoms 6 months after admission. Female gender, younger age and having a high respiratory rate at admission were statistically significant predictive factors for reporting post-traumatic stress symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The result is in accordance with previously published research with comparable populations, suggesting that for many COVID-19 survivors psychological distress is a part of the post-acute sequelae. Results from the present study should be replicated in larger datasets. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This project provides important insight to post-acute sequelae after COVID-19 that patients may experience after critical illness.

A comparison of two registry-based systems for the surveillance of persons hospitalised with COVID-19 in Norway, February 2020 to May 2022.

BackgroundThe surveillance of persons hospitalised with COVID-19 has been essential to ensure timely and appropriate public health response. Ideally, surveillance systems should distinguish persons hospitalised with COVID-19 from those hospitalised due to COVID-19.AimWe compared data in two national electronic health registries in Norway to critically appraise and inform the further development of the surveillance of persons hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodWe included hospitalised COVID-19 patients registered in the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) or the Norwegian Pandemic Registry (NoPaR) with admission dates between 17 February 2020 and 1 May 2022. We linked patients, identified overlapping hospitalisation periods and described the overlap between the registries. We described the prevalence of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnosis codes and their combinations by main cause of admission (clinically assessed as COVID-19 or other), age and time.ResultsIn the study period, 19,486 admissions with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were registered in NoPaR and 21,035 with the corresponding ICD-10 code U07.1 in NPR. Up to late 2021, there was a 90-100% overlap between the registries, which thereafter decreased to < 75%. The prevalence of ICD-10 codes varied by reported main cause, age and time.ConclusionChanges in patient cohorts, virus characteristics and the management of COVID-19 patients from late 2021 impacted the registration of patients and coding practices in the registries. Using ICD-10 codes for the surveillance of persons hospitalised due to COVID-19 requires age- and time-specific definitions and ongoing validation to consider temporal changes in patient cohorts and virus characteristics.

The Nordic perioperative and intensive care registries-Collaboration and research possibilities.

BACKGROUND: The Nordic perioperative and intensive care registries have been built up during the last 25 years to improve quality in intensive and perioperative care. We aimed to describe the Nordic perioperative and intensive care registries and to highlight possibilities and challenges in future research collaboration between these registries. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We present an overview of the following Nordic registries: Swedish Perioperative Registry (SPOR), the Danish Anesthesia Database (DAD), the Finnish Perioperative Database (FIN-AN), the Icelandic Anesthesia Database (IS-AN), the Danish Intensive Care Database (DID), the Swedish Intensive Care Registry (SIR), the Finnish Intensive Care Consortium, the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry (NIPaR), and the Icelandic Intensive Care Registry (IS-ICU). RESULTS: Health care systems and patient populations are similar in the Nordic countries. Despite certain differences in data structure and clinical variables, the perioperative and intensive care registries have enough in common to enable research collaboration. In the future, even a common Nordic registry could be possible. CONCLUSION: Collaboration between the Nordic perioperative and intensive care registries is both possible and likely to produce research of high quality. Research collaboration between registries may have several add-on effects and stimulate international standardization regarding definitions, scoring systems, and benchmarks, thereby improving overall quality of care.

A first-level customization study of SAPS II with Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry (NIPaR) data.

BACKGROUND: Severity scores and mortality prediction models (MPMs) are important tools for benchmarking and stratification in the intensive care unit (ICU) and need to be regularly updated using data from a local and contextual cohort. Simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) is widely used in European ICUs. METHODS: A first-level customization was performed on the SAPS II model using data from the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry (NIPaR). Two previous SAPS II models (Model A: the original SAPS II model and Model B: a SAPS II model based on NIPaR data from 2008 to 2010) were compared to the new Model C. Model C was based on patients from 2018 to 2020 (corona virus disease 2019 patients omitted; n = 43,891), and its performances (calibration, discrimination, and uniformity of fit) compared to the previous models (Model A and Model B). RESULTS: Model C was better calibrated than Model A with a Brier score 0.132 (95% confidence interval 0.130-0.135) versus 0.143 (95% confidence interval 0.141-0.146). The Brier score for Model B was 0.133 (95% confidence interval 0.130-0.135). In the Cox's calibration regression α ≈ 0 and ß ≈ 1 for both Model C and Model B but not for Model A. Uniformity of fit was similar for Model B and for Model C, both better than for Model A, across age groups, sex, length of stay, type of admission, hospital category, and days on respirator. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.80), showing acceptable discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: The observed mortality and corresponding SAPS II scores have significantly changed during the last decades and an updated MPM is superior to the original SAPS II. However, proper external validation is required to confirm our findings. Prediction models need to be regularly customized using local datasets in order to optimize their performances.

A multicenter international prospective study of the validity and reliability of a COVID-19-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire for patients with current or previous coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in an international setting. METHODS: This multicenter international methodology study followed standardized guidelines for a four-phase questionnaire development. Here, we report on the pretesting and validation of our international questionnaire. Adults with current or previous COVID-19, in institutions or at home were eligible. In the pretesting, 54 participants completed the questionnaire followed by interviews to identify administration problems and evaluate content validity. Thereafter, 371 participants completed the revised questionnaire and a debriefing form to allow preliminary psychometric analysis. Validity and reliability were assessed (correlation-based methods, Cronbach's α, and intra-class correlation coefficient). RESULTS: Eleven countries within and outside Europe enrolled patients. From the pretesting, 71 of the 80 original items fulfilled the criteria for item-retention. Most participants (80%) completed the revised 71-item questionnaire within 15 min, on paper (n = 175) or digitally (n = 196). The final questionnaire included 61 items that fulfilled criteria for item retention or were important to subgroups. Item-scale correlations were > 0.7 for all but nine items. Internal consistency (range 0.68-0.92) and test-retest results (all but one scale > 0.7) were acceptable. The instrument consists of 15 multi-item scales and six single items. CONCLUSION: The Oslo COVID-19 QLQ-W61© is an international, stand-alone, multidimensional HRQoL questionnaire that can assess the symptoms, functioning, and overall quality of life in COVID-19 patients. It is available for use in research and clinical practice. Further psychometric validation in larger patient samples will be performed.

Age and product dependent vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation among adults in Norway: a national cohort study, July-November 2021.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in the pandemic response and understanding changes in vaccines effectiveness is essential to guide vaccine policies. Although the Delta variant is no longer dominant, understanding vaccine effectiveness properties will provide essential knowledge to comprehend the development of the pandemic and estimate potential changes over time. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we estimated the vaccine effectiveness of Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech; BNT162b2), Spikevax (Moderna; mRNA-1273), Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca; ChAdOx nCoV-19; AZD1222), or a combination against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations, intensive care admissions, and death using Cox proportional hazard models, across different vaccine product regimens and age groups, between 15 July and 31 November 2021 (Delta variant period). Vaccine status is included as a time-varying covariate and all models were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, county of residence, country of birth, and living conditions. Data from the entire adult Norwegian population were collated from the National Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19). RESULTS: The overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 81.3% (confidence interval (CI): 80.7 to 81.9) in the first 2 to 9 weeks after receiving a second dose to 8.6% (CI: 4.0 to 13.1) after more than 33 weeks, compared to 98.6% (CI: 97.5 to 99.2) and 66.6% (CI: 57.9 to 73.6) against hospitalisation respectively. After the third dose (booster), the effectiveness was 75.9% (CI: 73.4 to 78.1) against infection and 95.0% (CI: 92.6 to 96.6) against hospitalisation. Spikevax or a combination of mRNA products provided the highest protection, but the vaccine effectiveness decreased with time since vaccination for all vaccine regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the vaccine effectiveness against infection waned over time, all vaccine regimens remained effective against hospitalisation after the second vaccine dose. For all vaccine regimens, a booster facilitated recovery of effectiveness. The results from this support the use of heterologous schedules, increasing flexibility in vaccination policy.

COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Children <18 Years by Variant Wave in Norway.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited evidence on whether the relative severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and adolescents differs for different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants. We compare the risk of hospitalization to acute COVID-19 or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) among unvaccinated persons <18 years with COVID-19 (cases) between waves of the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron (sublineage BA.1) variants in Norway. METHODS: We used linked individual-level data from national registries to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using multivariable log-binomial regression. We adjusted for variant wave, demographic characteristics, and underlying comorbidities. RESULTS: We included 10 538 Alpha (21 hospitalized with acute COVID-19, 7 MIS-C), 42 362 Delta (28 acute COVID-19, 14 MIS-C), and 82 907 Omicron wave cases (48 acute COVID-19, 7 MIS-C). The risk of hospitalization with acute COVID-19 was lower in the Delta (aRR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.30-0.93) and Omicron wave (aRR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24-0.68), compared to the Alpha wave. We found no difference in this risk for Omicron compared to Delta. The risk of MIS-C was lower for Omicron, compared to Alpha (aRR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03-0.27) and Delta (aRR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.10-0.63). CONCLUSIONS: We do not find clear evidence that different variants have influenced the risk of hospitalization with acute COVID-19 among unvaccinated children and adolescents in Norway. The lower risk of this outcome with Omicron and Delta may reflect changes in other factors over time, such as the testing strategy, maternal vaccination and/or hospitalization criteria. The emergence of Omicron has reduced the risk of MIS-C.

Milder disease trajectory among COVID-19 patients hospitalised with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant compared with the Delta variant in Norway.

Using individual-level national registry data, we conducted a cohort study to estimate differences in the length of hospital stay, and risk of admission to an intensive care unit and in-hospital death among patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant, compared with patients infected with Delta variant in Norway. We included 409 (38%) patients infected with Omicron and 666 (62%) infected with Delta who were hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as the main cause of hospitalisation between 6 December 2021 and 6 February 2022. Omicron patients had a 48% lower risk of intensive care admission (adjusted hazard ratios (aHR): 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34-0.80) and a 56% lower risk of in-hospital death (aHR: 0.44, 95%CI: 0.24-0.79) compared with Delta patients. Omicron patients had a shorter length of stay (with or without ICU stay) compared with Delta patients in the age groups from 18 to 79 years and those who had at least completed their primary vaccination. This supports growing evidence of reduced disease severity among hospitalised Omicron patients compared with Delta patients.