The effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and impaired lung function following COVID-19 hospitalisation: a prospective multi-centre cohort study

BackgroundSleep disturbance is common following hospitalisation both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations are poorly understood, despite it altering pathophysiology in other scenarios. We, therefore, investigated whether sleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea along with relevant mediation pathways. MethodsSleep parameters were assessed in a prospective cohort of patients (n=2,468) hospitalised for COVID-19 in the United Kingdom in 39 centres using both subjective and device-based measures. Results were compared to a matched UK biobank cohort and associations were evaluated using multivariable linear regression. Findings64% (456/714) of participants reported poor sleep quality; 56% felt their sleep quality had deteriorated for at least 1-year following hospitalisation. Compared to the matched cohort, both sleep regularity (44.5 vs 59.2, p<0.001) and sleep efficiency (85.4% vs 88.5%, p<0.001) were lower whilst sleep period duration was longer (8.25h vs 7.32h, p<0.001). Overall sleep quality (effect estimate 4.2 (3.0-5.5)), deterioration in sleep quality following hospitalisation (effect estimate 3.2 (2.0-4.5)), and sleep regularity (effect estimate 5.9 (3.7-8.1)) were associated with both dyspnoea and impaired lung function (FEV1 and FVC). Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 13-42% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and muscle weakness mediated 29-43% of this effect. InterpretationSleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety and muscle weakness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. It could have similar effects for other causes of hospitalisation where sleep disturbance is prevalent. FundingUK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination.

BackgroundMost 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. MethodsPlasma 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. FindingsStrong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months. Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months with high plasma neutralising titres against all variants. Of 180 with complete data, 160 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. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG responses, indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. InterpretationThe 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. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before the studyC_ST_ABSWhile systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important in preventing severe disease, mucosal immunity prevents viral replication at the point of entry and reduces onward transmission. We searched PubMed with search terms "mucosal", "nasal", "antibody", "IgA", "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "convalescent" and "vaccination" for studies published in English before 20th July 2022, identifying three previous studies examining the durability of nasal responses that generally show nasal antibody to persist for 3 to 9 months. However, these studies were small or included individuals with mild COVID-19. One study of 107 care-home residents demonstrated increased salivary IgG (but not IgA) after two doses of mRNA vaccine, and another examined nasal antibody responses after infection and subsequent vaccination in 20 cases, demonstrating rises in both nasal IgA and IgG 7 to 10 days after vaccination. Added value of this studyStudying 446 people hospitalised for COVID-19, we show durable nasal and plasma IgG responses to ancestral (B.1 lineage) SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants up to 12 months after infection. Nasal antibody induced by infection with pre-Omicron variants, bind Omicron virus in vitro better than plasma antibody. Although nasal and plasma IgG responses were enhanced by vaccination, Omicron binding responses did not reach levels equivalent to responses for ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Using paired plasma and nasal samples collected approximately 12 months after infection, we show that nasal IgA declines and shows a minimal response to vaccination whilst plasma antibody responses to S antigen are well maintained and boosted by vaccination. Implications of all the available evidenceAfter COVID-19 and subsequent vaccination, Omicron binding plasma and nasal antibody responses are only moderately enhanced, supporting the need for booster vaccinations to maintain immunity against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Notably, there is distinct compartmentalisation between nasal IgA and plasma IgA and IgG responses after vaccination. These findings highlight the need for vaccines that induce robust and durable mucosal immunity.

Evaluation of S/F94 as a proxy for COVID-19 severity

Optimising statistical power in early-stage trials and observational studies accelerates discovery and improves the reliability of results. Ideally, intermediate outcomes should be continuously distributed and lie on the causal pathway between an intervention and a definitive outcome such as mortality. In order to optimise power for an intermediate outcome in the RECOVERY trial, we devised and evaluated a modification to a simple, pragmatic measure of oxygenation function - the SaO2/FIO2 (S/F) ratio. We demonstrate that, because of the ceiling effect in oxyhaemoglobin saturation, S/F ceases to reflect pulmonary oxygenation function at high values of SaO2. Using synthetic and real data, we found that the correlation of S/F with a gold standard (PaO2/FIO2, P/F ratio) improved substantially when measurements with SaO2 [≥] 0.94 are excluded (Spearman r, synthetic data: S/F : 0.31; S/F94: 0.85). We refer to this measure as S/F94. In order to test the underlying assumptions and validity of S/F94 as a predictor of a definitive outcome (mortality), we collected an observational dataset including over 39,000 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the ISARIC4C study. We first demonstrated that S/F94 is predictive of mortality in COVID-19. We then compared the sample sizes required for trials using different outcome measures (S/F94, the WHO ordinal scale, sustained improvement at day 28 and mortality at day 28) ensuring comparable effect sizes. The smallest sample size was needed when S/F94 on day 5 was used as an outcome measure. To facilitate future study design, we provide an online user interface to quantify real-world power for a range of outcomes and inclusion criteria, using a synthetic dataset retaining the population-level clinical associations in real data accrued in ISARIC4C https://isaric4c.net/endpoints. We demonstrated that S/F94 is superior to S/F as a measure of pulmonary oxygenation function and is an effective intermediate outcome measure in COVID-19. It is a simple and non-invasive measurement, representative of disease severity and provides greater statistical power to detect treatment differences than other intermediate endpoints.

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

BackgroundImmunocompromised patients may be at higher risk of mortality if hospitalised with 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. MethodsWe included patients >=19yrs with symptomatic community-acquired COVID-19 recruited to the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK. 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 co-morbidities. We used Bayesian logistic regression to explore mortality over time. FindingsBetween 17/01/2020 and 28/02/2022 we recruited 156,552 eligible patients, of whom 21,954 (14%) were immunocompromised. 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 (adjOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.39-1.50, p<0.001). 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 50-69yrs was 88% for men and 83% for women, and for those >80yrs was 99% for men, and 98% for women. ConclusionsImmunocompromised patients remain at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Targeted measures such as additional vaccine doses and monoclonal antibodies should be considered for this group. FundingNational Institute for Health Research; Medical Research Council; Chief Scientist Office, Scotland.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

BackgroundWhilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. MethodsHere, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. ResultsOur analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61 - 0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. ConclusionsAlthough clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome.

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

ObjectivesTo describe physical behaviours following hospital admission for COVID-19 including associations with acute illness severity and ongoing symptoms. Methods1077 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 type 2 diabetes were comparators. ResultsValid accelerometer data from 253 women and 462 men were included. Women engaged in a mean{+/-}SD of 14.9{+/-}14.7 minutes/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 725.6{+/-}104.9 minutes/day spent inactive and 7.22{+/-}1.08 hours/day asleep. The values for men were 21.0{+/-}22.3 and 755.5{+/-}102.8 minutes/day and 6.94{+/-}1.14 hours/day, respectively. Over 60% of women and men did not have any days containing a 30-minute bout of MVPA. Variability in sleep timing was approximately 2 hours 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 sleep duration, 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. ConclusionsPhysical activity and regulating sleep patterns are potential treatable traits for COVID-19 recovery programmes.

Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of Long-COVID and association with one-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study

BackgroundThere are currently no effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for Long-COVID. To identify potential therapeutic targets, we focussed on previously described four recovery clusters five months after hospital discharge, their underlying inflammatory profiles and relationship with clinical outcomes at one year. MethodsPHOSP-COVID is a prospective longitudinal cohort study, recruiting adults hospitalised with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs), physical performance, and organ function at five-months and one-year after hospital discharge. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at one-year. Cluster analysis was performed using clustering large applications (CLARA) k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at five-months. Inflammatory protein profiling from plasma at the five-month visit was performed. Findings2320 participants have been assessed at five months after discharge and 807 participants have completed both five-month and one-year visits. Of these, 35{middle dot}6% were female, mean age 58{middle dot}7 (SD 12{middle dot}5) years, and 27{middle dot}8% received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between five months 501/1965 (25{middle dot}5%) and one year 232/804 (28{middle dot}9%). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at one year were: female sex OR 0{middle dot}68 (95% CI 0{middle dot}46-0{middle dot}99), obesity OR 0{middle dot}50 (95%CI 0{middle dot}34-0{middle dot}74) and IMV OR 0{middle dot}42 (95%CI 0{middle dot}23-0{middle dot}76). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate/cognitive, mild relating to the severity of physical, mental health and cognitive impairments at five months in a larger sample. There was elevation of inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate/cognitive clusters compared to the mild cluster including interleukin-6 which was elevated in both comparisons. Overall, there was a substantial deficit in median (IQR) EQ5D-5L utility index from pre-COVID (retrospective assessment) 0{middle dot}88 (0{middle dot}74-1{middle dot}00), five months 0{middle dot}74 (0{middle dot}60-0{middle dot}88) to one year: 0{middle dot}74 (0{middle dot}59-0{middle dot}88), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at one-year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters. InterpretationThe sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 remain substantial one year after discharge across a range of health domains with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient perceived health-related quality of life remains reduced at one year compared to pre-hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials. FundingUKRI & NIHR Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe systematically searched PubMed and Embase databases for large studies reporting one-year follow-up data for hospitalised COVID-19 patients published between January 1, 2021 and November 7, 2021, without language restrictions. Search terms related to COVID-19, hospitalisation and long-term follow-up were used. A large prospective cohort study from Wuhan, China (n = 1276) showed that 49% of patients reported at least one persistent symptom during a follow-up clinic visit at 12 months post COVID-19; no significant improvement in exercise capacity was observed between six- and 12-month visits. Another two large cohort studies in China (n = 2433) and Spain (n = 1950) with one-year follow-up data from telephone interviews showed that 45% and 81% of patients reported at least one residual COVID-19 symptom, respectively. However, no previous studies have compared the trajectories of COVID-19 recovery in patients classified by different clinical phenotypes, and there are no large studies investigating the relationship between systemic inflammation and ongoing health impairments post COVID-19. Added value of this studyIn a diverse population of adults post-hospital admission with COVID-19, our large UK prospective multi-centre study reports several novel findings: the minority felt fully recovered at one year with minimal recovery from five months across any health domain; female sex and obesity are associated with being less likely to feel fully recovered at one year; several inflammatory mediators were increased in individuals with the most severe physical, mental health, and cognitive impairments compared to individuals with milder ongoing impairments. Implications of all the available evidenceBoth pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed to improve the ongoing burden following hospitalisation for COVID-19 both for individuals and healthcare systems; our findings support the use of a precision medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.

Comparison of children and young people admitted with SARS-CoV-2 across the UK in the first and second pandemic waves: prospective multicentre observational cohort study

BackgroundChildren and young people (CYP) were less affected than adults in the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. We test the hypothesis that clinical characteristics of hospitalized CYP with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK second wave would differ from the first due to the combined impact of the alpha variant, school reopening and relaxation of shielding. MethodsPatients <19 years hospitalised in the UK with clinician-reported SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled in a prospective multicentre observational cohort study between 17th January 2020 and 31st January 2021. Minimum follow up time was two weeks. Clinical characteristics were compared between the first (W1) and second wave (W2) of infections. Findings2044 CYP aged <19 years were reported from 187 hospitals. 427/2044 (20.6%) had asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection and were excluded from main analysis. 16.0% (248/1548) of symptomatic CYP were admitted to critical care and 0.8% (12/1504) died. 5.6% (91/1617) of symptomatic CYP had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Patients in W2 were significantly older (median age 6.5 years, IQR 0.3-14.9) than W1 (4.0 (0.4-13.6, p 0.015). Fever was more common in W1, otherwise presenting symptoms and comorbidities were similar across waves. After excluding CYP with MIS-C, patients in W2 had lower PEWS at presentation, lower antibiotic use and less respiratory and cardiovascular support compared to W1. There was no change in the proportion of CYP admitted to critical care between W1 and W2. 58.0% (938/1617) of symptomatic CYP had no reported comorbidity. Patients without co-morbidities were younger (42.4%, 398/938, <1 year old), had lower Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) at presentation, shorter length of hospital stay and received less respiratory support. MIS-C was responsible for a large proportion of critical care admissions, invasive and non-invasive ventilatory support, inotrope and intravenous corticosteroid use in CYP without comorbidities. InterpretationSevere disease in CYP admitted with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 in the UK remains rare. One in five CYP in this cohort had asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no evidence of increased disease severity in W2 compared with W1. FundingShort form: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Long form: This work is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (award CO-CIN-01) and the Medical Research Council (grant MC_PC_19059) and by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford (NIHR award 200907), Wellcome Trust and Department for International Development (215091/Z/18/Z), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135). Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research (grant reference: C18616/A25153). JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England (DHSC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the DHSC, DID, NIHR, MRC, Wellcome Trust, or PHE.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of remdesivir in treating severe COVID-19 using data from the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: a prospective, national cohort study.

BackgroundRemdesivir has been evaluated in clinical trial populations, but there is a sparsity of evidence evaluating effectiveness in general populations. MethodsAdults eligible to be treated with remdesivir, requiring oxygen but not ventilated, were identified from UK patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Patients treated with remdesivir within 24h of hospitalisation were compared with propensity-score matched controls; estimates of effectiveness were calculated for short-term outcomes (14-day mortality, 28-day mortality, time-to-recovery among others) using multivariable modelling. Results9,278 out of 39,330 patients satisfied eligibility criteria. 1,549 patients were identified as treated and matched with 4,964 controls. Patients were 62% male, mean (SD) age 63.1 (15.6) years, 80% White ethnicity, and symptomatic for a median of 6 days prior to baseline. There was no statistically significant benefit of remdesivir at 14 days in terms of mortality or clinical status; there were signals of effectiveness in time-to-recovery after day 9, and a reduction in 28-day mortality. ConclusionIn a real-world setting, initiation of remdesivir within 24h of hospitalisation in conjunction with standard of care was not associated with a benefit at 14 days but supports clinical trial evidence of a potential reduction in 28-day mortality.

Recovery from Covid-19 critical illness: a secondary analysis of the ISARIC4C CCP-UK cohort study and the RECOVER trial

BackgroundWe aimed to compare the prevalence and severity of fatigue in survivors of Covid-19 versus non-Covid-19 critical illness, and to explore potential associations between baseline characteristics and worse recovery. MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of two prospectively collected datasets. The population included was 92 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with Covid-19, and 240 patients who received IMV with non-Covid-19 illness before the pandemic. Follow-up data was collected post-hospital discharge using self-reported questionnaires. The main outcome measures were self-reported fatigue severity and the prevalence of severe fatigue (severity >7/10) 3 and 12-months post-hospital discharge. ResultsCovid-19 IMV-patients were significantly younger with less prior comorbidity, and more males, than pre-pandemic IMV-patients. At 3-months, the prevalence (38.9% [7/18] vs. 27.1% [51/188]) and severity (median 5.5/10 vs. 5.0/10) of fatigue was similar between the Covid-19 and pre-pandemic populations respectively. At 6-months, the prevalence (10.3% [3/29] vs. 32.5% [54/166]) and severity (median 2.0/10 vs. 5.7/10) of fatigue was less in the Covid-19 cohort. In the Covid-19 population, women under 50 experienced more severe fatigue, breathlessness, and worse overall health state compared to other Covid-19 IMV-patients. There were no significant sex differences in long-term outcomes in the pre-pandemic population. In the total sample of IMV-patients included (i.e. all Covid-19 and pre-pandemic patients), having Covid-19 was significantly associated with less severe fatigue (severity <7/10) after adjusting for age, sex, and prior comorbidity (adjusted OR 0.35 (95%CI 0.15-0.76, p=0.01). ConclusionFatigue may be less severe after Covid-19 than after other critical illness.

Physical, cognitive and mental health impacts of COVID-19 following hospitalisation: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

BackgroundThe impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health, and employment following hospitalisation is poorly understood. MethodsPHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre, UK, observational study of adults discharged from hospital with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 involving an assessment between two- and seven-months later including detailed symptom, physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for patient-perceived recovery with age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, and severity of acute illness as co-variates. Cluster analysis was performed using outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognition and physical function. FindingsWe report findings of 1077 patients discharged in 2020, from the assessment undertaken a median 5 [IQR4 to 6] months later: 36% female, mean age 58 [SD 13] years, 69% white ethnicity, 27% mechanical ventilation, and 50% had at least two co-morbidities. At follow-up only 29% felt fully recovered, 20% had a new disability, and 19% experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with failure to recover were female, middle-age, white ethnicity, two or more co-morbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial and weakly related to acute severity. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment: 1) Very severe (17%), 2) Severe (21%), 3) Moderate with cognitive impairment (17%), 4) Mild (46%), with 3%, 7%, 36% and 43% feeling fully recovered, respectively. Persistent systemic inflammation determined by C-reactive protein was related to cluster severity, but not acute illness severity. InterpretationWe identified factors related to recovery from a hospital admission with COVID-19 and four different phenotypes relating to the severity of physical, mental, and cognitive health five months later. The implications for clinical care include the potential to stratify care and the need for a pro-active approach with wide-access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services. Funding: UKRI and NIHR

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19: A prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSObjectivesC_ST_ABSThe long-term consequences of severe Covid-19 requiring hospital admission are not well characterised. The objective of this study was to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation and the impact these may have on patient reported outcome measures. DesignA multicentre, prospective cohort study with at least 3 months follow-up of participants admitted to hospital between 5th February 2020 and 5th October 2020. Setting31 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants327 hospitalised participants discharged alive from hospital with confirmed/high likelihood SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main outcome measures and comparisonsThe primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, new or increased disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). We compared these outcome measures across age, comorbidity status and in-hospital Covid-19 severity to identify groups at highest risk of developing long-term difficulties. Multilevel logistic and linear regression models were built to adjust for the effects of patient and centre level risk factors on these outcomes. ResultsIn total 53.7% (443/824) contacted participants responded, yielding 73.8% (327/443) responses with follow-up of 90 days or more from symptom onset. The median time between symptom onset of initial illness and completing the participant questionnaire was 222 days (Interquartile range (IQR) 189 to 269 days). In total, 54.7% (179/327) of participants reported they did not feel fully recovered. Persistent symptoms were reported by 93.3% (305/325) of participants, with fatigue the most common (82.8%, 255/308), followed by breathlessness (53.5%, 175/327). 46.8% (153/327) reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24.2% (79/327) of participants. Overall (EQ5D-5L) summary index was significantly worse at the time of follow-up (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. ConclusionsSurvivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present even in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. Policymakers should fund further research to identify effective treatments for long-Covid and ensure healthcare, social care and welfare support is available for individuals with long-Covid. Section 1: What is already known on this topicO_LILong-term symptoms after hospitalisation for Covid-19 have been reported, but it is not clear what impact this has on quality of life. C_LIO_LIIt is not known which patient groups are most likely to have long-term persistent symptoms following hospitalisation for Covid-19, or if this differs by disease severity. C_LI Section 2: What this study addsO_LIMore than half of patients reported not being fully recovered 7 months after onset of Covid-19 symptoms. C_LIO_LIPreviously healthy participants and those under the age of 50 had higher odds of worse long-term outcomes compared to older participants and those with comorbidities. C_LIO_LIYounger women and those with more severe acute disease in-hospital had the worst long-term outcomes. C_LIO_LIPolicy makers need to ensure there is long-term support for people experiencing long-Covid and should plan for lasting long-term population morbidity. Funding for research to understand mechanisms underlying long-Covid and identify potential interventions for testing in randomised trials is urgently required. C_LI

Changes in UK hospital mortality in the first wave of COVID-19: the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol prospective multicentre observational cohort study

BackgroundMortality rates of UK patients hospitalised with COVID-19 appeared to fall during the first wave. We quantify potential drivers of this change and identify groups of patients who remain at high risk of dying in hospital. MethodsThe International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK recruited a prospective cohort admitted to 247 acute UK hospitals with COVID-19 in the first wave (March to August 2020). Outcome was hospital mortality within 28 days of admission. We performed a three-way decomposition mediation analysis using natural effects models to explore associations between week of admission and hospital mortality adjusting for confounders (demographics, comorbidity, illness severity) and quantifying potential mediators (respiratory support and steroids). FindingsUnadjusted hospital mortality fell from 32.3% (95%CI 31.8, 32.7) in March/April to 16.4% (95%CI 15.0, 17.8) in June/July 2020. Reductions were seen in all ages, ethnicities, both sexes, and in comorbid and non-comorbid patients. After adjustment, there was a 19% reduction in the odds of mortality per 4 week period (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.79, 0.83). 15.2% of this reduction was explained by greater disease severity and comorbidity earlier in the epidemic. The use of respiratory support changed with greater use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). 22.2% (OR 0.94, 95%CI 0.94, 0.96) of the reduction in mortality was mediated by changes in respiratory support. InterpretationThe fall in hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients during the first wave in the UK was partly accounted for by changes in case mix and illness severity. A significant reduction was associated with differences in respiratory support and critical care use, which may partly reflect improved clinical decision making. The remaining improvement in mortality is not explained by these factors, and may relate to community behaviour on inoculum dose and hospital capacity strain. FundingNIHR & MRC Key points / Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSRisk factors for mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 have been established. However there is little literature regarding how mortality is changing over time, and potential explanations for why this might be. Understanding changes in mortality rates over time will help policy makers identify evolving risk, strategies to manage this and broader decisions about public health interventions. Added value of this studyMortality in hospitalised patients at the beginning of the first wave was extremely high. Patients who were admitted to hospital in March and early April were significantly more unwell at presentation than patients who were admitted in later months. Mortality fell in all ages, ethnic groups, both sexes and in patients with and without comorbidity, over and above contributions from falling illness severity. After adjustment for these variables, a fifth of the fall in mortality was explained by changes in the use of respiratory support and steroid treatment, along with associated changes in clinical decision-making relating to supportive interventions. However, mortality was persistently high in patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation, and in those patients who received non-invasive ventilation outside of critical care. Implications of all the available evidenceThe observed reduction in hospital mortality was greater than expected based on the changes seen in both case mix and illness severity. Some of this fall can be explained by changes in respiratory care, including clinical learning. In addition, introduction of community policies including wearing of masks, social distancing, shielding of vulnerable patients and the UK lockdown potentially resulted in people being exposed to less virus. The decrease in mortality varied depending on the level of respiratory support received. Patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation have persistently high mortality rates, albeit with a changing case-mix, and further research should target this group. Severe COVID-19 disease has primarily affected older people in the UK. Many of these people, but not all have significant frailty. It is essential to ensure that patients and their families remain at the centre of decision-making, and we continue with an individualised approach to their treatment and care.

Elevated antiviral, myeloid and endothelial inflammatory markers in severe COVID-19

Introductory paragraphThe mechanisms that underpin COVID-19 disease severity, and determine the outcome of infection, are only beginning to be unraveled. The host inflammatory response contributes to lung injury, but circulating mediators levels fall below those in classical cytokine storms. We analyzed serial plasma samples from 619 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 recruited through the prospective multicenter ISARIC clinical characterization protocol U.K. study and 39 milder community cases not requiring hospitalization. Elevated levels of numerous mediators including angiopoietin-2, CXCL10, and GM-CSF were seen at recruitment in patients who later died. Markers of endothelial injury (angiopoietin-2 and von-Willebrand factor A2) were detected early in some patients, while inflammatory cytokines and markers of lung injury persisted for several weeks in fatal COVID-19 despite decreasing antiviral cytokine levels. Overall, markers of myeloid or endothelial cell activation were associated with severe, progressive, and fatal disease indicating a central role for innate immune activation and vascular inflammation in COVID-19.

Development and validation of the 4C Deterioration model for adults hospitalised with COVID-19

Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 are required to inform clinical management decisions. Among 75,016 consecutive adults across England, Scotland and Wales prospectively recruited to the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study, we developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) using 11 routinely measured variables. We used internal-external cross-validation to show consistent measures of discrimination, calibration and clinical utility across eight geographical regions. We further validated the final model in held-out data from 8,252 individuals in London, with similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.78); calibration-in-the-large 0.01 (-0.04 to 0.06); calibration slope 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02)). Importantly, this model demonstrated higher net benefit than using other candidate scores to inform decision-making. Our 4C Deterioration model thus demonstrates unprecedented clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.

What is the recovery rate and risk of long-term consequences following a diagnosis of COVID-19? - A harmonised, global longitudinal observational study

IntroductionVery little is known about possible clinical sequelae that may persist after resolution of the acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). A recent longitudinal cohort from Italy including 143 patients recovered after hospitalisation with COVID-19 reported that 87% had at least one ongoing symptom at 60 day follow-up. Early indications suggest that patients with COVID-19 may need even more psychological support than typical ICU patients. The assessment of risk factors for longer term consequences requires a longitudinal study linked to data on pre-existing conditions and care received during the acute phase of illness. Methods and analysisThis is an international open-access prospective, observational multi-site study. It will enrol patients following a diagnosis of COVID-19. Tier 1 is developed for following up patients day 28 post-discharge, additionally at 3 to 6 months intervals. This module can be used to identify sub-sets of patients experiencing specific symptomatology or syndromes for further follow up. A Tier 2 module will be developed for in-clinic, in-depth follow up. The primary aim is to characterise physical consequences in patients post-COVID-19. Secondary aim includes estimating the frequency of and risk factors for post-COVID-19 medical sequalae, psychosocial consequences and post-COVID-19 mortality. A subset of patients will have sampling to characterize longer term antibody, innate and cell-mediated immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. Ethics and disseminationThis collaborative, open-access study aims to characterize the frequency of and risk factors for long-term consequences and characterise the immune response over time in patients following a diagnosis of COVID-19 and facilitate standardized and longitudinal data collection globally. The outcomes of this study will inform strategies to prevent long term consequences; inform clinical management, direct rehabilitation, and inform public health management to reduce overall morbidity and improve outcomes of COVID-19. Article summaryO_ST_ABSStrengths and limitations of this studyC_ST_ABSO_LIAs an international prospective, observational study we provide open-access standardised tools that can be adapted by any site interested in following up patients with COVID-19, for independent or combined analysis, to forward knowledge into short and long term consequences of COVID-19. C_LIO_LIThis study aims to inform strategies to prevent longer term sequalae; inform clinical management, rehabilitation, and public health management strategies to reduce morbidity and improve outcomes. C_LIO_LIThe protocol will be used for a sub-set of patients, already included in the existing cohort of more than 85,973 individuals hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection across 42 countries (as of 20 July 2020), using the ISARIC/WHO standardized Core- or RAPID Case Report Forms (CRFs). C_LIO_LIThe data will be linked with data on pre-existing comorbidities, presentation, clinical care and treatments documented in the existing cohort already documented using the ISARIC/WHO standardized Core- or RAPID CRFs. C_LIO_LIThe data collection tool is developed to facilitate wide dissemination and uptake, by enabling patient self-assessment, however, follow up of patients requires consent and resources, which might limit the uptake and bias the data towards countries /sites with capacity to follow up patients over time. C_LI

Robust, reproducible clinical patterns in hospitalised patients with COVID-19

BackgroundSevere COVID-19 is characterised by fever, cough, and dyspnoea. Symptoms affecting other organ systems have been reported. However, it is the clinical associations of different patterns of symptoms which influence diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. In this study, we applied simple machine learning techniques to a large prospective cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 identify clinically meaningful sub-groups. MethodsWe obtained structured clinical data on 59 011 patients in the UK (the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium, 4C) and used a principled, unsupervised clustering approach to partition the first 25 477 cases according to symptoms reported at recruitment. We validated our findings in a second group of 33 534 cases recruited to ISARIC-4C, and in 4 445 cases recruited to a separate study of community cases. FindingsUnsupervised clustering identified distinct sub-groups. First, a core symptom set of fever, cough, and dyspnoea, which co-occurred with additional symptoms in three further patterns: fatigue and confusion, diarrhoea and vomiting, or productive cough. Presentations with a single reported symptom of dyspnoea or confusion were common, and a subgroup of patients reported few or no symptoms. Patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms were more commonly female, had a longer duration of symptoms before presentation, and had lower 30-day mortality. Patients presenting with confusion, with or without core symptoms, were older and had a higher unadjusted mortality. Symptom clusters were highly consistent in replication analysis using a further 35446 individuals subsequently recruited to ISARIC-4C. Similar patterns were externally verified in 4445 patients from a study of self-reported symptoms of mild disease. InterpretationThe large scale of the ISARIC-4C study enabled robust, granular discovery and replication of patient clusters. Clinical interpretation is necessary to determine which of these observations have practical utility. We propose that four patterns are usefully distinct from the core symptom groups: gastro-intestinal disease, productive cough, confusion, and pauci-symptomatic presentations. Importantly, each is associated with an in-hospital mortality which differs from that of patients with core symptoms. These observations deepen our understanding of COVID-19 and will influence clinical diagnosis, risk prediction, and future mechanistic and clinical studies. FundingMedical Research Council; National Institute Health Research; Well-come Trust; Department for International Development; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre.

Outcomes of COVID-19 related hospitalisation among people with HIV in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK Protocol: prospective observational study

Background.There is conflicting evidence about how HIV infection influences COVID-19. We compared the presentation characteristics and outcomes of people with and without HIV hospitalised with COVID-19 at 207 centres across the United Kingdom. Methods.We analysed data from people with laboratory confirmed or highly likely COVID-19 enrolled into the ISARIC CCP-UK study. The primary endpoint was day-28 mortality after presentation. We used Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression to describe the association with HIV status after adjustment for sex, ethnicity, age, indeterminate/probable hospital acquisition of COVID-19 (definite hospital acquisition excluded), presentation date, and presence/absence of ten comorbidities. We additionally adjusted for disease severity at presentation as defined by hypoxia/oxygen therapy. Findings.Among 47,539 patients, 115 (0{middle dot}24%) had confirmed HIV-positive status and 103/115 (89{middle dot}6%) had a record of antiretroviral therapy. At presentation, relative to the HIV-negative group, HIV-positive people were younger (median 55 versus 74 years; p<0{middle dot}001), had a higher prevalence of obesity and moderate/severe liver disease, higher lymphocyte counts and C-reactive protein, and more systemic symptoms. The cumulative incidence of day-28 mortality was 25{middle dot}2% in the HIV-positive group versus 32{middle dot}1% in the HIV-negative group (p=0{middle dot}12); however, stratification for age revealed a higher mortality among HIV-positive people aged below 60 years. The effect of HIV-positive status was confirmed in adjusted analyses (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1{middle dot}49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0{middle dot}99-2{middle dot}25; p=0{middle dot}06). Following additional adjustment for disease severity at presentation, mortality was higher in HIV-positive people (adjusted HR 1{middle dot}63; 95% CI 1{middle dot}07-2{middle dot}48; p=0{middle dot}02). In the HIV-positive group, mortality was more common among those who were slightly older and among people with obesity and diabetes with complications. Interpretation.HIV-positive status may be associated with an increased risk of day-28 mortality following a COVID-19 related hospitalisation. Funding.NIHR, MRC, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Study registrationISRCTN66726260 RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed for articles in all languages containing the words "COVID*", "coronavirus", "SARS CoV-2" AND "HIV". After screening on 23rd July 2020, we found 51 articles reporting outcomes of COVID-19 in HIV-positive people. Of these, 2 were systematic reviews, 24 were single case reports or case series of under 10 participants, and 12 were larger case series or retrospective cohorts without matched controls. There were two cohort studies that matched HIV-positive people diagnosed with COVID-19 to the general population attending for HIV care in the same area, and three studies that matched HIV-positive people diagnosed with COVID-19 to HIV-negative controls. Some of the evidence from the United States and Europe to date suggests that people with HIV experience a similar disease course and outcomes of COVID-19 compared to the general population. However, many of the studies are limited by small sample size, lack of comparator group and lack of adjustment for potential confounding. In contrast, preliminary results from a cohort study of over 20,000 participants in South Africa indicate that HIV-positive status more than doubles the risk of COVID-19 related mortality. Currently, the evidence from the United Kingdom is limited to two case series comprising a total of 21 patients. Added value of this studyThis study analysed data collected from 207 sites across the United Kingdom as part of ISARIC CCP, the largest prospective cohort of patients hospitalised with COVID-19, to evaluate the association between HIV-positive status and day-28 mortality. The study has the benefit of a relatively large number of participants with HIV (n=115, almost all receiving antiretroviral therapy) and importantly, the ability to direct compare their presenting characteristics and outcomes to those of 47,424 HIV-negative controls within the same dataset. This includes the ability to assess the influence of gender, ethnicity and age, as well as the effect of key comorbidities including chronic cardiac, pulmonary, renal and haematological disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic neurological disorder, dementia, liver disease, and malignancy. Unlike some of the other evidence to date, but in line with the data from South Africa, this study indicates that HIV-positive status may increase the risk of mortality with COVID-19 compared to the general population, with an effect that was especially evident among people with HIV aged below 60 years and was independent of gender or ethnicity. Although we detected an association between mortality among people with HIV and occurrence of obesity and diabetes with complication, the effect of HIV-positive status persisted after adjusting for comorbidities. Implications of all the available evidencePeople with HIV may be at increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 compared to the general population. Ongoing data collection is needed to confirm this association. Linkage of hospital outcome data to the HIV history will be paramount to establishing the determinants of the increased risk. COVID-19 related hospitalisation should pursue systematic recording of HIV status to ensure optimal management and gathering of evidence.

Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score

ObjectivesTo develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality for patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DesignProspective observational cohort study: ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study (ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium [4C]). Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited between 21 May and 29 June 2020. Setting260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. ParticipantsAdult patients ([≥]18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 admitted at least four weeks before final data extraction. Main outcome measuresIn-hospital mortality. ResultsThere were 34 692 patients included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 31.7%) and 22 454 in the validation dataset (mortality 31.5%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea, and C-reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C risk stratification score demonstrated high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: AUROC 0.79; 95% CI 0.78 - 0.79; validation cohort 0.78, 0.77-0.79) with excellent calibration (slope = 1.0). Patients with a score [≥]15 (n = 2310, 17.4%) had a 67% mortality (i.e., positive predictive value 67%) compared with 1.0% mortality for those with a score [≤]3 (n = 918, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (AUROC range 0.60-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73). ConclusionsWe have developed and validated an easy-to-use risk stratification score based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. This outperformed existing scores, demonstrated utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify inpatients with covid-19 into different management groups. The 4C Mortality Score may help clinicians identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of dying during current and subsequent waves of the pandemic. Study registrationISRCTN66726260

Clinical characteristics of children and young people hospitalised with covid-19 in the United Kingdom: prospective multicentre observational cohort study

ObjectiveTo characterise the clinical features of children and young people admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the UK, and explore factors associated with admission to critical care, mortality, and development of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents temporarily related to covid-19 (MIS-C). DesignProspective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real time analysis. Setting260 acute care hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland between 17th January and 5th June 2020, with a minimal follow-up time of two weeks (to 19th June 2020). Participants451 children and young people aged less than 19 years admitted to 116 hospitals and enrolled into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emergency Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcome MeasuresAdmission to critical care (high dependency or intensive care), in-hospital mortality, or meeting the WHO preliminary case definition for MIS-C. ResultsMedian age was 3.9 years [interquartile range (IQR) 0.3-12.9 years], 36% (162/451) were under 12 months old, and 57% (256/450) were male. 56% (224/401) were White, 12% (49/401) South Asian and 10% (40/401) Black. 43% (195/451) had at least one recorded comorbidity. A muco-enteric cluster of symptoms was identified, closely mirroring the WHO MIS-C criteria. 17% of children (72/431) were admitted to critical care. On multivariable analysis this was associated with age under one month odds ratio 5.05 (95% confidence interval 1.69 to 15.72, p=0.004), age 10 to 14 years OR 3.11 (1.21 to 8.55, p=0.022) and Black ethnicity OR 3.02 (1.30 to 6.84, p=0.008). Three young people died (0.7 %, 3/451) aged 16 to 19 years, all of whom had profound comorbidity. Twelve percent of children (36/303) met the WHO MIS-C criteria, with the first patient developing symptoms in mid-March. Those meeting MIS-C criteria were older, (median age 10.8 years ([IQR 8.4-14.1] vs 2.0 [0.2-12.6]), p<0.001) and more likely to be of non-White ethnicity (70% (23/33) vs 43% (101/237), p=0.005). Children with MIS-C were four times more likely to be admitted to critical care (61% (22/36) vs 15% (40/267, p<0.001). In addition to the WHO criteria, children with MIS-C were more likely to present with headache (45% (13/29) vs 11% (19/171), p<0.001), myalgia (39% (11/28) vs 7% (12/170), p<0.001), sore throat (37% (10/27) vs (13% (24/183, p = 0.004) and fatigue (57% (17/30) vs 31% (60/192), p =0.012) than children who did not and to have a platelet count of less than 150 x109/L (30% (10/33) vs 10% (24/232), p=0.004). ConclusionsOur data confirms less severe covid-19 in children and young people than in adults and we provide additional evidence for refining the MIS-C case definition. The identification of a muco-enteric symptom cluster also raises the suggestion that MIS-C is the severe end of a spectrum of disease. Study registrationISRCTN66726260