RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
COVID-19 is by convention characterised by a triad of symptoms: cough, fever and loss of taste/smell. The aim of this study was to examine clustering of COVID-19 symptoms based on underlying chronic disease and geographical location. Using a large global symptom survey of 78,299 responders in 190 different countries, we examined symptom profiles in relation to geolocation (grouped by country) and underlying chronic disease (single, co- or multi-morbidities) associated with a positive COVID-19 test result using statistical and machine learning methods to group populations by underlying disease, countries, and symptoms. Taking the responses of 7980 responders with a COVID-19 positive test in the top 5 contributing countries, we find that the most frequently reported symptoms differ across the globe: For example, fatigue 4108(51.5%), headache 3640(45.6%) and loss of smell and taste 3563(44.6%) are the most reported symptoms globally. However, symptom patterns differ by continent; India reported a significantly lower proportion of headache (22.8% vs 45.6%, p<0.05) and itchy eyes (7.0% vs. 15.3%, p<0.05) than other countries, as does Pakistan (33.6% vs 45.6%, p<0.05 and 8.6% vs 15.3%, p<0.05). Mexico and Brazil report significantly less of these symptoms. As with geographic location, we find people differed in their reported symptoms, if they suffered from specific underlying diseases. For example, COVID-19 positive responders with asthma or other lung disease were more likely to report shortness of breath as a symptom, compared with COVID-19 positive responders who had no underlying disease (25.3% vs. 13.7%, p<0.05, and 24.2 vs.13.7%, p<0.05). Responders with no underlying chronic diseases were more likely to report loss of smell and tastes as a symptom (46%), compared with the responders with type 1 diabetes (21.3%), Type 2 diabetes (33.5%) lung disease (29.3%), or hypertension (37.8%). Global symptom ranking differs markedly from the well-known and commonly described symptoms for COVID-19, which are based on a few localised studies. None of the five countries studied in depth recorded cough or temperature as the most common symptoms. The most common symptoms reported were fatigue and loss of smell and taste. Amongst responders from Brazil cough was the second most frequently reported symptom, after fatigue. Moreover, we find that across countries and based on underlying chronic diseases, there are significant differences in symptom profiles at presentation, that cannot be fully explained by the different chronic disease profiles of these countries, and may be caused by differences in climate, environment and ethnicities. These factors uncovered by our global comorbidity survey of COVID-19 positive tested people may contribute to the apparent large asymptotic COVID-19 spread and put patients with underlying disease systematically more at risk. Executive SummaryO_ST_ABSEvidence before this workC_ST_ABSAn early meta-analysis of epidemiological variation in COVID-19 inside and outside China studied patient characteristics including, gender, age, fatality rate, and symptoms of fever, cough, shortness of breath and diarrhoea in COVID-19 patients. They found that important symptom differences existed in patients in China compared to other countries and recommended that clinical symptoms of COVID-19 should not be generalized to fever, shortness of breath and cough only, but other symptoms such as diarrhoea are also shown to be prevalent in patients with COVID-19. Added value of this workWe find that across countries and based on underlying chronic diseases, there are significant differences in symptom profiles at presentation, that cannot be fully explained by the different chronic disease profiles of these countries, and may be caused by differences in climate, environment and ethnicities. Implications of the evidenceThese factors, uncovered by our global comorbidity survey of COVID-19 positive tested people may contribute to the apparent large asymptotic COVID-19 spread and put patients with underlying disease systematically more at risk.
RESUMEN
BackgroundConcerns have been raised that the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic may have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We asked what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic? MethodsUsing electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (2017-2020), we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions (including: anxiety, depression, acute alcohol-related events, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbations, cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies). We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions ( lockdown) compared to the period prior to their introduction in March 2020. FindingsThe overall population included 9,863,903 individuals on 1st January 2017. Primary care contacts for all conditions dropped dramatically after introduction of population-wide restrictions. By July 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. The largest reductions were for contacts for: diabetic emergencies (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.50), depression (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53), and self-harm (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58). InterpretationThere were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions with restrictions, with limited recovery by July 2020. It is likely that much of the deficit in care represents unmet need, with implications for subsequent morbidity and premature mortality. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people experiencing the conditions and healthcare provision. Maintaining access must be a key priority in future public health planning (including further restrictions). FundingWellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (SML), Health Data Research UK. RESULTS IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSA small study in 47 GP practices in a largely deprived, urban area of the UK (Salford) reported that primary care consultations for four broad diagnostic groups (circulatory disease, common mental health problems, type 2 diabetes mellitus and malignant cancer) declined by 16-50% between March and May 2020, compared to what was expected based on data from January 2010 to March 2020. We searched Medline for other relevant evidence of the indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health from inception to September 25th 2020, for articles published in English, with titles including the search terms ("covid*" or "coronavirus" or "sars-cov-2"), and title or abstracts including the search terms ("indirect impact" or "missed diagnos*" or "missing diagnos*" or "delayed diagnos*" or (("present*" or "consult*" or "engag*" or "access*") AND ("reduction" or "decrease" or "decline")). We found no further studies investigating the change in primary care contacts for specific physical- and mental-health conditions indirectly resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic or its control measures. There has been a reduction in hospital admissions and presentations to accident and emergency departments in the UK, particularly for myocardial infarctions and cerebrovascular accidents. However, there is no published evidence specifically investigating the changes in primary care contacts for severe acute physical and mental health conditions. Added value of this studyTo our knowledge this is the first study to explore changes in healthcare contacts for acute physical and mental health conditions in a large population representative of the UK. We used electronic primary care health records of nearly 10 million individuals across the UK to investigate the indirect impact of COVID-19 on primary care contacts for mental health, acute alcohol-related events, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies up to July 2020. For all conditions studied, we found primary care contacts dropped dramatically following the introduction of population-wide restriction measures in March 2020. By July 2020, with the exception of unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, primary care contacts for all conditions studied had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. In the general population, estimates of the absolute reduction in the number of primary care contacts up to July 2020, compared to what we would expect from previous years varied from fewer than 10 contacts per million for some cardiovascular outcomes, to 12,800 per million for depression and 6,600 for anxiety. In people with COPD, we estimated there were 43,900 per million fewer contacts for COPD exacerbations up to July 2020 than what we would expect from previous years. Implicatins of all the available evidenceWhile our results may represent some genuine reduction in disease frequency (e.g. the restriction measures may have improved diabetic glycaemic control due to more regular daily routines at home), it is more likely the reduced primary care conatcts we saw represent a substantial burden of unmet need (particularly for mental health conditions) that may be reflected in subsequent increased mortality and morbidity. Health service providers should take steps to prepare for increased demand in the coming months and years due to the short and longterm ramifications of reduced access to care for severe acute physical and mental health conditions. Maintaining access to primary care is key to future public health planning in relation to the pandemic.
RESUMEN
RationaleThe impact of COVID-19 on patients with Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) has not been established. ObjectivesTo assess outcomes following COVID-19 in patients with ILD versus those without in a contemporaneous age, sex and comorbidity matched population. MethodsAn international multicentre audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between 1 March and 1 May 2020 was undertaken and compared with patients, without ILD obtained from the ISARIC 4C cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished IPF from non-IPF ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death. Measurements and Main ResultsData from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity-score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching ILD patients with COVID-19 had higher mortality (HR 1.60, Confidence Intervals 1.17-2.18 p=0.003) compared with age, sex and comorbidity matched controls without ILD. Patients with a Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC [≥]80% (HR 1.72, 1.05-2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR 1.98, 1.13-3.46). ConclusionsPatients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.
RESUMEN
BackgroundEarly descriptions of the coronavirus outbreak showed a lower prevalence of asthma and COPD than was expected for people diagnosed with COVID-19, leading to speculation that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of serious sequelae. We evaluated the association between ICS and COVID-19 related death using linked electronic health records in the UK. MethodsWe conducted cohort studies on two groups of people (COPD and asthma) using the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse data from primary care practices linked to national death registrations. People receiving an ICS were compared to those receiving alternative respiratory medications. Our primary outcome was COVID-19 related death. FindingsWe identified 148,588 people with COPD and 817,973 people with asthma receiving relevant respiratory medications in the four months prior to 01 March 2020. People with COPD receiving ICS were at a greater risk of COVID-19 related death compared to those receiving a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (adjusted HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.08 - 1.75). People with asthma receiving high dose ICS were at an increased risk of death compared to those receiving a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) only (adjusted HR = 1.52, 95%CI = 1.08 - 2.14); the adjusted HR for those receiving low-medium dose ICS was 1.10 (95% CI = 0.82 - 1.49). Quantitative bias analyses indicated that an unmeasured confounder of only moderate strength of association with exposure and outcome could explain the observed associations in both populations. InterpretationThese results do not support a major role of ICS in protecting against COVID-19 related deaths. Observed increased risks of COVID-19 related death among people with COPD and asthma receiving ICS can be plausibly explained by unmeasured confounding due to disease severity. FundingThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1.
