RESUMEN
ObjectiveEvaluate antithrombotic (AT) use in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) and high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc score>=2) and investigate whether pre-existing AT use may improve COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsIndividuals with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score>=2 on January 1st 2020 were identified using pseudonymised, linked electronic health records for 56 million people in England and followed-up until May 1st 2021. Factors associated with pre-existing AT use were analysed using logistic regression. Differences in COVID-19 related hospitalisation and death were analysed using logistic and Cox regression for individuals exposed to pre-existing AT use vs no AT use, anticoagulants (AC) vs antiplatelets (AP) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin. ResultsFrom 972,971 individuals with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score>=2, 88.0% (n=856,336) had pre-existing AT use, 3.8% (n=37,418) had a COVID-19 related hospitalisation and 2.2% (n=21,116) died. Factors associated with no AT use included comorbidities that may contraindicate AT use (liver disease and history of falls) and demographics (socioeconomic status and ethnicity). Pre-existing AT use was associated with lower odds of death (OR=0.92 [0.87-0.96 at 95% CI]), but higher odds of hospitalisation OR=1.20 [1.15-1.26 at 95% CI]). The same pattern was observed for AC vs AP (death (OR=0.93 [0.87-0.98]), hospitalisation (OR=1.17 [1.11-1.24])) but not for DOACs vs warfarin (death (OR=1.00 [0.95-1.05]), hospitalisation (OR=0.86 [0.82-0.89]). ConclusionsPre-existing AT use may offer marginal protection against COVID-19 death, with AC offering more protection than AP. Although this association may not be causal, it provides further incentive to improve AT coverage for eligible individuals with AF. KEY QUESTIONSO_ST_ABSWhat is already known about this subject?C_ST_ABSO_LIAnticoagulants (AC), a sub-class of antithrombotics (AT), reduce the risk of stroke and are recommended for individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) and at high risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score>=2, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold). However, previous evaluations suggest that up to one third of these individuals may not be taking AC. Over estimation of bleeding and fall risk in elderly patients have been identified as potential factors in this under medicating. C_LIO_LIIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several observational studies have observed correlations between pre-existing AT use, particularly anticoagulants (AC), and lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalisation and death. However, these correlations are inconsistent across studies and have not compared all major sub-types of AT in one study. C_LI What does this study add?O_LIThis study uses datasets covering primary care, secondary care, pharmacy dispensing, death registrations, multiple COVID-19 diagnoses routes and vaccination records for 56 million people in England and is the largest scale evaluation of AT use to date. This provides the statistical power to robustly analyse targeted sub-types of AT and control for a wide range of potential confounders. All code developed for the study is opensource and an updated nationwide evaluation can be rapidly created for future time points. C_LIO_LIIn 972,971 individuals with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score>=2, we observed 88.0% (n=856,336) with pre-existing AT use which was associated with marginal protection against COVID-19 death (OR=0.92 [0.87-0.96 at 95% CI]). C_LI How might this impact on clinical practice?O_LIThese findings can help shape global AT medication policy and provide population-scale, observational analysis results alongside gold-standard randomised control trials to help assess whether a potential beneficial effect of pre-existing AT use on COVID-19 death alters risk to benefit assessments in AT prescribing decisions. C_LI
RESUMEN
BackgroundSeveral prediction models for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been published. Prediction models should be externally validated to assess their performance before implementation. This observational cohort study aimed to validate published models of severity for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using clinical and laboratory predictors. MethodsPrediction models fitting relevant inclusion criteria were chosen for validation. The outcome was either mortality or a composite outcome of mortality and ICU admission (severe disease). 1295 patients admitted with symptoms of COVID-19 at Kings Cross Hospital (KCH) in London, United Kingdom, and 307 patients at Oslo University Hospital (OUH) in Oslo, Norway were included. The performance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. ResultsWe identified two models for prediction of mortality (referred to as Xie and Zhang1) and two models for prediction of severe disease (Allenbach and Zhang2). The performance of the models was variable. For prediction of mortality Xie had good discrimination at OUH with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) 0.87 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.95] and acceptable discrimination at KCH, AUROC 0.79 [0.76-0.82]. In prediction of severe disease, Allenbach had acceptable discrimination (OUH AUROC 0.81 [0.74-0.88] and KCH AUROC 0.72 [0.68-0.75]). The Zhang models had moderate to poor discrimination. Initial calibration was poor for all models but improved with recalibration. ConclusionsThe performance of the four prediction models was variable. The Xie model had the best discrimination for mortality, while the Allenbach model had acceptable results for prediction of severe disease.
RESUMEN
BackgroundAccurate risk prediction of clinical outcome would usefully inform clinical decisions and intervention targeting in COVID-19. The aim of this study was to derive and validate risk prediction models for poor outcome and death in adult inpatients with COVID-19. MethodsModel derivation using data from Wuhan, China used logistic regression with death and poor outcome (death or severe disease) as outcomes. Predictors were demographic, comorbidity, symptom and laboratory test variables. The best performing models were externally validated in data from London, UK. Findings4.3% of the derivation cohort (n=775) died and 9.7% had a poor outcome, compared to 34.1% and 42.9% of the validation cohort (n=226). In derivation, prediction models based on age, sex, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, platelet count, C-reactive protein and creatinine had excellent discrimination (death c-index=0.91, poor outcome c-index=0.88), with good-to-excellent calibration. Using two cut-offs to define low, high and very-high risk groups, derivation patients were stratified in groups with observed death rates of 0.34%, 15.0% and 28.3% and poor outcome rates 0.63%, 8.9% and 58.5%. External validation discrimination was good (c-index death=0.74, poor outcome=0.72) as was calibration. However, observed rates of death were 16.5%, 42.9% and 58.4% and poor outcome 26.3%, 28.4% and 64.8% in predicted low, high and very-high risk groups. InterpretationOur prediction model using demography and routinely-available laboratory tests performed very well in internal validation in the lower-risk derivation population, but less well in the much higher-risk external validation population. Further external validation is needed. Collaboration to create larger derivation datasets, and to rapidly externally validate all proposed prediction models in a range of populations is needed, before routine implementation of any risk prediction tool in clinical care. FundingMRC, Wellcome Trust, HDR-UK, LifeArc, participating hospitals, NNSFC, National Key R&D Program, Pudong Health and Family Planning Commission Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSeveral prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, or length of hospital stay in COVID-19 have been published.1 Commonly reported predictors of severe prognosis in patients with COVID-19 include age, sex, computed tomography scan features, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactic dehydrogenase, and lymphocyte count. Symptoms (notably dyspnoea) and comorbidities (e.g. chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease and hypertension) are also reported to have associations with poor prognosis.2 However, most studies have not described the study population or intended use of prediction models, and external validation is rare and to date done using datasets originating from different Wuhan hospitals.3 Given different patterns of testing and organisation of healthcare pathways, external validation in datasets from other countries is required. Added value of this studyThis study used data from Wuhan, China to derive and internally validate multivariable models to predict poor outcome and death in COVID-19 patients after hospital admission, with external validation using data from Kings College Hospital, London, UK. Mortality and poor outcome occurred in 4.3% and 9.7% of patients in Wuhan, compared to 34.1% and 42.9% of patients in London. Models based on age, sex and simple routinely available laboratory tests (lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, platelet count, CRP and creatinine) had good discrimination and calibration in internal validation, but performed only moderately well in external validation. Models based on age, sex, symptoms and comorbidity were adequate in internal validation for poor outcome (ICU admission or death) but had poor performance for death alone. Implications of all the available evidenceThis study and others find that relatively simple risk prediction models using demographic, clinical and laboratory data perform well in internal validation but at best moderately in external validation, either because derivation and external validation populations are small (Xie et al3) and/or because they vary greatly in casemix and severity (our study). There are three decision points where risk prediction may be most useful: (1) deciding who to test; (2) deciding which patients in the community are at high-risk of poor outcomes; and (3) identifying patients at high-risk at the point of hospital admission. Larger studies focusing on particular decision points, with rapid external validation in multiple datasets are needed. A key gap is risk prediction tools for use in community triage (decisions to admit, or to keep at home with varying intensities of follow-up including telemonitoring) or in low income settings where laboratory tests may not be routinely available at the point of decision-making. This requires systematic data collection in community and low-income settings to derive and evaluate appropriate models.
RESUMEN
Background.COVID-19 infection has limited preventive or therapeutic drug options at this stage. Some of common existing drugs like angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) and the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ( statins) have been hypothesised to impact on disease severity. However, up till now, no studies investigating this association were conducted in the most vulnerable and affected population groups, i.e. older people residing in nursing homes. The purpose of this study has been to explore the association of ACEi/ARB and/or statins with clinical manifestations in COVID-19 infected older people residing in nursing homes. Methods and Findings.We undertook a retrospective multi-centre cohort study in two Belgian nursing homes that experienced similar COVID-19 outbreaks. COVID-19 diagnoses were based on clinical suspicion and/or viral presence using PCR of nasopharyngeal samples. A total of 154 COVID-19 positive subjects was identified. The outcomes were 1) serious COVID-19 defined as a long-stay hospital admission (length of stay [≥] 7 days) or death (at hospital or nursing home) within 14 days of disease onset, and 2) asymptomatic, i.e. no disease symptoms in the whole study-period while still being PCR diagnosed. Disease symptoms were defined as any COVID-19-related clinical symptom (e.g. coughing, dyspnoea, sore throat) or sign (low oxygen saturation and fever) for [≥] 2 days out of 3 consecutive days. Logistic regression models with Firth corrections were applied on these 154 subjects to analyse the association between ACEi/ARB and/or statin use with the outcomes. Age, sex, functional status, diabetes and hypertension were used as covariates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of our statistical significant findings. We found a statistically significant association between statin intake and the absence of symptoms during COVID-19 infection (unadjusted OR 2.91; CI 1.27-6.71; p=0.011), which remained statistically significant after adjusting for age, sex, functional status, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The strength of this association was considerable and clinically important. Although the effects of statin intake on serious clinical outcome (long-stay hospitalisation or death) were in the same beneficial direction, these were not statistically significant (OR 0.75; CI 0.25-1.85; p=0.556). There was also no statistically significant association between ACEi/ARB and asymptomatic status (OR 1.52; CI 0.62-3.50; p=0.339) or serious clinical outcome (OR 0.79; CI 0.26-1.95; p=0.629). Conclusions.Our data indicate that statin intake in old, frail people could be associated with a considerable beneficial effect on COVID-19 related clinical symptoms. The role of statins and any interaction with renin-angiotensin system drugs need to be further explored in larger observational studies as well as randomised clinical trials.
RESUMEN
During the current COVID-19 pandemic, it has been suggested that BAME background patients may be disproportionately affected compared to White but few detailed data are available. We took advantage of near real-time hospital data access and analysis pipelines to look at the impact of ethnicity in 1200 consecutive patients admitted between 1st March 2020 and 12th May 2020 to Kings College Hospital NHS Trust in London (UK). Our key findings are firstly that BAME patients are significantly younger and have different co-morbidity profiles than White individuals. Secondly, there is no significant independent effect of ethnicity on severe outcomes (death or ITU admission) within 14-days of symptom onset, after adjustment for age, sex and comorbidities.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is currently recommended in the United Kingdom for risk stratification of COVID outcomes, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. We aimed to evaluate NEWS2 for severe COVID outcome and identify and validate a set of routinely-collected blood and physiological parameters taken at hospital admission to improve the score. MethodsTraining cohorts comprised 1276 patients admitted to Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust with COVID-19 disease from 1st March to 30th April 2020. External validation cohorts included 5037 patients from four UK NHS Trusts (Guys and St Thomas Hospitals, University Hospitals Southampton, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals), and two hospitals in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Sixth Hospital and Taikang Tongji Hospital). The outcome was severe COVID disease (transfer to intensive care unit or death) at 14 days after hospital admission. Age, physiological measures, blood biomarkers, sex, ethnicity and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and kidney diseases) measured at hospital admission were considered in the models. ResultsA baseline model of NEWS2 + age had poor-to-moderate discrimination for severe COVID infection at 14 days (AUC in training sample = 0.700; 95% CI: 0.680, 0.722; Brier score = 0.192; 95% CI: 0.186, 0.197). A supplemented model adding eight routinely-collected blood and physiological parameters (supplemental oxygen flow rate, urea, age, oxygen saturation, CRP, estimated GFR, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) improved discrimination (AUC = 0.735; 95% CI: 0.715, 0.757) and these improvements were replicated across five UK and non-UK sites. However, there was evidence of miscalibration with the model tending to underestimate risks in most sites. ConclusionsNEWS2 score had poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term COVID outcome which raises questions about its use as a screening tool at hospital admission. Risk stratification was improved by including readily available blood and physiological parameters measured at hospital admission, but there was evidence of miscalibration in external sites. This highlights the need for a better understanding of the use of early warning scores for COVID. KO_SCPLOWEYC_SCPLOWO_SCPCAP C_SCPCAPO_SCPLOWMESSAGESC_SCPLOWO_LIThe National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), currently recommended for stratification of severe COVID-19 disease in the UK, showed poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term outcomes (14-day transfer to ICU or death) among COVID-19 patients. C_LIO_LIRisk stratification was improved by the addition of routinely-measured blood and physiological parameters routinely at hospital admission (supplemental oxygen, urea, oxygen saturation, CRP, estimated GFR, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) which provided moderate improvements in a risk stratification model for 14-day ICU/death. C_LIO_LIThis improvement over NEWS2 alone was maintained across multiple hospital trusts but the model tended to be miscalibrated with risks of severe outcomes underestimated in most sites. C_LIO_LIWe benefited from existing pipelines for informatics at KCH such as CogStack that allowed rapid extraction and processing of electronic health records. This methodological approach provided rapid insights and allowed us to overcome the complications associated with slow data centralisation approaches. C_LI
RESUMEN
AimsThe SARS-Cov2 virus binds to the ACE2 receptor for cell entry. It has been suggested that ACE-inhibitors (ACEi) and Angiotensin-2 Blockers (ARB), which are commonly used in patients with hypertension or diabetes and may raise ACE2 levels, could increase the risk of severe COVID19 infection. Methods and ResultsWe evaluated this hypothesis in a consecutive cohort of 1200 acute inpatients with COVID19 at two hospitals with a multi-ethnic catchment population in London (UK). The mean age was 68{+/-}17 years (57% male) and 74% of patients had at least 1 comorbidity. 415 patients (34.6%) reached the primary endpoint of death or transfer to a critical care unit for organ support within 21-days of symptom onset. 399 patients (33.3 %) were taking ACEi or ARB. Patients on ACEi/ARB were significantly older and had more comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for the primary endpoint in patients on ACEi and ARB, after adjustment for age, sex and co-morbidities, was 0.63 (CI 0.47-0.84, p<0.01). ConclusionsThere was no evidence for increased severity of COVID19 disease in hospitalised patients on chronic treatment with ACEi or ARB. A trend towards a beneficial effect of ACEi/ARB requires further evaluation in larger meta-analyses and randomised clinical trials.
