RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
ObjectiveThis study aimed to estimate the incidence of new diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) up to one year after Covid-19 compared with matched controls. MethodsA cohort study was conducted using electronic records for 1,473 family practices with a population of 14.9 million. Covid-19 patients without DM or CVD were individually matched with controls and followed up to October 2021. A difference-in-difference analysis estimated the net effect of Covid-19 allowing for baseline differences and covariates. ResultsThere were 372,816 Covid-19 patients, with 2,935 CVD and 3,139 DM events, and 372,816 matched controls with 1,193 CVD and 1,861 DM events following the index date. Net incidence of DM increased in acute Covid-19 up to four weeks from index date (adjusted rate ratio, RR 1.71, 1.40 to 2.10) and remained elevated in post-acute (five to 12 weeks from index date; RR 1.17, 1.01 to 1.36) and long-Covid-19 (13 to 52 weeks, 1.20, 1.09 to 1.31). Acute Covid-19 was associated with net increased CVD incidence (RR 6.02, 95% confidence interval 4.84 to 7.47) including pulmonary embolism (RR 14.5, 7.72 to 27.4), atrial arrythmias (6.58, 3.78 to 11.4) and venous thromboses (5.44, 3.22 to 9.17). CVD incidence declined in post-acute Covid-19 (1.68, 1.41 to 2.01) and showed no net increase in long Covid-19 (0.95, 0.85 to 1.06). ConclusionsDM incidence remains elevated up to one year following Covid-19. CVD is increased early after Covid-19 mainly from pulmonary embolism, atrial arrhythmias and venous thromboses.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe association between cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, such as hypertension and diabetes, established CV disease (CVD), and susceptibility to CV complications or mortality in COVID-19 remains unclear. MethodsWe conducted a cohort study of consecutive adults hospitalised for severe COVID-19 between 1st March and 30th June 2020. Pre-existing CVD, CV risk factors and associations with mortality and CV complications were ascertained. FindingsAmong 1,721 patients (median age 71 years, 57% male), 349 (20.3%) had pre-existing CVD (CVD), 888 (51.6%) had CV risk factors without CVD (RF-CVD), 484 (28.1%) had neither. Patients with CVD were older with a higher burden of non-CV comorbidities. During follow-up, 438 (25.5%) patients died: 37% with CVD, 25.7% with RF-CVD and 16.5% with neither. CVD was independently associated with in-hospital mortality among patients <70 years of age (adjusted HR 2.43 [95%CI 1.16-5.07]), but not in those [≥]70 years (aHR 1.14 [95%CI 0.77-1.69]). RF-CVD were not independently associated with mortality in either age group (<70y aHR 1.21 [95%CI 0.72-2.01], [≥]70y aHR 1.07 [95%CI 0.76-1.52]). Most CV complications occurred in patients with CVD (66%) versus RF-CVD (17%) or neither (11%; p<0.001). 213 [12.4%] patients developed venous thromboembolism (VTE). CVD was not an independent predictor of VTE. InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, pre-existing established CVD appears to be a more important contributor to mortality than CV risk factors in the absence of CVD. CVD-related hazard may be mediated, in part, by new CV complications. Optimal care and vigilance for destabilised CVD are essential in this patient group.
RESUMO
BackgroundPeople of minority ethnic background may be disproportionately affected by severe COVID-19 for reasons that are unclear. We sought to examine the relationship between ethnic background and (1) hospital admission for severe COVID-19; (2) in-hospital mortality. MethodsWe conducted a case-control study of 872 inner city adult residents admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 (cases) and 3,488 matched controls randomly sampled from a primary healthcare database comprising 344,083 people resident in the same region. To examine in-hospital mortality, we conducted a cohort study of 1827 adults consecutively admitted with COVID-19. Data collected included hospital admission for COVID-19, demographics, comorbidities, in-hospital mortality. The primary exposure variable was self-defined ethnicity. ResultsThe 872 cases comprised 48.1% Black, 33.7% White, 12.6% Mixed/Other and 5.6% Asian patients. In conditional logistic regression analyses, Black and Mixed/Other ethnicity were associated with higher admission risk than white (OR 3.12 [95% CI 2.63-3.71] and 2.97 [2.30-3.85] respectively). Adjustment for comorbidities and deprivation modestly attenuated the association (OR 2.28 [1.87-2.79] for Black, 2.66 [2.01-3.52] for Mixed/Other). Asian ethnicity was not associated with higher admission risk (OR 1.20 [0.86-1.66]). In the cohort study of 1827 patients, 455 (28.9%) died over a median (IQR) of 8 (4-16) days. Age and male sex, but not Black (adjusted HR 0.84 [0.63-1.11]) or Mixed/Other ethnicity (adjusted HR 0.69 [0.43-1.10]), were associated with in-hospital mortality. Asian ethnicity was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 1.54 [0.98-2.41]). ConclusionsBlack and Mixed ethnicity are independently associated with greater admission risk with COVID-19 and may be risk factors for development of severe disease. Comorbidities and socioeconomic factors only partly account for this and additional ethnicity-related factors may play a large role. The impact of COVID-19 may be different in Asians. Funding sourcesBritish Heart Foundation (CH/1999001/11735 and RE/18/2/34213 to AMS); the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR BRC) at Guys & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London (IS-BRC-1215-20006); and the NIHR BRC at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London (IS-BRC-1215-20018).