14 research outputs found
COVID-19: to be or not to be; that is the diagnostic question.
No full textSince the first cases in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread across the globe, resulting in the COVID-19 pandemic. Early clinical experiences have demonstrated the wide spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 presentations, including various reports of atypical presentations of COVID-19 and possible mimic conditions.This article summarises the current evidence surrounding atypical presentations of COVID-19 including neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, otorhinolaryngology and geriatric features. A case from our hospital of pneumocystis pneumonia initially suspected to be COVID-19 forms the basis for a discussion surrounding mimic conditions of COVID-19. The dual-process model of clinical reasoning is used to analyse the thought processes used to make a diagnosis of COVID-19, including consideration of the variety of differential diagnoses.While SARS-CoV-2 is likely to remain on the differential diagnostic list for a plethora of presentations for the foreseeable future, clinicians should be cautious of ignoring other potential diagnoses due to availability bias. An awareness of atypical presentations allows SARS-CoV-2 to be a differential so that it can be appropriately investigated. A knowledge of infectious mimics prevents COVID-19 from overshadowing other diagnoses, hence preventing delayed diagnosis or even misdiagnosis and consequent adverse outcomes for patients
Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice.
No full textBACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR.
METHODS
The study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019.
RESULTS
A total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease
Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study
No full text\ua9 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. Methods: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). Findings: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5\ub79 months (IQR 4\ub79–6\ub75) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40–59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. Interpretation: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research
SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination
No full textBackground: Most 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. Methods: In this follow up study, plasma 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. Findings: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 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 (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. Interpretation: The 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. Funding: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript
Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls
No full textBackground
The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea.
Methods
We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up.
Findings
We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission).
Interpretation
Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19.
Funding
PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders
Intravenous or nebulised magnesium sulphate versus standard therapy for severe acute asthma (3Mg trial): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial
No full textBACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used during the 2009-10 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, but evidence for their effectiveness in reducing mortality is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to investigate the association between use of neuraminidase inhibitors and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. METHODS: We assembled data for patients (all ages) admitted to hospital worldwide with laboratory confirmed or clinically diagnosed pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. We identified potential data contributors from an earlier systematic review of reported studies addressing the same research question. In our systematic review, eligible studies were done between March 1, 2009 (Mexico), or April 1, 2009 (rest of the world), until the WHO declaration of the end of the pandemic (Aug 10, 2010); however, we continued to receive data up to March 14, 2011, from ongoing studies. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to assess the association between neuraminidase inhibitor treatment and mortality (primary outcome), adjusting for both treatment propensity and potential confounders, using generalised linear mixed modelling. We assessed the association with time to treatment using time-dependent Cox regression shared frailty modelling. FINDINGS: We included data for 29,234 patients from 78 studies of patients admitted to hospital between Jan 2, 2009, and March 14, 2011. Compared with no treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment (irrespective of timing) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·81; 95% CI 0·70-0·93; p=0·0024). Compared with later treatment, early treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted OR 0·48; 95% CI 0·41-0·56; p<0·0001). Early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality (adjusted OR 0·50; 95% CI 0·37-0·67; p<0·0001). These associations with reduced mortality risk were less pronounced and not significant in children. There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset (adjusted hazard ratio [HR 1·23] [95% CI 1·18-1·28]; p<0·0001 for the increasing HR with each day's delay). INTERPRETATION: We advocate early instigation of neuraminidase inhibitor treatment in adults admitted to hospital with suspected or proven influenza infection. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche
Diagnostic error in COVID-19 pandemic era, a cohort study
No full textIntroducción: La infección por SARS CoV-2 tiene manifestaciones clínicas muy amplias; las posibilidades de diagnóstico diferencial y la necesidad de identificar correctamente los pacientes es fundamental para evitar problemas asociados con el error de diagnóstico. El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar el impacto del error diagnóstico en contexto de pandemia, en estancia hospitalaria y mortalidad.
Materiales y métodos: Estudio de cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes del servicio de medicina interna y UCI del Hospital Universitario Nacional de Colombia, entre mayo y agosto de 2020. La exposición corresponde a pacientes con sospecha inicial de COVID-19 descartada. El desenlace primario fue el impacto del error diagnóstico sobre la estancia hospitalaria y la mortalidad. Los secundarios, la frecuencia de error diagnóstico, la descripción de los diagnósticos confundidos con COVID-19, los factores predictores del error y la descripción de los sesgos cognitivos. Se midieron el error diagnóstico, los sesgos y los daños con los instrumentos “Safer Dx Instrument” y “Safer Dx Process Breakdown Supplement”. Se realizaron modelos multivariados de regresión logística (mortalidad y factores predictores de error), funciones de supervivencia de Kaplan-Meir y análisis paramétrico de supervivencia (estancia hospitalaria).
Resultados: Se incluyeron 215 pacientes, 110 expuestos y 105 no expuestos, con una mediana de edad 66.0 años (IQR 50.5-78.5), 107 (49.8%) hombres; el puntaje de Charlson ajustado por edad fue de 5 (IQR 4-7). La frecuencia de error diagnóstico fue 16.7%. No hubo asociación entre el error y la estancia hospitalaria (HR 1.41 IC 95% 0.94-2.12), ni entre el error y la mortalidad (OR 2.94, IC95% 0.63-13.65). La exposición se asoció con prolongación de estancia hospitalaria (HR 1.43, IC95% 1.07-1.92), pero no a la mortalidad (OR 4.1 IC95% 0.78-27.43). Como variables asociadas al error se identificaron la edad (OR por década 1.30, IC95% 1.05-1.64) y la sepsis (OR 1.46, IC95% 1.76-10.64). Dentro de los diagnósticos diferenciales en los expuestos resaltan la neumonía bacteriana, choque séptico/sepsis bacteriana y falla cardiaca. En promedio se observaron 5 sesgos por cada caso de error, el sesgo más frecuente fue el de anclaje en 34 (94.4%) casos.
Conclusiones: No se encontró una asociación entre el error diagnóstico y la estancia hospitalaria o la mortalidad. Hubo asociación entre el diagnóstico inicial de COVID-19 descartado y una mayor estancia hospitalaria. Se identificaron diagnósticos diferenciales a la sospecha de COVID-19. Se identificó un 16.7% de frecuencia de error y una alta frecuencia de sesgos cognitivos. Los datos podrían permitir implementar procesos de retroalimentación para minimizar el riesgo.Introduction: SARS CoV-2 infection has wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. All the possibilities for differential diagnoses and the need for identifying accurately the patients is fundamental to avoid diagnostic errors associated problems. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of diagnostic error in mortality and hospital stay.
Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort study of inpatients treated by internal medicine service or Intensive Care Unit at the Hospital Universitario Nacional de Colombia, between May and august 2020. Patients with COVID-19 suspected at the beginning of hospitalization and then discarded are the exposed. Primary outcome was the impact of diagnostic error in mortality and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of diagnostic error, the main description of other confounding diagnoses, the variables capable of predict diagnostic error and the final description of cognitive biases. We measured the diagnostic error, the biases and the possible damages using the instruments called “Safer Dx Instrument” and “Safer Dx Process Breakdown Supplement” (By Singh, et al). Logistic regression models were made (assessing mortality and diagnostic error predictors), Kaplan Meier survival functions and survival parametric analysis (assessing hospital stay).
Results: 215 patients were included, 110 exposed and 105 non exposed, with median age of 66.0 years (IQR 50.5-78.5), 107 (49.8%) men; median Charlson index was 5 (IQR 4-7). The frequency of diagnostic error was 16.7%. No association between diagnostic error and hospital stay was found (HR 1.41 IC 95% 0.94-2.12), either between diagnostic error and mortality (OR 2.94, IC95% 0.63-13.65). Those exposed had prolonged hospital stay (HR 1.43, IC95% 1.07-1.92), but had no association with mortality (OR 4.1 IC95% 0.78-27.43). Variables such as age (OR per decade 1.30, IC95% 1.05-1.64) and sepsis (OR 1.46, IC95% 1.76-10.64) were found to be predictor of diagnostic error. Between those exposed, differential diagnoses were bacterial pneumonia, sepsis and septic shock with bacterial origin and acute decompensated heart failure. An average of 5 cognitive biases were observed per diagnostic error case, and the one more frequently found was the anchor bias present in 94.4% of cases.
Conclusions: We didn’t found association between diagnostic error and hospital stay or mortality. There was association between exposition and prolonged hospital stay. We identified differential diagnoses when COVID-19 is suspected. The global frequency of diagnostic error was 16.7% and there was a high frequency of cognitive biases per case. These results could help to implement feedback processes to minimize the risk of diagnostic error.Código Hermes 50756Especialidades MédicasEspecialista en Medicina InternaMédico especialista en Medicina InternaEstudio de cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes del servicio de medicina interna y UCI del Hospital Universitario Nacional de Colombia, entre mayo y agosto de 2020. La exposición corresponde a pacientes con sospecha inicial de COVID-19 descartada. El desenlace primario fue el impacto del error diagnóstico sobre la estancia hospitalaria y la mortalidad. Los secundarios, la frecuencia de error diagnóstico, la descripción de los diagnósticos confundidos con COVID-19, los factores predictores del error y la descripción de los sesgos cognitivos. Se midieron el error diagnóstico, los sesgos y los daños con los instrumentos “Safer Dx Instrument” y “Safer Dx Process Breakdown Supplement”. Se realizaron modelos multivariados de regresión logística (mortalidad y factores predictores de error), funciones de supervivencia de Kaplan-Meir y análisis paramétrico de supervivencia (estancia hospitalaria)
Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of long COVID and association with 1-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study
No full textBackground
No effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions exist for patients with long COVID. We aimed to describe recovery 1 year after hospital discharge for COVID-19, identify factors associated with patient-perceived recovery, and identify potential therapeutic targets by describing the underlying inflammatory profiles of the previously described recovery clusters at 5 months after hospital discharge.
Methods
The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study recruiting adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and 1 year after hospital discharge, and stratified by both patient-perceived recovery and recovery cluster. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at 1 year. Cluster analysis was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at 5 months. Inflammatory protein profiling was analysed from plasma at the 5-month visit. This study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10980107, and recruitment is ongoing.
Findings
2320 participants discharged from hospital between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 (32·7%) participants completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits. 279 (35·6%) of these 807 patients were women and 505 (64·4%) were men, with a mean age of 58·7 (SD 12·5) years, and 224 (27·8%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation (WHO class 7–9). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between 5 months (501 [25·5%] of 1965) and 1 year (232 [28·9%] of 804). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at 1 year were female sex (odds ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·46–0·99]), obesity (0·50 [0·34–0·74]) and invasive mechanical ventilation (0·42 [0·23–0·76]). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate with cognitive impairment, and mild, relating to the severity of physical health, mental health, and cognitive impairment at 5 months. We found increased inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters compared with the mild cluster, including IL-6 concentration, which was increased in both comparisons (n=626 participants). We found a substantial deficit in median EQ-5D-5L utility index from before COVID-19 (retrospective assessment; 0·88 [IQR 0·74–1·00]), at 5 months (0·74 [0·64–0·88]) to 1 year (0·75 [0·62–0·88]), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at 1 year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters.
Interpretation
The sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 were substantial 1 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 was reduced at 1 year compared with before hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials.
Funding
UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research
Effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and impaired lung function following hospital admission due to COVID-19 in the UK: a prospective multicentre cohort study
No full textBackground:
Sleep disturbance is common following hospital admission both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations of this for recovery after hospital admission are poorly understood despite sleep disturbance contributing to morbidity in other scenarios. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after discharge following hospital admission for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnoea.
Methods:
CircCOVID was a prospective multicentre cohort substudy designed to investigate the effects of circadian disruption and sleep disturbance on recovery after COVID-19 in a cohort of participants aged 18 years or older, admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in the UK, and discharged between March, 2020, and October, 2021. Participants were recruited from the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID). Follow-up data were collected at two timepoints: an early time point 2–7 months after hospital discharge and a later time point 10–14 months after hospital discharge. Sleep quality was assessed subjectively using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and a numerical rating scale. Sleep quality was also assessed with an accelerometer worn on the wrist (actigraphy) for 14 days. Participants were also clinically phenotyped, including assessment of symptoms (ie, anxiety [Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale questionnaire], muscle function [SARC-F questionnaire], dyspnoea [Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire] and measurement of lung function), at the early timepoint after discharge. Actigraphy results were also compared to a matched UK Biobank cohort (non-hospitalised individuals and recently hospitalised individuals). Multivariable linear regression was used to define associations of sleep disturbance with the primary outcome of breathlessness and the other clinical symptoms. PHOSP-COVID is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107).
Findings:
2320 of 2468 participants in the PHOSP-COVID study attended an early timepoint research visit a median of 5 months (IQR 4–6) following discharge from 83 hospitals in the UK. Data for sleep quality were assessed by subjective measures (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and the numerical rating scale) for 638 participants at the early time point. Sleep quality was also assessed using device-based measures (actigraphy) a median of 7 months (IQR 5–8 months) after discharge from hospital for 729 participants. After discharge from hospital, the majority (396 [62%] of 638) of participants who had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19 reported poor sleep quality in response to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A comparable proportion (338 [53%] of 638) of participants felt their sleep quality had deteriorated following discharge after COVID-19 admission, as assessed by the numerical rating scale. Device-based measurements were compared to an age-matched, sex-matched, BMI-matched, and time from discharge-matched UK Biobank cohort who had recently been admitted to hospital. Compared to the recently hospitalised matched UK Biobank cohort, participants in our study slept on average 65 min (95% CI 59 to 71) longer, had a lower sleep regularity index (–19%; 95% CI –20 to –16), and a lower sleep efficiency (3·83 percentage points; 95% CI 3·40 to 4·26). Similar results were obtained when comparisons were made with the non-hospitalised UK Biobank cohort. Overall sleep quality (unadjusted effect estimate 3·94; 95% CI 2·78 to 5·10), deterioration in sleep quality following hospital admission (3·00; 1·82 to 4·28), and sleep regularity (4·38; 2·10 to 6·65) were associated with higher dyspnoea scores. Poor sleep quality, deterioration in sleep quality, and sleep regularity were also associated with impaired lung function, as assessed by forced vital capacity. Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18–39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea, while muscle weakness mediated 27–41% of this effect.
Interpretation:
Sleep disturbance following hospital admission for COVID-19 is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety, and muscle weakness. Due to the association with multiple symptoms, targeting sleep disturbance might be beneficial in treating the post-COVID-19 condition.
Funding:
UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Prevalence of physical frailty, including risk factors, up to 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre, longitudinal cohort studyResearch in context
No full textSummary: Background: The scale of COVID-19 and its well documented long-term sequelae support a need to understand long-term outcomes including frailty. Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited adults who had survived hospitalisation with clinically diagnosed COVID-19 across 35 sites in the UK (PHOSP-COVID). The burden of frailty was objectively measured using Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FFP). The primary outcome was the prevalence of each FFP group—robust (no FFP criteria), pre-frail (one or two FFP criteria) and frail (three or more FFP criteria)—at 5 months and 1 year after discharge from hospital. For inclusion in the primary analysis, participants required complete outcome data for three of the five FFP criteria. Longitudinal changes across frailty domains are reported at 5 months and 1 year post-hospitalisation, along with risk factors for frailty status. Patient-perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were retrospectively rated for pre-COVID-19 and prospectively rated at the 5 month and 1 year visits. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN10980107. Findings: Between March 5, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 2419 participants were enrolled with FFP data. Mean age was 57.9 (SD 12.6) years, 933 (38.6%) were female, and 429 (17.7%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation. 1785 had measures at both timepoints, of which 240 (13.4%), 1138 (63.8%) and 407 (22.8%) were frail, pre-frail and robust, respectively, at 5 months compared with 123 (6.9%), 1046 (58.6%) and 616 (34.5%) at 1 year. Factors associated with pre-frailty or frailty were invasive mechanical ventilation, older age, female sex, and greater social deprivation. Frail participants had a larger reduction in HRQoL compared with before their COVID-19 illness and were less likely to describe themselves as recovered. Interpretation: Physical frailty and pre-frailty are common following hospitalisation with COVID-19. Improvement in frailty was seen between 5 and 12 months although two-thirds of the population remained pre-frail or frail. This suggests comprehensive assessment and interventions targeting pre-frailty and frailty beyond the initial illness are required. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research
