A Qualitative Study Exploring the Impact and Effects Following Hospital Discharge of COVID-19:Study Protocol

Introduction: Research into the long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues at an unprecedented pace. Many physical long-term symptoms of COVID-19 have been reported and include headache, fatigue, muscle pain and breathlessness, etc. Psychological effects are not dissimilar to survivors of SARS. There is limited qualitative research exploring the mental health impacts and experiences of hospitalized COVID-19 inpatients. Methods: A prospective qualitative study is planned to explore patient experiences post hospital discharge following a diagnosis of COVID-19. The research aims to gain an understanding of how COVID-19 affects quality of life (QoL) and functional abilities. Patients discharged from the hospital will be invited to take part in semi-structured interviews discussing their experiences of hospitalization and the impact of COVID-19 on their QoL. Interviews will be conducted at three and six months following discharge from hospital. This study will provide important qualitative insight and may inform clinical interventions and commissioning decisions. Trial registration: The study has Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA) approvals obtained from Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) [IRAS project ID 293196]

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH)

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). RESULTS: Ten thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67-0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61-0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic

Healthcare workers’ views on mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the UK: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods analysis from the UK-REACH study

Background: Several countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs’ views on this are largely unknown. Using data from the nationwide UK-REACH study we aimed to understand UK HCW's views on improving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage, including mandatory vaccination. // Methods: Between 21st April and 26th June 2021, we administered an online questionnaire via email to 17 891 UK HCWs recruited as part of a longitudinal cohort from across the UK who had previously responded to a baseline questionnaire (primarily recruited through email) as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question “What should society do if people do not get vaccinated against COVID-19?” using qualitative content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not, using logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and its occupational, health, and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. // Findings: Of 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the free text question. Median age of free text responders was 47 years (IQR 36–56) and 2705 (74.3%) were female. 18% (n = 578) favoured mandatory vaccination (201 [6%] participants for HCWs and others working with vulnerable populations; 377 [12%] for the general population), but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n = 1047). Older HCWs (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.44–2.34 [≥55 years vs 16 years to <40 years]), HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.11–2.01 [2 vaccines vs none]), and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06–1.15) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination, whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.63–0.96, vs male HCWs) and Black HCWs (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.25–0.85, vs white HCWs) were less likely to. // Interpretation: Only one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating, and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective, and equitable

Clinical characteristics of chylothorax: results from the International Collaborative Effusion database

BackgroundChylothorax is an uncommon medical condition for which limited data are available regarding the contemporary aetiology, management and outcomes. The goal of this study was to better define these poorly characterised features.MethodsThe medical records of adult patients diagnosed with chylothorax at 12 centres across Europe, America and South Africa from 2009-2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed.Results77 patients (median age 69 years, male to female ratio 1.5) were included. Subacute dyspnoea was the most typical presenting symptom (66%). The commonest cause of chylothorax was malignancy (68.8%), with lymphoma accounting for 62% of these cases. Other aetiologies were trauma (13%), inflammatory/miscellaneous conditions (11.7%) and idiopathic cases (6.5%). At the initial thoracentesis, the pleural fluid appeared milky in 73%, was exudative in 89% and exhibited triglyceride concentrations >100 mg·dL-1 in 88%. Lymphangiography/lymphoscintigraphy were rarely ordered (3%), and demonstration of chylomicrons in pleural fluid was never ascertained. 67% of patients required interventional pleural procedures. Dietary measures were infrequently followed (36%). No patient underwent thoracic duct ligation or embolisation. Morbidity included infections (18%), and thrombosis in malignant aetiologies (16%). The 1-year mortality was 47%. Pleural fluid protein >3.5 mg·dL-1 (sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) 4.346) or lactate dehydrogenase -1 (SHR 10.21) increased the likelihood of effusion resolution. Pleural fluid protein ≤3.5 mg·dL-1 (HR 4.047), bilateral effusions (HR 2.749) and a history of respiratory disease (HR 2.428) negatively influenced survival.ConclusionChylothoraces have a poor prognosis and most require pleural interventions. Despite the standard recommendations, lymphatic imaging is seldom used, nor are dietary restrictions followed

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice. METHODS We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented >= 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls. CONCLUSION Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19

Burden of Stroke in Europe:An Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study Findings From 2010 to 2019

BACKGROUND:While most European Regions perform well in global comparisons, large discrepancies within stroke epidemiological parameters exist across Europe. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the stroke burden across European regions and countries in 2019 and its difference to 2010.METHODS:The GBD 2019 analytical tools were used to evaluate regional and country-specific estimates of incidence, prevalence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years of stroke for the European Region as defined by the World Health Organization, with its 53 member countries (EU-53) and for European Union as defined in 2019, with its 28 member countries (EU-28), between 2010 and 2019. Results were analyzed at a regional, subregional, and country level.RESULTS:In EU-53, the absolute number of incident and prevalent strokes increased by 2% (uncertainty interval [UI], 0%–4%), from 1 767 280 to 1 802 559 new cases, and by 4% (UI, 3%–5%) between 2010 and 2019, respectively. In EU-28, the absolute number of prevalent strokes and stroke-related deaths increased by 4% (UI, 2%–5%) and by 6% (UI, 1%–10%), respectively. All-stroke age-standardized mortality rates, however, decreased by 18% (UI, −22% to −14%), from 82 to 67 per 100 000 people in the EU-53, and by 15% (UI, −18% to −11%), from 49.3 to 42.0 per 100 000 people in EU-28. Despite most countries presenting reductions in age-adjusted incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life year rates, these rates remained 1.4×, 1.2×, 1.6×, and 1.7× higher in EU-53 in comparison to the EU-28.CONCLUSIONS:EU-53 showed a 2% increase in incident strokes, while they remained stable in EU-28. Age-standardized rates were consistently lower for all-stroke burden parameters in EU-28 in comparison to EU-53, and huge discrepancies in incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-year rates were observed between individual countries.<br/

Decompressive surgery in cerebral venous sinus thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia

Background and purpose: Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis due to vaccine-induced im-mune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (CVST-VITT) is an adverse drug reaction occurring after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV- 2) vaccination. CVST-VITT patients often present with large intracerebral haemorrhages and a high proportion undergoes decompressive surgery. Clinical characteristics, therapeutic management and outcomes of CVST-VITT patients who underwent decompressive surgery are described and predictors of in- hospital mortality in these patients are explored.Methods: Data from an ongoing international registry of patients who developed CVST within 28 days of SARS-CoV- 2 vaccination, reported between 29 March 2021 and 10 May 2022, were used. Definite, probable and possible VITT cases, as defined by Pavord et al. (N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 1680–1689), were included. Results: Decompressive surgery was performed in 34/128 (27%) patients with CVST- VITT. In- hospital mortality was 22/34 (65%) in the surgical and 27/94 (29%) in the non- surgical group (p< 0.001). In all surgical cases, the cause of death was brain herniation. The highest mortality rates were found amongst patients with preoperative coma (17/18, 94% vs. 4/14, 29% in the non-comatose; p< 0.001) and bilaterally absent pupillary re-flexes (7/7, 100% vs. 6/9, 67% with unilaterally reactive pupil, and 4/11, 36% with bi-laterally reactive pupils; p= 0.023). Postoperative imaging revealed worsening of index haemorrhagic lesion in 19 (70%) patients and new haemorrhagic lesions in 16 (59%) pa-tients. At a median follow-up of 6 months, 8/10 of surgical CVST-VITT who survived ad-mission were functionally independent.Conclusions: Almost two-thirds of surgical CVST-VITT patients died during hospital ad-mission. Preoperative coma and bilateral absence of pupillary responses were associated with higher mortality rates. Survivors often achieved functional independence.Peer reviewe

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies: a report from the EPICOVIDEHA registry

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Findings: A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448-4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619-8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093-0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014-0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Interpretation: Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Funding: EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223)

Management of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Due to Adenoviral COVID-19 Vaccination

Objective Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) caused by vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare adverse effect of adenovirus-based severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines. In March 2021, after autoimmune pathogenesis of VITT was discovered, treatment recommendations were developed. These comprised immunomodulation, non-heparin anticoagulants, and avoidance of platelet transfusion. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to these recommendations and its association with mortality. Methods We used data from an international prospective registry of patients with CVT after the adenovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We analyzed possible, probable, or definite VITT-CVT cases included until January 18, 2022. Immunomodulation entailed administration of intravenous immunoglobulins and/or plasmapheresis. Results Ninety-nine patients with VITT-CVT from 71 hospitals in 17 countries were analyzed. Five of 38 (13%), 11 of 24 (46%), and 28 of 37 (76%) of the patients diagnosed in March, April, and from May onward, respectively, were treated in-line with VITT recommendations (p < 0.001). Overall, treatment according to recommendations had no statistically significant influence on mortality (14/44 [32%] vs 29/55 [52%], adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16-1.19). However, patients who received immunomodulation had lower mortality (19/65 [29%] vs 24/34 [70%], adjusted OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.06-0.58). Treatment with non-heparin anticoagulants instead of heparins was not associated with lower mortality (17/51 [33%] vs 13/35 [37%], adjusted OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.24-2.04). Mortality was also not significantly influenced by platelet transfusion (17/27 [63%] vs 26/72 [36%], adjusted OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.74-6.54). Conclusions In patients with VITT-CVT, adherence to VITT treatment recommendations improved over time. Immunomodulation seems crucial for reducing mortality of VITT-CVT. ANN NEUROL 2022Peer reviewe

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

Background COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. Methods OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [ 50 center dot 7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49 center dot 3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16 center dot 6%; 95% CI 14 center dot 8-18 center dot 5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the prevaccination phase (191 [19 center dot 1%; 95% CI 16 center dot 4-22 center dot 0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16 center dot 8%; 13 center dot 8- 20 center dot 3] of 653 patients, p=0 center dot 24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6 center dot 2%; 3 center dot 5-10 center dot 2] of 256 patients, p<0 center dot 0001). In the alpha- delta phase, 84 (18 center dot 3%; 95% CI 14 center dot 6-22 center dot 7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 9- 27 center dot 3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7 center dot 4%; 95% CI 3 center dot 5-13 center dot 5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9 center dot 8%; 5 center dot 8-15 center dot 5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [ 18 center dot 5%; 16 center dot 5-20 center dot 9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0 center dot 0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 6-9 center dot 6], 11 [6 center dot 0%; 3 center dot 0-10 center dot 7] vs 148 [9 center dot 9%; 8 center dot 4- 11 center dot 6], p= 0 center dot 030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2 center dot 2%; 0 center dot 1-6 center dot 4], ten [5 center dot 4%; 2 center dot 6-10 center dot 0] vs 115 [7 center dot 7%; 6 center dot 3-9 center dot 3], p=0 center dot 037)