COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Narrow therapeutic range drug products: challenges in the assessment of bioequivalence: the role of modelling and simulations and expert systems

Trabalho Final de Mestrado Integrado, Ciências Farmacêuticas, 2020, Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Farmácia.A disponibilização de medicamentos bioequivalentes veio ampliar o leque de escolhas do doente na hora de comprar os medicamentos de que necessita. No entanto, veio também suscitar questões inerentes aos critérios regulamentares para aprovação destes medicamentos. Um caso particular dentro dos medicamentos genéricos são os medicamentos de margem terapêutica estreita, uma vez que estes apresentam riscos acrescidos pela proximidade entre efeitos tóxicos extremos e a eventual falta de efeito terapêutico desejado. Por esta razão, quer a EMA, quer a FDA apresentaram critérios de bioequivalência especialmente pensadas para este tipo de fármacos. Pela relevância deste tema, torna-se imperativo o estudo do impacto da variabilidade no número de indivíduos necessários, por forma a tirar conclusões acerca do impacto desta variabilidade, bem como o risco de conclusão errada dessa mesma bioequivalência em cada um dos contextos regulamentares. O objetivo deste trabalho consiste na realização de uma pesquisa bibliográfica, seguida da criação de um modelo que aproxime as metodologias já utilizadas por ambas as autoridades reguladoras para concluir acerca da bioquivalência. Para tal, foi necessário o estudo da relação entre a variabilidade intra-individual e o número de indivíduos necessários para demonstrar bioequivalência de acordo com o novo modelo. Para além disso, foi também avaliado o risco de concluir erradamente essa mesma bioequivalência, neste mesmo modelo. Para tal foi utilizado o software R e o pacote PowerTOST como forma de testar a performance de cada do modelo criado.The availability of bioequivalent medicines has expanded the patient's range of choices regarding buying the medicines they need. However, it also raised questions regarding the regulatory criteria for the approval of these drugs. A particular case within generic drugs is drugs with a narrow therapeutic index since they present increased risks due to the proximity between extreme toxic effects and the possible lack of desired therapeutic effect. For this reason, both the EMA and the FDA presented bioequivalence criteria specially designed for this type of drug. Due to this theme's relevance, it is imperative to study the impact of variability on the number of individuals required to conclude about the impact of this variability and the risk of the wrong conclusion of the same bioequivalence in each of the regulatory contexts. This work aims to carry out a bibliographic search, followed by the creation of a model that approximates the methodologies already used by both regulatory authorities to conclude about bioequivalence. Thus, it was necessary to study the relationship between intraindividual variability and the number of individuals needed to demonstrate bioequivalence according to the new model. Also, the risk of wrongly concluding this same bioequivalence was assessed in this same model. In this case, the R software and the PowerTOST package were used to test the performance of each model.Com o patrocínio da Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade de Lisboa

Evaluation of a Proposed Approach for the Determination of the Bioequivalence Acceptance Range for Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs in the European Union

Bioequivalence (BE) of products containing narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs in the European Union is currently established by demonstrating that the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the test compared to the reference product’s AUC, and in certain cases Cmax, is included within the tighter acceptance range of 90.00–111.11%. An alternative criterion, consisting of narrowed limits based on the within-subject variability of the reference product, was recently proposed. Its performance for a three-period partial replicate design was tested by simulation in terms of power to show BE, type I error (T1E) and sample size requirements. A new condition, a constraint on the test-to-reference geometric mean ratio (cGMR) to be contained within the range of 90.00–111.11%, was also tested. The probability of showing BE when the products differ more than 10% was increased, but only if the reference product’s within-subject variability was moderate-to-high. The inclusion of the additional cGMR limited this. An increase in the T1E (<7%) was observed. The inclusion of the additional cGMR did not change the highest inflation of the T1E. Finally, a significant sample size reduction was observed and the inclusion of the cGMR usually did not increase the required sample size

Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone

As part of an EU funded project to investigate the factors influencing bone preservation in the archaeological record, more than 250 bones from 41 archaeological sites in five countries spanning four climatic regions were studied for diagenetic alteration. Sites were selected to cover a range of environmental conditions and archaeological contexts. Microscopic and physical (mercury intrusion porosimetry) analyses of these bones revealed that the majority (68%) had suffered microbial attack. Furthermore, significant differences were found between animal and human bone in both the state of preservation and the type of microbial attack present. These differences in preservation might result from differences in early taphonomy of the bones. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

International audienceBackground: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support.Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]).Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Association of Country Income Level With the Characteristics and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized With Acute Kidney Injury and COVID-19

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) has been identified as one of the most common and significant problems in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, studies examining the relationship between COVID-19 and AKI in low- and low-middle income countries (LLMIC) are lacking. Given that AKI is known to carry a higher mortality rate in these countries, it is important to understand differences in this population. Methods: This prospective, observational study examines the AKI incidence and characteristics of 32,210 patients with COVID-19 from 49 countries across all income levels who were admitted to an intensive care unit during their hospital stay. Results: Among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, AKI incidence was highest in patients in LLMIC, followed by patients in upper-middle income countries (UMIC) and high-income countries (HIC) (53%, 38%, and 30%, respectively), whereas dialysis rates were lowest among patients with AKI from LLMIC and highest among those from HIC (27% vs. 45%). Patients with AKI in LLMIC had the largest proportion of community-acquired AKI (CA-AKI) and highest rate of in-hospital death (79% vs. 54% in HIC and 66% in UMIC). The association between AKI, being from LLMIC and in-hospital death persisted even after adjusting for disease severity. Conclusions: AKI is a particularly devastating complication of COVID-19 among patients from poorer nations where the gaps in accessibility and quality of healthcare delivery have a major impact on patient outcomes

Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications of COVID-19 in adults hospitalized in high-income countries compared with those in adults hospitalized in low- and middle-income countries in an international registry

Background: COVID-19 has been associated with a broad range of thromboembolic, ischemic, and hemorrhagic complications (coagulopathy complications). Most studies have focused on patients with severe disease from high-income countries (HICs). Objectives: The main aims were to compare the frequency of coagulopathy complications in developing countries (low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) with those in HICs, delineate the frequency across a range of treatment levels, and determine associations with in-hospital mortality. Methods: Adult patients enrolled in an observational, multinational registry, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections COVID-19 study, between January 1, 2020, and September 15, 2021, met inclusion criteria, including admission to a hospital for laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 and data on complications and survival. The advanced-treatment cohort received care, such as admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or inotropes or vasopressors; the basic-treatment cohort did not receive any of these interventions. Results: The study population included 495,682 patients from 52 countries, with 63% from LMICs and 85% in the basic treatment cohort. The frequency of coagulopathy complications was higher in HICs (0.76%-3.4%) than in LMICs (0.09%-1.22%). Complications were more frequent in the advanced-treatment cohort than in the basic-treatment cohort. Coagulopathy complications were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64). The increased mortality associated with these complications was higher in LMICs (58.5%) than in HICs (35.4%). After controlling for coagulopathy complications, treatment intensity, and multiple other factors, the mortality was higher among patients in LMICs than among patients in HICs (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.51). Conclusion: In a large, international registry of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, coagulopathy complications were more frequent in HICs than in LMICs (developing countries). Increased mortality associated with coagulopathy complications was of a greater magnitude among patients in LMICs. Additional research is needed regarding timely diagnosis of and intervention for coagulation derangements associated with COVID-19, particularly for limited-resource settings