Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

Voices of Community Partners: Perspectives Gained from Conversations of Community-Based Participatory Research Experiences

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been documented as an effective approach to research with underserved communities, particularly with racial and ethnic minority groups. However, much of the literature promoting the use of CBPR with underserved communities is written from the perspective of the researchers and not from the perspective of the community partner. The purpose of this article is to capture lessons learned from the community partners’ insight gained through their experiences with CBPR. A multi-investigator consensus method was used to qualitatively code the transcripts of a CBPR story-telling video series. Seven major themes were identified: (1) expectations for engaging in research, (2) cultural humility, (3) respecting the partnership, (4) open communication, (5) genuine commitment, (6) valuing strengths and recognizing capacities, and (7) collaborating to yield meaningful results. The themes drawn from the community partner’s voice align with the tenets of CBPR advanced in the academic literature. More opportunities to include the community voice when promoting CBPR should be undertaken to help introduce the concepts to potential community partners who may be research cautious

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Cognitive and psychiatric symptom trajectories 2–3 years after hospital admission for COVID-19: a longitudinal, prospective cohort study in the UK

Background: COVID-19 is known to be associated with increased risks of cognitive and psychiatric outcomes after the acute phase of disease. We aimed to assess whether these symptoms can emerge or persist more than 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, to identify which early aspects of COVID-19 illness predict longer-term symptoms, and to establish how these symptoms relate to occupational functioning. Methods: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) who were hospitalised with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 at participating National Health Service hospitals across the UK. In the C-Fog study, a subset of PHOSP-COVID participants who consented to be recontacted for other research were invited to complete a computerised cognitive assessment and clinical scales between 2 years and 3 years after hospital admission. Participants completed eight cognitive tasks, covering eight cognitive domains, from the Cognitron battery, in addition to the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale, and the 20-item Cognitive Change Index (CCI-20) questionnaire to assess subjective cognitive decline. We evaluated how the absolute risks of symptoms evolved between follow-ups at 6 months, 12 months, and 2–3 years, and whether symptoms at 2–3 years were predicted by earlier aspects of COVID-19 illness. Participants completed an occupation change questionnaire to establish whether their occupation or working status had changed and, if so, why. We assessed which symptoms at 2–3 years were associated with occupation change. People with lived experience were involved in the study. Findings: 2469 PHOSP-COVID participants were invited to participate in the C-Fog study, and 475 participants (191 [40·2%] females and 284 [59·8%] males; mean age 58·26 [SD 11·13] years) who were discharged from one of 83 hospitals provided data at the 2–3-year follow-up. Participants had worse cognitive scores than would be expected on the basis of their sociodemographic characteristics across all cognitive domains tested (average score 0·71 SD below the mean [IQR 0·16–1·04]; p<0·0001). Most participants reported at least mild depression (263 [74·5%] of 353), anxiety (189 [53·5%] of 353), fatigue (220 [62·3%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (184 [52·1%] of 353), and more than a fifth reported severe depression (79 [22·4%] of 353), fatigue (87 [24·6%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (88 [24·9%] of 353). Depression, anxiety, and fatigue were worse at 2–3 years than at 6 months or 12 months, with evidence of both worsening of existing symptoms and emergence of new symptoms. Symptoms at 2–3 years were not predicted by the severity of acute COVID-19 illness, but were strongly predicted by the degree of recovery at 6 months (explaining 35·0–48·8% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); by a biocognitive profile linking acutely raised D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits at 6 months (explaining 7·0–17·2% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); and by anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive deficit at 6 months. Objective cognitive deficits at 2–3 years were not predicted by any of the factors tested, except for cognitive deficits at 6 months, explaining 10·6% of their variance. 95 of 353 participants (26·9% [95% CI 22·6–31·8]) reported occupational change, with poor health being the most common reason for this change. Occupation change was strongly and specifically associated with objective cognitive deficits (odds ratio [OR] 1·51 [95% CI 1·04–2·22] for every SD decrease in overall cognitive score) and subjective cognitive decline (OR 1·54 [1·21–1·98] for every point increase in CCI-20). Interpretation: Psychiatric and cognitive symptoms appear to increase over the first 2–3 years post-hospitalisation due to both worsening of symptoms already present at 6 months and emergence of new symptoms. New symptoms occur mostly in people with other symptoms already present at 6 months. Early identification and management of symptoms might therefore be an effective strategy to prevent later onset of a complex syndrome. Occupation change is common and associated mainly with objective and subjective cognitive deficits. Interventions to promote cognitive recovery or to prevent cognitive decline are therefore needed to limit the functional and economic impacts of COVID-19. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Wolfson Foundation, MQ Mental Health Research, MRC-UK Research and Innovation, and National Institute for Health and Care Research.</p