Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods: Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results: The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

Ensuring a Post-COVID Economic Agenda Tackles Global Biodiversity Loss

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused dramatic and unprecedented impacts on both global health and economies. Many governments are now proposing recovery packages to get back to normal, but the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Global Assessment indicated that business as usual has created widespread ecosystem degradation. Therefore, a post-COVID world needs to tackle the economic drivers that create ecological disruptions. In this perspective, we discuss a number of tools across a range of actors for both short-term stimulus measures and longer-term revamping of global, national, and local economies that take biodiversity into account. These include measures to shift away from activities that damage biodiversity and toward those supporting ecosystem resilience, including through incentives, regulations, fiscal policy, and employment programs. By treating the crisis as an opportunity to reset the global economy, we have a chance to reverse decades of biodiversity and ecosystem losses.</p

Final results of the DisCoVeRy trial of remdesivir for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19

International audienc

Cardiac Adverse Events and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Post Hoc Safety Analysis of the Randomized DisCoVeRy Trial

International audienceBackground We aimed to evaluate the cardiac adverse events (AEs) in hospitalized patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving remdesivir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC alone (control), as an association was noted in some cohort studies and disproportionality analyses of safety databases. Methods This post-hoc safety analysis is based on data from the multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled DisCoVeRy trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (NCT04315948). Any first AE occurring between randomization and day 29 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population randomized to either remdesivir or control group was considered. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for event rates. Results Cardiac AEs were reported in 46 (11.2%) of 410 and 48 (11.3%) of 423 patients in the mITT population (n = 833) enrolled in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively. The difference between both groups was not significant (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, p = 0.98), even when evaluating serious and non-serious cardiac AEs separately. The majority of reports in both groups were of arrhythmic nature (remdesivir, 84.8%; control, 83.3%) and were associated with a favorable outcome. There was no significant difference between remdesivir and control groups in the occurrence of different cardiac AE subclasses, including arrhythmic events (HR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.7, p = 0.68). Conclusions Remdesivir treatment was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac AEs, whether serious or not, and regardless of AE severity, compared to control, in patients hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19. This is consistent with the results of other randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses

Cardiac Adverse Events and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Post Hoc Safety Analysis of the Randomized DisCoVeRy Trial

International audienceBackground We aimed to evaluate the cardiac adverse events (AEs) in hospitalized patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving remdesivir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC alone (control), as an association was noted in some cohort studies and disproportionality analyses of safety databases. Methods This post-hoc safety analysis is based on data from the multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled DisCoVeRy trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (NCT04315948). Any first AE occurring between randomization and day 29 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population randomized to either remdesivir or control group was considered. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for event rates. Results Cardiac AEs were reported in 46 (11.2%) of 410 and 48 (11.3%) of 423 patients in the mITT population (n = 833) enrolled in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively. The difference between both groups was not significant (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, p = 0.98), even when evaluating serious and non-serious cardiac AEs separately. The majority of reports in both groups were of arrhythmic nature (remdesivir, 84.8%; control, 83.3%) and were associated with a favorable outcome. There was no significant difference between remdesivir and control groups in the occurrence of different cardiac AE subclasses, including arrhythmic events (HR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.7, p = 0.68). Conclusions Remdesivir treatment was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac AEs, whether serious or not, and regardless of AE severity, compared to control, in patients hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19. This is consistent with the results of other randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses