Association of obesity with illness severity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study

BackgroundAlthough recent studies have shown an association between obesity and adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient outcomes, there is a paucity in large studies focusing on hospitalized patients. We aimed to analyze outcomes associated with obesity in a large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study at a tertiary care health system of adult patients with COVID-19 who were admitted between March 1 and April 30, 2020. Patients were stratified by body mass index (BMI) into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2) and non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m 2) cohorts. Primary outcomes were mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, and 30-day readmission.ResultsA total of 1983 patients were included of whom 1031 (51.9%) had obesity and 952 (48.9%) did not have obesity. Patients with obesity were younger (P < 0.001), more likely to be female (P < 0.001) and African American (P < 0.001) compared to patients without obesity. Multivariable logistic models adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, medical comorbidities, and treatment modalities revealed no difference in 60-day mortality and 30-day readmission between obese and non-obese groups. In these models, patients with obesity had increased odds of ICU admission (adjusted OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07?1.76; P = 0.012) and intubation (adjusted OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04?1.80; P = 0.026).ConclusionsObesity in patients with COVID-19 is independently associated with increased risk for ICU admission and intubation. Recognizing that obesity impacts morbidity in this manner is crucial for appropriate management of COVID-19 patients.     

Excess Mortality After COVID-19 in Swedish Long-Term Care Facilities

ObjectiveTo compare 30-day mortality in long-term care facility (LTCF) residents with and without COVID-19 and to investigate the impact of 31 potential risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 cases.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting and ParticipantsAll residents of LTCFs registered in Senior Alert, a Swedish national database of health examinations in older adults, during 2019-2020.MethodsWe selected residents with confirmed COVID-19 until September 15, 2020, along with time-dependent propensity score–matched controls without COVID-19. Exposures were COVID-19, age, sex, comorbidities, medications, and other patient characteristics. The outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality.ResultsA total of 3731 residents (median age 87 years, 64.5% female) with COVID-19 were matched to 3731 controls without COVID-19. Thirty-day mortality was 39.9% in COVID-19 cases and 5.7% in controls [relative risk 7.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.10-8.14]. In COVID-19 cases, the odds ratio (OR) for 30-day mortality was 2.44 (95% CI 1.57-3.81) in cases aged 80-84 years, 2.99 (95% CI 1.93-4.65) in cases aged 85-89 years, and 3.28 (95% CI 2.11-5.10) in cases aged ≥90 years, as compared with cases aged <70 years. Other risk factors for mortality among COVID-19 cases included male sex (OR, 2.60, 95% CI 2.22-3.05), neuropsychological conditions (OR, 2.18; 95% CI 1.76-2.71), impaired walking ability (OR, 1.45, 95% CI 1.17-1.78), urinary and bowel incontinence (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.85), diabetes (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14-1.62), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.68) and previous pneumonia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.85). Nutritional factors, cardiovascular diseases, and antihypertensive medications were not significantly associated with mortality.Conclusions and ImplicationsIn Swedish LTCFs, COVID-19 was associated with a large excess in mortality after controlling for an extensive number of risk factors. Beyond older age and male sex, several prevalent clinical risk factors independently contributed to higher mortality. These findings suggest that reducing transmission of COVID-19 in LTCFs will likely prevent a considerable number of deaths.     

Impact of prior bariatric surgery on risk and severity of COVID-19 infection: A meta-analysis of observational studies

BackgroundThe association of prior bariatric surgery (BS) with infection rate and prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies to address this issue.MethodsWe searched databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to May, 2022. The primary outcome was risk of mortality, while secondary outcomes included risk of hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and infection rate.ResultsEleven studies involving 151,475 patients were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed lower risks of mortality [odd ratio (OR)= 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27–0.65, p < 0.001, I² = 67%; nine studies; 151,113 patients, certainty of evidence (COE):moderate], hospital admission (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.36–0.85, p = 0.007, I² =74.6%; seven studies; 17,810 patients; COE:low), ICU admission (OR=0.5, 95% CI: 0.37–0.67, p < 0.001, I² =0%; six studies; 17,496 patients, COE:moderate), mechanical ventilation (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.37–0.72, p < 0.001, I² =57.1%; seven studies; 137,992 patients, COE:moderate) in patients with prior BS (BS group) than those with obesity without surgical treatment (non-BS group). There was no difference in risk of AKI (OR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.41–1.32, p = 0.304, I² =83.6%; four studies; 129,562 patients, COE: very low) and infection rate (OR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.89–1.22, p = 0.572, I² =0%; four studies; 12,633 patients, COE:low) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis from matched cohort studies demonstrated associations of prior BS with lower risks of mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and AKI.ConclusionOur results showed a correlation between prior BS and less severe COVID-19, which warrants further investigations to verify.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎病例重症化影响因素及早期临床特征

  目的  通过收集分析荆州市新型冠状病毒肺炎（coronavirus disease 2019,COVID-19）病例流行病学资料,寻找病例重症化的影响因素及早期临床特征。  方法  利用χ2检验单因素分析筛选、Logistic回归分析模型寻找COVID-19病例重症化的影响因素和早期临床特征。  结果  荆州市累计报告1 580例确诊病例及临床诊断病例,重症病例占比23.61%（373/1 580）。多因素分析结果显示年龄≥49岁（OR=2.342,95% CI:1.803~3.043）、确诊病例（OR=2.772,95% CI:1.735~4.428）、有心脑血管疾病（OR=2.872,95% CI:1.542~5.349）是COVID-19病例临床结局演化为重症的危险因素;淋巴细胞百分比降低（OR=1.881,95% CI:1.105~3.202）、发热（OR=1.845,95% CI:1.340~2.541）、乏力（OR=1.616,95% CI:1.246~2.097）、气促（OR=1.870,95% CI:1.197~2.923）是COVID-19病例临床结局演化为重症的早期临床特征。  结论  年老者、患心脑血管疾病的COVID-19病例及早期出现发热、乏力、气促、淋巴细胞比降低的COVID-19病例均需警惕其重症化演变。     

Presenting Characteristics,Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among Patients With COVID-19 Hospitalized in Pakistan: Retrospective Observational Study

BackgroundCOVID-19 became a pandemic rapidly after its emergence in December 2019. It belongs to the coronavirus family of viruses, which have struck a few times before in history. Data based on previous research regarding etiology and epidemiology of other viruses from this family helped played a vital role in formulating prevention and precaution strategies during the initial stages of this pandemic. Data related to COVID-19 in Pakistan were not initially documented on a large scale. In addition, due to a weak health care system and low economic conditions, Pakistan’s population, in general, already suffers from many comorbidities, which can severely affect the outcome of patients infected with COVID-19.ObjectiveCOVID-19 infections are coupled with a manifestation of various notable outcomes that can be documented and characterized clinically. The aim of this study was to examine these clinical manifestations, which can serve as indicators for early detection as well as severity prognosis for COVID-19 infections, especially in high-risk groups.MethodsA retrospective observational study involving abstraction of demographic features, presenting symptoms, and adverse clinical outcomes for 1812 patients with COVID-19 was conducted. Patients were admitted to the four major hospitals in the Rawalpindi-Islamabad region of Pakistan, and the study was conducted from February to August 2020. Multivariate regression analysis was carried out to identify significant indicators of COVID-19 severity, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ventilator aid, and mortality. The study not only relates COVID-19 infection with comorbidities, but also examines other related factors, such as age and gender.ResultsThis study identified fever (1592/1812, 87.9%), cough (1433/1812, 79.1%), and shortness of breath (998/1812, 55.1%) at the time of hospital admission as the most prevalent symptoms for patients with COVID-19. These symptoms were common but not conclusive of the outcome of infection. Out of 1812 patients, 24.4% (n=443) required ICU admission and 21.5% (n=390) required ventilator aid at some point of disease progression during their stay at the hospital; 25.9% (n=469) of the patients died. Further analysis revealed the relationship of the presented symptoms and comorbidities with the progression of disease severity in these patients. Older adult patients with comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and asthma, were significantly affected in higher proportions, resulting in requirement of ICU admission and ventilator aid in some cases and, in many cases, even mortality.ConclusionsOlder adult patients with comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and chronic kidney disease, are at increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 infections, with an increased likelihood of adverse clinical outcomes.     

Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on COVID-19 Related Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The COVID-19 outbreak has rapidly expanded to a global pandemic; however, our knowledge is limited with regards to the protective factors against this infection. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19 related outcomes. A systematic search of relevant papers published until January 2022 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of intervention (NRISs). The primary outcomes included the risk of COVID-19 infection (primary prevention studies on uninfected individuals), hospital admission (secondary prevention studies on mild COVID-19 cases), and ICU admission and mortality rate (tertiary prevention studies on hospitalized COVID-19 patients). We identified five studies (one RCT, four NRISs) on primary prevention, with five (two RCTs, three NRISs) on secondary prevention, and 13 (six RCTs, seven NRISs) on tertiary prevention. Pooled analysis showed no significant effect on the risk of COVID-19 infection. No meta-analysis was possible on hospitalization risk due to paucity of data. Vitamin D supplementation was significantly associated with a reduced risk of ICU admission (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.62) and mortality (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.70). Vitamin D supplementation had no significant impact on the risk of COVID-19 infection, whereas it showed protective effects against mortality and ICU admission in COVID-19 patients.     

Associations of pre-existing cardiovascular morbidity with severity and the fatality rate in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the association of pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidities, including hypertension and coronary heart disease, with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and mortality.MethodsPubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were searched between January 1, 2020, and July 18, 2020, to identify eligible studies. Random-effect models were used to estimate the pooled event rates of pre-existing cardiovascular disease comorbidities and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of disease severity and mortality associated with the exposures of interest.ResultsA total of 34 studies involving 19,156 patients with COVID-19 infection met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in the included studies was 14.0%. Pre-existing cardiovascular disease in COVID-19 patients was associated with severe outcomes (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 2.9 to 5.7) and mortality (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 2.9 to 12.7). Hypertension and coronary heart disease increased the risk of severe outcomes by 3 times (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.6) and 2.5 times (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.8), respectively. No significant publication bias was indicated.ConclusionCOVID-19 patients with pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidities have a higher risk of severe outcomes and mortality. Awareness of pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidity is important for the early management of COVID-19.     

Risk of COVID-19 and major adverse clinical outcomes among people with disabilities in South Korea

BackgroundEvidence regarding the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the major adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 among people with disabilities (PwDs) is scarce.ObjectiveThis study investigated the association of disability status with the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test positivity and the risk of major adverse clinical outcomes among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.MethodsThis study included all patients (n = 8070) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and individuals without COVID-19 (n = 121,050) in South Korea from January 1 to May 30, 2020. The study variables included officially registered disability status from the government, SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, and major adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 (admission to the intensive care unit, invasive ventilation, or death).ResultsThe study participants included 129,120 individuals (including 7261 PwDs), of whom 8070 (6.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, PwDs had an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity compared with people without disabilities (odds ratio [OR]: 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–1.48). Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, PwDs were associated with an increased risk of major adverse clinical outcomes from COVID-19 compared to those without disabilities (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11–1.86).ConclusionsPwDs had an increased risk of COVID-19 and major adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 compared with people without disabilities. Given the higher vulnerability of PwDs to COVID-19, tailored policy and management to protect against the risk of COVID-19 are required.     

Association of obesity with venous thromboembolism and myocardial injury in COVID-19

IntroductionAlthough both obesity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) independently induce inflammation and thrombosis, the association between obesity class and risk of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 remains unclear.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a single institution. Patients were categorized based on obesity class. The main outcomes were venous thromboembolism (VTE) and myocardial injury, a marker of microvascular thrombosis in COVID-19. Adjustments were made for sociodemographic variables, cardiovascular disease risk factors and comorbidities.Results609 patients with COVID-19 were included. 351 (58%) patients were without obesity, 110 (18%) were patients with class I obesity, 76 (12%) were patients with class II obesity, and 72 (12%) were patients with class III obesity. Patients with class I and III obesity had significantly higher risk-adjusted odds of VTE compared to patients without obesity (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.05–6.14 for class I obesity; and OR = 3.95, 95% CI: 1.40–11.14 for class III obesity). Patients with class III obesity had significantly higher risk-adjusted odds of myocardial injury compared to patients without obesity (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.12–4.12). Both VTE and myocardial injury were significantly associated with greater risk-adjusted odds of mortality.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that both macrovascular and microvascular thromboses may contribute to the elevated morbidity and mortality in patients with obesity and COVID-19.     

Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the risk of obesity for critically illness and ICU admitted: Meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence

ObjectivesTo investigate the relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and obesity in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, LILACS, and Web of Science for studies published up to April 27, 2020. The outcome of interest was composite poor outcome, comprising mortality and severe COVID-19. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect information from published reports of eligible studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using I² statistic and funnel plots, respectively.ResultsNine studies including 6577 patients were selected for evaluation. The COVID-19 patients were 59.80% male and had comorbidities such as hypertension (51.51%), diabetes (30.3%), cardiovascular disease (16.66%), lung disease (15.99%), renal disease (7.49%), cancer (5.07%), and immunosuppression (1.8%). For patients with severe complications, the overall pooled event rates were 56.2% (random; 95% CI: 35.3–75.1; p = 0.015; I² = 71.461) for obesity, 23.6% (random; 95% CI: 17.9–30.5; p = 0.000; I² = 87.705) for type 2 diabetes, 45.9% (random; 95% CI: 38.0–53.9; p = 0.000; I² = 90.152) for hypertension, 20.0% (random; 95% CI: 7.9–42.0; p = 0.000; I² = 94.577) for smoking, 21.6% (random; 95% CI: 14.1–31.4%; p = 0.000, I² = 92.983) for lung diseases, and 20.6% (random; 95% CI: 15.2–27.5; p = 0.000, I² = 85.735) for cardiovascular diseases.DiscussionThis systematic review indicated the relationship between obesity, ICU admission, severe COVID-19, and disease progression in patients with COVID-19. Obese patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, smoking habit, lung disease, and/or cardiovascular disease should be cared for with increased attention.     

Individual-level factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among U.S. patients with cancer

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health concern in the US. Cancer patients are especially vulnerable to adverse COVID-19 outcomes and require targeted prevention efforts against COVID-19.MethodsWe used longitudinal survey data from patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center to identify attitudes, beliefs, and sociodemographic factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among cancer patients. Patients with confirmed invasive cancer diagnosis through Cancer Registry data were asked about vaccine acceptance through the question “Now that a COVID-19 vaccine is available, are you likely to get it?” and dichotomized into high accepters (already received it, would get it when available) and low accepters (waiting for a doctor to recommend it, waiting until more people received it, not likely to get it).ResultsMost patients (86.8% of 5,814) were high accepters of the COVID-19 vaccine. High accepters had more confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine than low accepters. Multivariable logistic regression showed older individuals (70–89 vs.18–49: OR:2.57, 95% CI:1.33–4.86), those with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (very serious vs. not at all serious: OR:2.55, 95% CI:1.76–3.70), practicing more risk mitigation behaviors (per one standard deviation OR:1.75, 95% CI:1.57–1.95), and history of receiving the flu shot versus not (OR:6.56, 95% CI:5.25–8.20) had higher odds of vaccine acceptance. Individuals living with more than one other person (vs. alone: OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.79) and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged (per 10 percentile points: OR: 0.89, 95 %CI: 0.85, 0.93) had lower odds of reporting vaccine acceptance.ConclusionMost patients with cancer have or would receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are less likely to accept the vaccine have more concerns regarding effectiveness and side effects, are younger, more socioeconomically disadvantaged, and have lower perceptions of COVID-19 severity.     

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Deaths in French Nursing Homes

ObjectivesTo describe the clinical characteristics and management of residents in French nursing homes with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to determine the risk factors for COVID-19–related hospitalization and death in this population.DesignA retrospective multicenter cohort study.Setting and ParticipantsFour hundred eighty nursing home residents with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 1 and May 20, 2020, were enrolled and followed until June 2, 2020, in 15 nursing homes in Marseille’s greater metropolitan area.MethodsDemographic, clinical, laboratory, treatment type, and clinical outcome data were collected from patients’ medical records. Multivariable analysis was used to determine factors associated with COVID-19–related hospitalization and death. For the former, the competing risk analysis—based on Fine and Gray’s model—took death into account.ResultsA total of 480 residents were included. Median age was 88 years (IQR 80-93), and 330 residents were women. A total of 371 residents were symptomatic (77.3%), the most common symptoms being asthenia (47.9%), fever or hypothermia (48.1%), and dyspnea (35.6%). One hundred twenty-three patients (25.6%) were hospitalized and 96 (20%) died. Male gender [specific hazard ratio (sHR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.35], diabetes (sHR 1.69, 95% CI 1.15-2.50), an altered level of consciousness (sHR 2.36, 95% CI 1.40-3.98), and dyspnea (sHR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09-2.62) were all associated with a greater risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization. Male gender [odds ratio (OR) 6.63, 95% CI 1.04-42.39], thermal dysregulation (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.60-4.38), falls (2.21 95% CI 1.02-4.75), and being aged >85 years (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.32-4.24) were all associated with increased COVID-19–related mortality risk, whereas polymedication (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.77) and preventive anticoagulation (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.79) were protective prognostic factors.Conclusions and ImplicationsMale gender, being aged >85 years old, diabetes, dyspnea, thermal dysregulation, an altered level of consciousness, and falls must all be considered when identifying and protecting nursing home residents who are at greatest risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death.     

老年慢性病患者社会化住院现状调查及影响因素分析

目的 调查老年慢性病患者社会化住院现状及其影响因素。方法 便利抽样某三甲医院于2018年1月 - 2019年1月收治866例老年慢性病患者作为调查对象,logistic回归分析其影响因素。结果 866例老年慢性病患者符合“社会化住院”标准人数252例,比例为29.09%,住院阶段转科室（OR = 4.403,95%CI:2.855～6.789）、入院时ADL水平（OR = 1.478,95%CI:1.151～1.897）、达到出院标准ADL水平（OR = 1.359,95%CI:1.074～1.718）、年龄（OR = 1.128,95%CI:1.084～1.173）、家庭人均收入（OR = 2.484,95%CI:1.990～3.101）、医院获得性感染（OR = 2.078,95%CI:1.301～3.320）、入院途径（OR = 2.222,95%CI:1.424～3.467）、合并其他慢性病（OR = 3.743,95%CI:2.373～5.902）、抑郁（OR = 2.336,95%CI:1.485～3.674）、焦虑（OR = 2.272,95%CI:1.471～3.509）、认知障碍（OR = 1.970,95%CI:1.230～3.156）、病程（OR = 1.121,95%CI:1.057～1.189）、公费（OR = 3.116,95%CI:1.041～ 9.326）、新农合（OR = 0.376,95%CI:0.142～ 0.991）、自费（OR = 0.117,95%CI:0.029～0.473）均是“社会化住院”的显著影响因素（P＜0.05）。结论 老年慢性病患者“社会化住院”程度较高,其受到入院途径、医院内感染、生理、心理、精神状态、对他人依赖程度、经济收入和医保类型影响。     

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

IntroductionIn 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.MethodsSecondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest.ResultsPfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI ?0.4 to 20.6 and ?3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI ?3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).DiscussionThe excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎死亡病例危险因素分析

目的 以荆州市数据为例,探讨新型冠状病毒肺炎(coronavirus disease 2019,COVID-19)死亡病例相关危险因素,为临床治疗及评估预后提供相关依据。 方法 回顾性分析荆州市1 580例COVID-19病例,根据患者结局分为存活组(1 528例)和死亡组(52例)。收集并比较两组的基本信息、临床资料、暴露史等相关数据。差异有统计学意义的指标进一步进行二元logistic回归分析。比较两组部分血常规指标,对差异有统计学意义指标通过受试者工作特征曲线分析其在评估患者预后中的临床价值。 结果 单因素分析结果显示,两组在年龄(χ²=78.603,P＜0.001)、临床严重程度(χ²=173.994,P＜0.001)、疾病史(χ²=29.644,P＜0.001)、高血压史(χ²=31.143,P＜0.001)、糖尿病史(χ²=6.218,P=0.013)、心脑血管疾病史(χ²=12.737,P＜0.001)、入院时是否有气促症状(χ²=5.889,P=0.015)上比较差异有统计学意义。logistic回归分析结果显示,≥60岁(OR=8.913,95%CI:4.481~17.730)、高血压史(OR=2.004,95%CI:1.084~3.708)及入院时有气促症状(OR=2.302,95%CI:1.016~5.216)对COVID-19患者死亡具有显著影响(P＜0.05)。死亡组相较于存活组,淋巴细胞数、淋巴细胞百分比更低,而中性粒细胞百分比更高(P＜0.05),ROC曲线结果显示,淋巴细胞数、淋巴细胞百分比和中性粒细胞百分比在评估COVID-19患者预后中的曲线下面积分别为0.752、0.745、0.760。 结论 ≥60岁、高血压史以及入院时具有气促症状是影响COVID-19患者死亡的危险因素。淋巴细胞数、淋巴细胞百分比和中性粒细胞百分比水平变化可辅助评估COVID-19患者的预后。     

Determinants of Shielding Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations With Well-being Among National Health Service Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study

BackgroundThe UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to “shield” (to not leave home for any reason).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy.MethodsPatients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised.ResultsThe study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded.ConclusionsFuture health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.     

Early Improvement of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Patients With COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit: Retrospective Analysis

BackgroundSince the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been over 2 million deaths globally. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may be the main cause of death.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the clinical features, outcomes, and ARDS characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Chongqing, China.MethodsThe epidemiology of COVID-19 from January 21, 2020, to March 15, 2020, in Chongqing, China, was analyzed retrospectively, and 75 ICU patients from two hospitals were included in this study. On day 1, 56 patients with ARDS were selected for subgroup analysis, and a modified Poisson regression was performed to identify predictors for the early improvement of ARDS (eiARDS).ResultsChongqing reported a 5.3% case fatality rate for the 75 ICU patients. The median age of these patients was 57 (IQR 25-75) years, and no bias was present in the sex ratio. A total of 93% (n=70) of patients developed ARDS during ICU stay, and more than half had moderate ARDS. However, most patients (n=41, 55%) underwent high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, but not mechanical ventilation. Nearly one-third of patients with ARDS improved (arterial blood oxygen partial pressure/oxygen concentration >300 mm Hg) in 1 week, which was defined as eiARDS. Patients with eiARDS had a higher survival rate and a shorter length of ICU stay than those without eiARDS. Age (<55 years) was the only variable independently associated with eiARDS, with a risk ratio of 2.67 (95% CI 1.17-6.08).ConclusionsA new subphenotype of ARDS—eiARDS—in patients with COVID-19 was identified. As clinical outcomes differ, the stratified management of patients based on eiARDS or age is highly recommended.     

Investigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission among co-workers in a University of Northern Italy during COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study

Background:This study aimed to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission among co-workers at the University of Genoa, Italy, during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave.Methods:A cross-sectional study was carried out in October 2020 – March 2021: RT-PCR confirmed cases of COVID-19 notified to the Occupational Health Service were included in the analysis.Results:Among the n = 201 notified cases, contact tracing of n = 53 individuals identified n = 346 close contacts. The household setting (IRR = 36.8; 95% CI: 4.9-276.8; p < 0.001) and sharing eating areas (IRR = 19.5; 95% CI: 2.5-153.9; p = 0.005) showed the highest Secondary Attack Rates (SARs) compared to the office setting. Fatigue (IRR= 17.1; 95% CI: 5.2-55.8; p < 0.001), gastrointestinal symptoms (IRR= 6.6; 95% CI: 2.9-15.2; p< 0.001) and cough (IRR= 8.2; 95% CI: 3.7-18.2; p= p< 0.001) were associated with transmission of infection. Polysymptomatic cases (IRR= 23.1; 95% CI: 3.1-169.2; p = 0.02) were more likely to transmit the infection. Among COVID-19 index cases aged >60 years (OR = 7.7; 95% CI: 1.9-31.9; p = 0.0046) SARs were higher than in other age groups. Wearing respiratory protections by both the case and the close contact resulted an effective measure compared with no use (IRR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.03-0.2; p = < 0.0001). Conclusions: Accurate infection monitoring and contact tracing was useful to identify the main situationsConclusions:Accurate infection monitoring and contact tracing was useful to identify the main situations of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the workplace, and hence for risk assessment and prevention programs.