Using a novel ambulatory monitoring system to support patient safety on an acute infectious disease ward during an unfolding pandemic

AIM

To gain staff feedback on the implementation and impact of a novel ambulatory monitoring system to support coronavirus patient management on an isolation ward.

DESIGN

Qualitative service evaluation.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 multidisciplinary isolation ward staff in the United Kingdom between July 2020 and May 2021. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Adopting Innovation to Assist Patient Safety was identified as the overriding theme. Three interlinked sub-themes represent facets of how the system supported patient safety. Patient Selection was developed throughout the pandemic, as clinical staff became more confident in choosing which patients would benefit most. Trust In the System described how nurses coped with discrepancies between the ambulatory system and ward observation machines. Finally, Resource Management examined how, once trust was built, staff perceived the ambulatory system assisted with caseload management. This supported efficient personal protective equipment resource use by reducing the number of isolation room entries. Despite these reported benefits, face-to-face contact was still highly valued, despite the risk of coronavirus exposure.

CONCLUSION

Hospital wards should consider using ambulatory monitoring systems to support caseload management and patient safety. Patients in isolation rooms or at high risk of deterioration may particularly benefit from this additional monitoring. However, these systems should be seen as an adjunct to nursing care, not a replacement.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Nurses valued ambulatory monitoring as a means of ensuring the safety of patients at risk of deterioration and prioritizing their workload.

IMPACT

The findings of this research will be useful to all those developing or considering implementation of ambulatory monitoring systems in hospital wards.

REPORTING METHOD

This manuscript follows the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines with inclusion of relevant SQUIRE guidelines for reporting quality improvement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Clinical Characterization of Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Undergoing Conservative Management: A PIONEER Analysis Based on Big Data

BACKGROUND

Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis.

Hydrogel dressings for donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts

BACKGROUND

Donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts can be a major cause of morbidity. Choosing the appropriate dressing for these wounds is crucial to successful healing. Various types of dressing are available, including hydrogel dressings. A review of current evidence is required to guide clinical decision-making on the choice of dressing for the treatment of donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds following split-thickness skin grafts for wound healing.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2022 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrogel dressings with other types of dressing, topical treatments or no dressing, or with different types of hydrogel dressings in managing donor site wounds irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 1, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies (162 participants) in this review. One study with three arms and 101 participants (15 months' duration) was conducted in a children's hospital, and compared hydrogel dressings in the form of Sorbact with Algisite, an alginate dressing and Cuticerin, a smooth acetate gauze impregnated with water-repellent ointment. Another study with two arms and 61 participants (19 months' duration) was conducted in three surgery departments and compared an octenidine-containing hydrogel dressing with an identical non-antimicrobial hydrogel dressing. We identified no studies that compared hydrogel dressings with another therapy such as a topical agent (a topical agent is a cream, an ointment or a solution that is applied directly to the wound), or no dressing, or a combination of hydrogel dressings and another therapy versus another therapy alone. Both studies were at high risk of attrition bias and the second study was also at unclear risk of selection bias. Amorphous hydrogel dressings versus other types of dressings Amorphous hydrogel dressings may increase time to wound healing when compared with alginate (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 2.78; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or Cuticerin dressings (MD 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.79; 1 study, 68 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect of amorphous hydrogel dressings compared with other types of dressings is uncertain for pain at the donor site and wound complications, including scarring and itching (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in any of the groups. The study did not report health-related quality of life or wound infection. Octenidine-based hydrogel dressing versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressing The effect of octenidine-based hydrogel dressings versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressings is uncertain for time to wound healing (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52; 1 study, 41 participants) and wound infection, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. The certainty of the evidence is also very low for adverse events, with two participants in the intervention group and one participant in the comparison group reporting adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.89; 1 study, 41 participants). The study did not report donor site pain, health-related quality of life, or wound complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds of split thickness skin grafts compared with other types of dressings. There is a need for adequately powered and well-designed RCTs, with adequate sample sizes, types of populations and subgroups, types of interventions, and outcomes, that compare hydrogel dressings with other treatment options in the treatment of donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without asthma from the United States, South Korea, and Europe

Objective: Large international comparisons describing the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 are limited. The aim of the study was to perform a large-scale descriptive characterization of COVID-19 patients with asthma.Methods: We included nine databases contributing data from January to June 2020 from the US, South Korea (KR), Spain, UK and the Netherlands. We defined two cohorts of COVID-19 patients ('diagnosed' and 'hospitalized') based on COVID-19 disease codes. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes in people with asthma defined by codes and prescriptions.Results: The diagnosed and hospitalized cohorts contained 666,933 and 159,552 COVID-19 patients respectively. Exacerbation in people with asthma was recorded in 1.6-8.6% of patients at presentation. Asthma prevalence ranged from 6.2% (95% CI 5.7-6.8) to 18.5% (95% CI 18.2-18.8) in the diagnosed cohort and 5.2% (95% CI 4.0-6.8) to 20.5% (95% CI 18.6-22.6) in the hospitalized cohort. Asthma patients with COVID-19 had high prevalence of comorbidity including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality ranged from 2.1% (95% CI 1.8-2.4) to 16.9% (95% CI 13.8-20.5) and similar or lower compared to COVID-19 patients without asthma. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 15-30% of hospitalized COVID-19 asthma patients.Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma among COVID-19 patients varies internationally. Asthma patients with COVID-19 have high comorbidity. The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation was low. Whilst mortality was similar among COVID-19 patients with and without asthma, this could be confounded by differences in clinical characteristics. Further research could help identify high-risk asthma patients.[Box: see text]Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2025392 .

Current Approaches to Vaccine Safety Using Observational Data: A Rationale for the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Events Under Surveillance-for Vaccines) Study Design

Post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance aims to detect adverse events following immunization in a population. Whether certain methods of surveillance are more precise and unbiased in generating safety signals is unclear. Here, we synthesized information from existing literature to provide an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of epidemiologic and analytical methods used in vaccine monitoring, focusing on cohort, case-control and self-controlled designs. These designs are proposed to be evaluated in the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Event Under Surveillance-for vaccines) study because of their widespread use and potential utility. Over the past decades, there have been an increasing number of epidemiological study designs used for vaccine safety surveillance. While traditional cohort and case-control study designs remain widely used, newer, novel designs such as the self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk intervals have been developed. Each study design comes with its strengths and limitations, and the most appropriate study design will depend on availability of resources, access to records, number and distribution of cases, and availability of population coverage data. Several assumptions have to be made while using the various study designs, and while the goal is to mitigate any biases, violations of these assumptions are often still present to varying degrees. In our review, we discussed some of the potential biases (i.e., selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding bias), and ways to mitigate them. While the types of epidemiological study designs are well established, a comprehensive comparison of the analytical aspects (including method evaluation and performance metrics) of these study designs are relatively less well studied. We summarized the literature, reporting on two simulation studies, which compared the detection time, empirical power, error rate and risk estimate bias across the above-mentioned study designs. While these simulation studies provided insights on the analytic performance of each of the study designs, its applicability to real-world data remains unclear. To bridge that gap, we provided the rationale of the EUMAEUS study, with a brief description of the study design; and how the use of real-world multi-database networks can provide insights into better methods evaluation and vaccine safety surveillance.

Unraveling COVID-19: A Large-Scale Characterization of 4.5 Million COVID-19 Cases Using CHARYBDIS

Purpose

Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Characterizing Health Associated Risks and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a descriptive retrospective database study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub. We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19, and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services.

Results

We aggregated over 22,000 unique characteristics describing patients with COVID-19. All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts and are readily available online. Globally, we observed similarities in the USA and Europe: more women diagnosed than men but more men hospitalized than women, most diagnosed cases between 25 and 60 years of age versus most hospitalized cases between 60 and 80 years of age. South Korea differed with more women than men hospitalized. Common comorbidities included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever. Symptom data availability was more common in hospitalized cohorts than diagnosed.

Conclusion

We constructed a global, multi-centre view to describe trends in COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. By characterising baseline variability in patients and geography, our work provides critical context that may otherwise be misconstrued as data quality issues. This is important as we perform studies on adverse events of special interest in COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.

The Use of Wearable Pulse Oximeters in the Prompt Detection of Hypoxemia and During Movement: Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Background

Commercially available wearable (ambulatory) pulse oximeters have been recommended as a method for managing patients at risk of physiological deterioration, such as active patients with COVID-19 disease receiving care in hospital isolation rooms; however, their reliability in usual hospital settings is not known.

Objective

We report the performance of wearable pulse oximeters in a simulated clinical setting when challenged by motion and low levels of arterial blood oxygen saturation (SaO₂).

Methods

The performance of 1 wrist-worn (Wavelet) and 3 finger-worn (CheckMe O2+, AP-20, and WristOx2 3150) wearable, wireless transmission–mode pulse oximeters was evaluated. For this, 7 motion tasks were performed: at rest, sit-to-stand, tapping, rubbing, drinking, turning pages, and using a tablet. Hypoxia exposure followed, in which inspired gases were adjusted to achieve decreasing SaO₂ levels at 100%, 95%, 90%, 87%, 85%, 83%, and 80%. Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) estimates were compared with simultaneous SaO₂ samples to calculate the root-mean-square error (RMSE). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to analyze the detection of hypoxemia (ie, SaO₂<90%).

Results

SpO₂ estimates matching 215 SaO₂ samples in both study phases, from 33 participants, were analyzed. Tapping, rubbing, turning pages, and using a tablet degraded SpO₂ estimation (RMSE>4% for at least 1 device). All finger-worn pulse oximeters detected hypoxemia, with an overall sensitivity of ≥0.87 and specificity of ≥0.80, comparable to that of the Philips MX450 pulse oximeter.

Conclusions

The SpO₂ accuracy of wearable finger-worn pulse oximeters was within that required by the International Organization for Standardization guidelines. Performance was degraded by motion, but all pulse oximeters could detect hypoxemia. Our findings support the use of wearable, wireless transmission–mode pulse oximeters to detect the onset of clinical deterioration in hospital settings.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry 61535692; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61535692

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034404

Seek COVER: using a disease proxy to rapidly develop and validate a personalized risk calculator for COVID-19 outcomes in an international network

Background

We investigated whether we could use influenza data to develop prediction models for COVID-19 to increase the speed at which prediction models can reliably be developed and validated early in a pandemic. We developed COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patient’s risk of hospital admission with pneumonia (COVER-H), hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms and tested this in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

We analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries containing data collected on or before 4/27/2020. We used a 2-step process to develop 3 scores using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The first step was to create a data-driven model using LASSO regularized logistic regression, the covariates of which were used to develop aggregate covariates for the second step where the COVER scores were developed using a smaller set of features. These 3 COVER scores were then externally validated on patients with 1) influenza or flu-like symptoms and 2) confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across 5 databases from South Korea, Spain, and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death, and iii) death in the 30 days after index date.

Results

Overall, 44,507 COVID-19 patients were included for model validation. We identified 7 predictors (history of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney disease) which combined with age and sex discriminated which patients would experience any of our three outcomes. The models achieved good performance in influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. For COVID-19 the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69–0.81, COVER-I: 0.73–0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72–0.90. Calibration varied across the validations with some of the COVID-19 validations being less well calibrated than the influenza validations.

Conclusions

This research demonstrated the utility of using a proxy disease to develop a prediction model. The 3 COVER models with 9-predictors that were developed using influenza data perform well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services, and fatality. The scores showed good discriminatory performance which transferred well to the COVID-19 population. There was some miscalibration in the COVID-19 validations, which is potentially due to the difference in symptom severity between the two diseases. A possible solution for this is to recalibrate the models in each location before use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01505-z.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 with and without prevalent hypertension: a multinational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To characterise patients with and without prevalent hypertension and COVID-19 and to assess adverse outcomes in both inpatients and outpatients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a retrospective cohort study using 15 healthcare databases (primary and secondary electronic healthcare records, insurance and national claims data) from the USA, Europe and South Korea, standardised to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model. Data were gathered from 1 March to 31 October 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Two non-mutually exclusive cohorts were defined: (1) individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 (diagnosed cohort) and (2) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 (hospitalised cohort), and stratified by hypertension status. Follow-up was from COVID-19 diagnosis/hospitalisation to death, end of the study period or 30 days.

OUTCOMES

Demographics, comorbidities and 30-day outcomes (hospitalisation and death for the 'diagnosed' cohort and adverse events and death for the 'hospitalised' cohort) were reported.

RESULTS

We identified 2 851 035 diagnosed and 563 708 hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Hypertension was more prevalent in the latter (ranging across databases from 17.4% (95% CI 17.2 to 17.6) to 61.4% (95% CI 61.0 to 61.8) and from 25.6% (95% CI 24.6 to 26.6) to 85.9% (95% CI 85.2 to 86.6)). Patients in both cohorts with hypertension were predominantly >50 years old and female. Patients with hypertension were frequently diagnosed with obesity, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes. Compared with patients without hypertension, patients with hypertension in the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort had more hospitalisations (ranging from 1.3% (95% CI 0.4 to 2.2) to 41.1% (95% CI 39.5 to 42.7) vs from 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) to 15.9% (95% CI 14.9 to 16.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) to 18.5% (95% CI 15.7 to 21.3) vs from 0.2% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.2) to 11.8% (95% CI 10.8 to 12.8)). Patients in the COVID-19 hospitalised cohort with hypertension were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ranging from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 65.6% (95% CI 62.5 to 68.7) vs from 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) to 54.7% (95% CI 50.5 to 58.9)), arrhythmia (ranging from 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) to 45.8% (95% CI 42.6 to 49.0) vs from 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) to 36.8% (95% CI 32.7 to 40.9)) and increased mortality (ranging from 1.8% (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2) to 25.1% (95% CI 23.0 to 27.2) vs from 0.7% (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) to 10.9% (95% CI 10.4 to 11.4)) than patients without hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 patients with hypertension were more likely to suffer severe outcomes, hospitalisations and deaths compared with those without hypertension.

Bias, Precision and Timeliness of Historical (Background) Rate Comparison Methods for Vaccine Safety Monitoring: An Empirical Multi-Database Analysis

Using real-world data and past vaccination data, we conducted a large-scale experiment to quantify bias, precision and timeliness of different study designs to estimate historical background (expected) compared to post-vaccination (observed) rates of safety events for several vaccines. We used negative (not causally related) and positive control outcomes. The latter were synthetically generated true safety signals with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.5 to 4. Observed vs. expected analysis using within-database historical background rates is a sensitive but unspecific method for the identification of potential vaccine safety signals. Despite good discrimination, most analyses showed a tendency to overestimate risks, with 20%-100% type 1 error, but low (0% to 20%) type 2 error in the large databases included in our study. Efforts to improve the comparability of background and post-vaccine rates, including age-sex adjustment and anchoring background rates around a visit, reduced type 1 error and improved precision but residual systematic error persisted. Additionally, empirical calibration dramatically reduced type 1 to nominal but came at the cost of increasing type 2 error.

Experiences of current vital signs monitoring practices and views of wearable monitoring: A qualitative study in patients and nurses

Aims

To understand current experiences of vital signs monitoring of patients and clinical staff on a surgical ward, and views on the introduction of wearable ambulatory monitoring into the general ward environment.

Design

Qualitative study.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews using topic guides were conducted with 15 patients and 15 nurses on a surgical ward between July 2018 and August 2019. The concept of ambulatory wearable devices for clinical monitoring was introduced at the end of the interview.

Results

Three interconnected themes were identified. Vital sign data as evidence for escalation, examined nurses' use of data to support escalation of care and the implications for patients perceived to be deteriorating who have not reached the threshold for escalation. The second theme, Trustworthiness of vital sign data, described nurses’ practice of using manual measurements to recheck or confirm automated vital signs readings when concerned. The final theme, finding a balance between continuous and intermittent monitoring, both patients and nurses agreed that although continuous monitoring may improve safety and reassurance, these needed to be balanced with multiple limitations. Factors to be considered included noise pollution, comfort, and impact on patient mobility and independence. Introduction of the concept of ambulatory wearable devices was viewed positively by both groups as offering solutions to some of the issues identified with traditional monitoring. However, most agreed that this would not be suitable for all patients and should not replace direct nurse/patient contact.

Conclusion

Both patients and staff identified the benefits of continuous monitoring to improve patient safety but, due to limitations, use should be carefully considered and patient‐centred.

Impact

Feedback from nurses and patients suggests there is scope for ambulatory monitoring systems to be integrated into the hospital environment; however, both groups emphasized these should not add more noise to the ward nor replace direct nursing contact.

COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: characteristics and outcomes in a multinational network of cohorts across three countries

OBJECTIVE

Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza.

METHODS

A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization.

RESULTS

We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Over 300,000 Patients with COVID-19 and History of Cancer in the United States and Spain

BACKGROUND

We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, standardized to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model. Three cohorts of patients with a history of cancer were included: (i) diagnosed with COVID-19, (ii) hospitalized with COVID-19, and (iii) hospitalized with influenza in 2017 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%-18% and 1%-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza (n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent.

IMPACT

This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.

The impact of wearable continuous vital sign monitoring on deterioration detection and clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Timely recognition of the deteriorating inpatient remains challenging. Wearable monitoring systems (WMS) may augment current monitoring practices. However, there are many barriers to implementation in the hospital environment, and evidence describing the clinical impact of WMS on deterioration detection and patient outcome remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of vital-sign monitoring on detection of deterioration and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients using WMS, in comparison with standard care.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in August 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment databases and grey literature. Studies comparing the use of WMS against standard care for deterioration detection and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients were included. Deterioration related outcomes (primary) included unplanned intensive care admissions, rapid response team or cardiac arrest activation, total and major complications rate. Other clinical outcomes (secondary) included in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Exploratory outcomes included alerting system parameters and clinical trial registry information.

RESULTS

Of 8706 citations, 10 studies with different designs met the inclusion criteria, of which 7 were included in the meta-analyses. Overall study quality was moderate. The meta-analysis indicated that the WMS, when compared with standard care, was not associated with significant reductions in intensive care transfers (risk ratio, RR 0.87; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.66-1.15), rapid response or cardiac arrest team activation (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69-1.01), total (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.44-1.32) and major (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.24-1.30) complications prevalence. There was also no statistically significant association with reduced mortality (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.18-1.29) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, MD - 0.09; 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.44).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review indicates that there is no current evidence that implementation of WMS impacts early deterioration detection and associated clinical outcomes, as differing design/quality of available studies and diversity of outcome measures make it difficult to reach a definite conclusion. Our narrative findings suggested that alarms should be adjusted to minimise false alarms and promote rapid clinical action in response to deterioration. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020188633 .

A Real-Time Wearable System for Monitoring Vital Signs of COVID-19 Patients in a Hospital Setting

The challenges presented by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) led to a rapid adaptation of infection disease protocols in-hospital. In this paper we report on the optimisation of our wearable ambulatory monitoring system (AMS) to monitor COVID-19 patients on isolation wards. A wearable chest patch (VitalPatch®, VitalConnect, United States of America, USA) and finger-worn pulse oximeter (WristOx2® 3150, Nonin, USA) were used to estimate and transmit continuous Heart Rate (HR), Respiratory Rate (RR), and peripheral blood Oxygen Saturation (SpO2) data from ambulatory patients on these isolation wards to nurse bays remote from these patients, with a view to minimising the risk of infection for nursing staff. Our virtual High-Dependency Unit (vHDU) system used a secure web-based architecture and protocols (HTTPS and encrypted WebSockets) to transmit the vital-sign data in real time from wireless Android tablet devices, operating as patient data collection devices by the bedside in the isolation rooms, into the clinician dashboard interface available remotely via any modern web-browser. Fault-tolerant software strategies were used to reconnect the wearables automatically, avoiding the need for nurses to enter the isolation ward to re-set the patient monitoring equipment. The remote dashboard also displayed the vital-sign observations recorded by the nurses, using a separate electronic observation system, allowing them to review both sources of vital-sign data in one integrated chart. System usage was found to follow the trend of the number of local COVID-19 infections during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK (March to June 2020), with almost half of the patients on the isolation ward monitored with wearables during the peak of hospital admissions in the local area. Patients were monitored for a median of 31.5 [8.8, 75.4] hours, representing 88.1 [62.5, 94.5]% of the median time they were registered in the system. This indicates the system was being used in the isolation ward during this period. An updated version of the system has now also been used throughout the second and third waves of the pandemic in the UK.

Thirty-Day Outcomes of Children and Adolescents With COVID-19: An International Experience

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children and adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to compare them in secondary analyses with patients diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza in 2017-2018.

METHODS

International network cohort using real-world data from European primary care records (France, Germany, and Spain), South Korean claims and US claims, and hospital databases. We included children and adolescents diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020. We described baseline demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments, and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 242 158 children and adolescents diagnosed and 9769 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 2 084 180 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were more common among those hospitalized with versus diagnosed with COVID-19. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital prevalent treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%) and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8%-7.6%), famotidine (9.0%-28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0%-21.4%), heparin (2.2%-18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8%-14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the cohort diagnosed with COVID-19, with undetectable (n < 5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia and hypoxemia were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite negligible fatality, complications including hospitalization, hypoxemia, and pneumonia were more frequent in children and adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differentiate diagnoses. A wide range of medications was used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19.

Characteristics and outcomes of 627 044 COVID-19 patients living with and without obesity in the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status.

RESULTS

We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8-40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0-33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity.

CONCLUSION

We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies.

Risk of depression, suicide and psychosis with hydroxychloroquine treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: a multinational network cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Concern has been raised in the rheumatology community regarding recent regulatory warnings that HCQ used in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic could cause acute psychiatric events. We aimed to study whether there is risk of incident depression, suicidal ideation or psychosis associated with HCQ as used for RA.

METHODS

We performed a new-user cohort study using claims and electronic medical records from 10 sources and 3 countries (Germany, UK and USA). RA patients ≥18 years of age and initiating HCQ were compared with those initiating SSZ (active comparator) and followed up in the short (30 days) and long term (on treatment). Study outcomes included depression, suicide/suicidal ideation and hospitalization for psychosis. Propensity score stratification and calibration using negative control outcomes were used to address confounding. Cox models were fitted to estimate database-specific calibrated hazard ratios (HRs), with estimates pooled where I2 <40%.

RESULTS

A total of 918 144 and 290 383 users of HCQ and SSZ, respectively, were included. No consistent risk of psychiatric events was observed with short-term HCQ (compared with SSZ) use, with meta-analytic HRs of 0.96 (95% CI 0.79, 1.16) for depression, 0.94 (95% CI 0.49, 1.77) for suicide/suicidal ideation and 1.03 (95% CI 0.66, 1.60) for psychosis. No consistent long-term risk was seen, with meta-analytic HRs of 0.94 (95% CI 0.71, 1.26) for depression, 0.77 (95% CI 0.56, 1.07) for suicide/suicidal ideation and 0.99 (95% CI 0.72, 1.35) for psychosis.

CONCLUSION

HCQ as used to treat RA does not appear to increase the risk of depression, suicide/suicidal ideation or psychosis compared with SSZ. No effects were seen in the short or long term. Use at a higher dose or for different indications needs further investigation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with EU PAS (reference no. EUPAS34497; http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm? id=34498). The full study protocol and analysis source code can be found at https://github.com/ohdsi-studies/Covid19EstimationHydroxychloroquine2.

Protocol for a systematic review assessing ambulatory vital sign monitoring impact on deterioration detection and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients

INTRODUCTION

Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMS) can facilitate early detection of clinical deterioration, and have the potential to improve hospitalised patient outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of vital signs monitoring on detection of deterioration and related outcomes in hospitalised patients using AMS, in comparison with standard care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic search was conducted on 27 August 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL and Health Technology Assessment databases, as well as grey literature. Search results will be reviewed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis checklist for systematic reviews. Studies comparing the use of ambulatory monitoring devices against standard care for deterioration detection and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients will be included and further clinical and other outcomes will also be explored. Deterioration-related outcomes may include (but not limited to) unplanned intensive care admissions, rapid response team activation and unscheduled emergency interventions, as defined by the included studies. Two reviewers will independently extract study data and assess the quality and risk of bias of included studies. Where possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted and quantitative results presented. Alternatively, a narrative synthesis will be reported.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this study as no primary data will be collected. This study is part of our virtual High Dependency Unit project and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, public and scientific conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020188633.

Use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in hospital patients with covid-19: multinational network cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents.

DESIGN

Multinational network cohort study.

SETTING

Hospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea.

PARTICIPANTS

303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19.

RESULTS

Of the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from <5 (<2%) patients in China to 2165 (85.1%) in Spain), azithromycin (from 15 (4.9%) in China to 1473 (57.9%) in Spain), combined lopinavir and ritonavir (from 156 (<2%) in the VA-OMOP US to 2,652 (34.9%) in South Korea and 1285 (50.5%) in Spain), and umifenovir (0% in the US, South Korea, and Spain and 238 (78.3%) in China). Use of adjunctive drugs varied greatly, with the five most used treatments being enoxaparin, fluoroquinolones, ceftriaxone, vitamin D, and corticosteroids. Hydroxychloroquine use increased rapidly from March to April 2020 but declined steeply in May to June and remained low for the rest of the year. The use of dexamethasone and corticosteroids increased steadily during 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple drugs were used in the first few months of the covid-19 pandemic, with substantial geographical and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed drugs. Antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids were often used as adjunctive treatments. Research is needed on the comparative risk and benefit of these treatments in the management of covid-19.

Implementation of the COVID-19 Vulnerability Index Across an International Network of Health Care Data Sets: Collaborative External Validation Study

Background

SARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision-making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the “prediction model risk of bias assessment” criteria, and it has not been externally validated.

Objective

The aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases.

Methods

We followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia.

Results

The internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data, the model obtained C statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US, and South Korean data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68.

Conclusions

Our results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.

Unraveling COVID-19: a large-scale characterization of 4.5 million COVID-19 cases using CHARYBDIS

Background: Routinely collected real world data (RWD) have great utility in aiding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic response [1,2]. Here we present the international Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) [3] Characterizing Health Associated Risks, and Your Baseline Disease In SARS-COV-2 (CHARYBDIS) framework for standardisation and analysis of COVID-19 RWD. Methods: We conducted a descriptive cohort study using a federated network of data partners in the United States, Europe (the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany, France and Italy) and Asia (South Korea and China). The study protocol and analytical package were released on 11 th June 2020 and are iteratively updated via GitHub [4]. Findings: We identified three non-mutually exclusive cohorts of 4,537,153 individuals with a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis or positive test, 886,193 hospitalized with COVID-19 , and 113,627 hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring intensive services . All comorbidities, symptoms, medications, and outcomes are described by cohort in aggregate counts, and are available in an interactive website: https://data.ohdsi.org/Covid19CharacterizationCharybdis/. Interpretation: CHARYBDIS findings provide benchmarks that contribute to our understanding of COVID-19 progression, management and evolution over time. This can enable timely assessment of real-world outcomes of preventative and therapeutic options as they are introduced in clinical practice.

Use of dialysis, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation among 842,928 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States

Objective

To estimate the proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who undergo dialysis, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Design

A network cohort study.

Setting

Seven databases from the United States containing routinely-collected patient data: HealthVerity, Premier, IQVIA Hospital CDM, IQVIA Open Claims, Optum EHR, Optum SES, and VA-OMOP.

Patients

Patients hospitalized with a clinical diagnosis or a positive test result for COVID-19.

Interventions

Dialysis, tracheostomy, and ECMO.

Measurements and Main Results

842,928 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were included (22,887 from HealthVerity, 77,853 from IQVIA Hospital CDM, 533,997 from IQVIA Open Claims, 36,717 from Optum EHR, 4,336 from OPTUM SES, 156,187 from Premier, and 10,951 from VA-OMOP). Across the six databases, 35,192 (4.17% [95% CI: 4.13% to 4.22%]) patients received dialysis, 6,950 (0.82% [0.81% to 0.84%]) had a tracheostomy, and 1,568 (0.19% [95% CI: 0.18% to 0.20%]) patients underwent ECMO over the 30 days following hospitalization. Use of ECMO was more common among patients who were younger, male, and with fewer comorbidities. Tracheostomy was broadly used for a similar proportion of patients regardless of age, sex, or comorbidity. While dialysis was generally used for a similar proportion among younger and older patients, it was more frequent among male patients and among those with chronic kidney disease.

Conclusion

Use of dialysis among those hospitalized with COVID-19 is high at around 4%. Although less than one percent of patients undergo tracheostomy and ECMO, the absolute numbers of patients who have undergone these interventions is substantial.

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19: an international, open science, cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.

FINDINGS

Among 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.

INTERPRETATION

No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.

Recruiting patients to a digital self-management study whilst in hospital for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: A feasibility analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often hospitalised with acute exacerbations (AECOPD) and many patients get readmitted. Intervening with hospitalised patients may be optimal timing to provide support. Our previous work demonstrated use of a digital monitoring and self-management support tool in the community. However, we wanted to explore the feasibility of recruiting patients whilst hospitalised for an AECOPD, and to identify the rate of dropout attrition around admission for AECOPD.

METHODS

Patients were recruited to the EDGE2 study between May 2019 and March 2020. Patients were identified by the clinical teams and patients were recruited by members of the clinical research team. Participants were aged 40 years or older, had a diagnosis of COPD and were attending or admitted to hospital for an AECOPD. Participants were given a tablet computer, Bluetooth-linked pulse oximeter and wrist-worn physical activity monitor to use until 6 months post-discharge. Use of the system aimed to support COPD self-management by enabling self-monitoring of vital signs, COPD symptoms, mood and physical activity, and access to multi-media educational resources.

RESULTS

281 patients were identified and 126 approached. The main referral source was the specialist respiratory nursing and physiotherapist team (49.8% of patients identified). Twenty-six (37.1%) patients were recruited. As of 21 April 2020, 14 (53.8%) participants withdrew and 11 (of 14; 78.6%) participants withdrew within four weeks of discharge. The remaining participants withdrew between one and three months follow-up (1 of 14; 7.1%) and between three and six months follow-up (2 of 14; 14.3%).

CONCLUSION

A large number of patients were screened to recruit a relatively small sample and a high rate of dropout was observed. It does not appear feasible to recruit patients with COPD to digital interventional studies from the hospital setting when they have the burden of coping with acute illness.

Wearability Testing of Ambulatory Vital Sign Monitoring Devices: Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Background

Timely recognition of patient deterioration remains challenging. Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMSs) may provide support to current monitoring practices; however, they need to be thoroughly tested before implementation in the clinical environment for early detection of deterioration.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the wearability of a selection of commercially available AMSs to inform a future prospective study of ambulatory vital sign monitors in an acute hospital ward.

Methods

Five pulse oximeters (4 with finger probes and 1 wrist-worn only, collecting pulse rates and oxygen saturation) and 2 chest patches (collecting heart rates and respiratory rates) were selected to be part of this study: The 2 chest-worn patches were VitalPatch (VitalConnect) and Peerbridge Cor (Peerbridge); the 4 wrist-worn devices with finger probe were Nonin WristOx2 3150 (Nonin), Checkme O2+ (Viatom Technology), PC-68B, and AP-20 (both from Creative Medical); and the 1 solely wrist-worn device was Wavelet (Wavelet Health). Adult participants wore each device for up to 72 hours while performing usual “activities of daily living” and were asked to score the perceived exertion and perception of pain or discomfort by using the Borg CR-10 scale; thoughts and feelings caused by the AMS using the Comfort Rating Scale (CRS); and to provide general free text feedback. Median and IQRs were reported and nonparametric tests were used to assess differences between the devices’ CRS scores.

Results

Quantitative scores and feedback were collected in 70 completed questionnaires from 20 healthy volunteers, with each device tested approximately 10 times. The Wavelet seemed to be the most wearable device (P<.001) with an overall median (IQR) CRS score of 1.00 (0.88). There were no statistically significant differences in wearability between the chest patches in the CRS total score; however, the VitalPatch was superior in the Attachment section (P=.04) with a median (IQR) score of 3.00 (1.00). General pain and discomfort scores and total percentage of time worn are also reflective of this.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that adult participants prefer to wear wrist-worn pulse oximeters without a probe compressing the fingertip and they prefer to wear a smaller chest patch. A compromise between wearability, reliability, and accuracy should be made for successful and practical integration of AMSs within the hospital environment.

Characteristics, outcomes, and mortality amongst 133,589 patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases diagnosed with, and 48,418 hospitalised for COVID-19: a multinational distributed network cohort analysis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid COVID-19, but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterised 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalisation with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza.

DESIGN

Multinational network cohort study.

SETTING

Electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (NYC, United States [US]), Optum [US], Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (US), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalisation Linked Data (SIDIAP-H) (Spain), and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (US) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) (South Korea).

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalised between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalised with influenza in 2017-2018 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

30-day complications during hospitalisation and death.

RESULTS

We studied 133,589 patients diagnosed and 48,418 hospitalised with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. The majority of participants were female (60.5% to 65.9%) and aged ≥50 years. The most prevalent autoimmune conditions were psoriasis (3.5 to 32.5%), rheumatoid arthritis (3.9 to 18.9%), and vasculitis (3.3 to 17.6%). Amongst hospitalised patients, Type 1 diabetes was the most common autoimmune condition (4.8% to 7.5%) in US databases, rheumatoid arthritis in HIRA (18.9%), and psoriasis in SIDIAP-H (26.4%).Compared to 70,660 hospitalised with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2% to 4.3% versus 6.3% to 24.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with autoimmune diseases had high rates of respiratory complications and 30-day mortality following a hospitalization with COVID-19. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality. Future studies should investigate predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients with autoimmune diseases.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC

Patients with autoimmune conditions may be at increased risk of COVID-19 infection andcomplications.There is a paucity of evidence characterising the outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with prevalent autoimmune conditions.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Most people with autoimmune diseases who required hospitalisation for COVID-19 were women, aged 50 years or older, and had substantial previous comorbidities.Patients who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had prevalent autoimmune diseases had higher prevalence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes as compared to those with prevalent autoimmune diseases who were diagnosed with COVID-19.A variable proportion of 6% to 25% across data sources died within one month of hospitalisation with COVID-19 and prevalent autoimmune diseases.For people with autoimmune diseases, COVID-19 hospitalisation was associated with worse outcomes and 30-day mortality compared to admission with influenza in the 2017-2018 season.

Baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes of 55,270 children and adolescents diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 with influenza in France, Germany, Spain, South Korea and the United States: an international network cohort study

Objectives To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children/adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with COVID-19. Secondly, to describe health outcomes amongst children/adolescents diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza. Design International network cohort. Setting Real-world data from European primary care records (France/Germany/Spain), South Korean claims and US claims and hospital databases. Participants Diagnosed and/or hospitalized children/adolescents with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020; diagnosed with influenza in 2017-2018. Main outcome measures Baseline demographics and comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), and death. Results A total of 55,270 children/adolescents diagnosed and 3,693 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were all more common among those hospitalized vs diagnosed with COVID-19. The most common COVID-19 symptom was fever. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%), and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8% to 37.6%), famotidine (9.0% to 28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0% to 21.4%), heparin (2.2% to 18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8% to 14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort, with undetectable (N<5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia, ARDS, and MIS-C were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. Conclusions Despite negligible fatality, complications including pneumonia, ARDS and MIS-C were more frequent in children/adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differential diagnosis. A wide range of medications were used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19.

Baseline phenotype and 30-day outcomes of people tested for COVID-19: an international network cohort including >3.32 million people tested with real-time PCR and >219,000 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in South Korea, Spain and the United States

Early identification of symptoms and comorbidities most predictive of COVID-19 is critical to identify infection, guide policies to effectively contain the pandemic, and improve health systems' response. Here, we characterised socio-demographics and comorbidity in 3,316,107persons tested and 219,072 persons tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020, and their key health outcomes in the month following the first positive test. Routine care data from primary care electronic health records (EHR) from Spain, hospital EHR from the United States (US), and claims data from South Korea and the US were used. The majority of study participants were women aged 18-65 years old. Positive/tested ratio varied greatly geographically (2.2:100 to 31.2:100) and over time (from 50:100 in February-April to 6.8:100 in May-June). Fever, cough and dyspnoea were the most common symptoms at presentation. Between 4%-38% required admission and 1-10.5% died within a month from their first positive test. Observed disparity in testing practices led to variable baseline characteristics and outcomes, both nationally (US) and internationally. Our findings highlight the importance of large scale characterization of COVID-19 international cohorts to inform planning and resource allocation including testing as countries face a second wave.

Deep phenotyping of 34,128 adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an international network study

Comorbid conditions appear to be common among individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but estimates of prevalence vary and little is known about the prior medication use of patients. Here, we describe the characteristics of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 and compare them with influenza patients. We include 34,128 (US: 8362, South Korea: 7341, Spain: 18,425) COVID-19 patients, summarising between 4811 and 11,643 unique aggregate characteristics. COVID-19 patients have been majority male in the US and Spain, but predominantly female in South Korea. Age profiles vary across data sources. Compared to 84,585 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, COVID-19 patients have more typically been male, younger, and with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. While protecting groups vulnerable to influenza is likely a useful starting point in the response to COVID-19, strategies will likely need to be broadened to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals being hospitalised with COVID-19.

Deep phenotyping of 34,128 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and a comparison with 81,596 influenza patients in America, Europe and Asia: an international network study

Background In this study we phenotyped individuals hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in depth, summarising entire medical histories, including medications, as captured in routinely collected data drawn from databases across three continents. We then compared individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 to those previously hospitalised with influenza. Methods We report demographics, previously recorded conditions and medication use of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the US (Columbia University Irving Medical Center [CUIMC], Premier Healthcare Database [PHD], UCHealth System Health Data Compass Database [UC HDC], and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA OMOP]), in South Korea (Health Insurance Review & Assessment [HIRA]), and Spain (The Information System for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP] and HM Hospitales [HM]). These patients were then compared with patients hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19. Results 34,128 (US: 8,362, South Korea: 7,341, Spain: 18,425) individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 were included. Between 4,811 (HM) and 11,643 (CUIMC) unique aggregate characteristics were extracted per patient, with all summarised in an accompanying interactive website (http://evidence.ohdsi.org/Covid19CharacterizationHospitalization/). Patients were majority male in the US (CUIMC: 52%, PHD: 52%, UC HDC: 54%, VA OMOP: 94%,) and Spain (SIDIAP: 54%, HM: 60%), but were predominantly female in South Korea (HIRA: 60%). Age profiles varied across data sources. Prevalence of asthma ranged from 4% to 15%, diabetes from 13% to 43%, and hypertensive disorder from 24% to 70% across data sources. Between 14% and 33% were taking drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system in the 30 days prior to hospitalisation. Compared to 81,596 individuals hospitalised with influenza in 2014-19, patients admitted with COVID-19 were more typically male, younger, and healthier, with fewer comorbidities and lower medication use. Conclusions We provide a detailed characterisation of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Protecting groups known to be vulnerable to influenza is a useful starting point to minimize the number of hospital admissions needed for COVID-19. However, such strategies will also likely need to be broadened so as to reflect the particular characteristics of individuals hospitalised with COVID-19.

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19: a multinational open science cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could influence infection risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Observational studies to date lack pre-specification, transparency, rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalizability, with contradictory results.

METHODS

Using electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Department of Veterans Affairs), we conducted a systematic cohort study with prevalent ACE, ARB, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and thiazide diuretic (THZ) use to determine relative risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and related hospitalization outcomes. The study addressed confounding through large-scale propensity score adjustment and negative control experiments.

RESULTS

Following over 1.1 million antihypertensive users identified between November 2019 and January 2020, we observed no significant difference in relative COVID-19 diagnosis risk comparing ACE/ARB vs CCB/THZ monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI 0.84 - 1.14), nor any difference for mono/combination use (1.01; 0.90 - 1.15). ACE alone and ARB alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared to CCB/THZ monotherapy or mono/combination use. Directly comparing ACE vs. ARB demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACE, non-significant for monotherapy (0.85; 0.69 - 1.05) and marginally significant for mono/combination users (0.88; 0.79 - 0.99). We observed, however, no significant difference between drug- classes for COVID-19 hospitalization or pneumonia risk across all comparisons.

CONCLUSION

There is no clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization with ACE or ARB use. Users should not discontinue or change their treatment to avoid COVID-19.

Study protocol for an exploratory interventional study investigating the feasibility of video-based non-contact physiological monitoring in healthy volunteers by Mapping Of Lower Limb skIn pErfusion (MOLLIE)

INTRODUCTION

Skin perfusion varies in response to changes in the circulatory status. Blood flow to skin is reduced during haemodynamic collapse secondary to peripheral vasoconstriction, whereas increased skin perfusion is frequently observed when haemodynamics improve with resuscitation. These changes in perfusion may be monitored using non-contact image-based methods. Previous camera-derived physiological measurements have focused on accurate vital signs monitoring and extraction of physiological signals from environmental noise. One of the biggest challenges of camera-derived monitoring is artefacts from motion, which limits our understanding of what parameters may be derived from skin. In this study, we use phenylephrine and glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) to cause vasoconstriction and vasodilation in stationary healthy volunteers to describe directional changes in skin perfusion pattern.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We aim to recruit 30 healthy volunteers who will undergo protocolised infusions of phenylephrine and GTN, followed by the monitored and timed release of a thigh tourniquet. The experimental timeline will be identical for all participants. Measurements of traditionally used haemodynamic markers (heart rate, blood pressure and stroke volume) and camera-derived measurements will be taken concurrently throughout the experimental period. The parameters of interest from the image data are skin colour and pattern, skin surface temperature, pulsatile signal detected at the skin surface and skin perfusion index.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was reviewed and approved by the Oxford University Research and Ethics Committee and Clinical Trials and Research Governance teams (R63796/RE001). The results of this study will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10417167.

Monitoring activity of hip injury patients (MoHIP): a sub-study of the World Hip Trauma Evaluation observational cohort study

Background

Hip fracture is common, affecting 20% of women and 10% of men during their lifetime. The trajectory of patients’ recovery as they transition from the acute hospital setting to their usual residence is poorly understood. Recently, the use of activity trackers to monitor physical activity during recovery has been investigated as a way to explore this trajectory.

Methods

This prospective observational cohort study followed patients from hospital to home as they recovered from a hip fracture. Participants were recruited from a single centre and provided with a 3-axis logging accelerometer worn as a pendant, for 16 weeks from recruitment. Participants received monthly follow-up visits which included questions about wearing the monitor. Monthly activity monitor data were also downloaded. Participant activity was estimated from the monitor data using the calibrated “Euclidean Norm Minus One” (ENMO) metric. Polynomial mixed-effects modelling was used to evaluate the difference between the weekly activity trends of 2 groups of participants: those with and without independent mobility at 16 weeks (defined by whether aids or personal assistance were required to mobilise).

Results

Twenty-nine participants from 125 eligible patients were recruited. Of these, 19 (66%) reported being aware of wearing the monitor at least some of the time. Fourteen (48%) participants withdrew before study completion. Data for thirteen (45%) participants were of sufficient quantity to be included in the activity modelling procedure. Of these, 8 reported independent mobility at 16 weeks post-surgery, and 5 did not. By week 7, the weekly predicted mean ENMO (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {\overline{ENMO}}_W $$\end{document}ENMO¯W) values were significantly different between the two participant groups, demonstrating feasibility of the model’s ability to predict which patients will report independent mobility at 16 weeks.

Conclusions

This is the first study to our knowledge to investigate acceptability and feasibility of a pendant-worn activity monitor in this patient cohort. Acceptability of wearing the monitor and feasibility of recruitment and retention of participants were limited. Future research into the use of activity monitors in this population should use minimally intrusive devices which are acceptable to this population.

Study registration

MoHIP is a sub-study of the World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE) Study (ISRCTN 63982700).

Protocol for a prospective, controlled, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of ambulatory monitoring systems in the prompt detection of hypoxia and during movement

INTRODUCTION

Automated continuous ambulatory monitoring may provide an alternative to intermittent manual vital signs monitoring. This has the potential to improve frequency of measurements, timely escalation of care and patient safety. However, a major barrier to the implementation of these wearable devices in the ward environment is their uncertain reliability, efficiency and data fidelity. The purpose of this study is to test performance of selected devices in a simulated clinical setting including during movement and low levels of peripheral oxygen saturation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single centre, prospective, controlled, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study to determine the specificity and sensitivity of currently available ambulatory vital signs monitoring equipment in the detection of hypoxia and the effect of movement on data acquisition. We will recruit up to 45 healthy volunteers who will attend a single study visit; starting with a movement phase and followed by the hypoxia exposure phase where we will gradually decrease saturation levels down to 80%. We will simultaneously test one chest patch, one wrist worn only and three wrist worn with finger probe devices against 'clinical standard 'and 'gold standard' references. We will measure peripheral oxygen saturations, pulse rate, heart rate and respiratory rate continuously and arterial blood gases intermittently throughout the study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received ethical approval by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service REC 2 (19/ES/0008). The results will be broadly distributed through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN61535692 registered on 10/06/2019.

Living with, managing and minimising treatment burden in long term conditions: a systematic review of qualitative research

BACKGROUND

'Treatment burden', defined as both the workload and impact of treatment regimens on function and well-being, has been associated with poor adherence and unfavourable outcomes. Previous research focused on treatment workload but our understanding of treatment impact is limited. This research aimed to systematically review qualitative research to identify: 1) what are the treatment generated disruptions experienced by patients across all chronic conditions and treatments? 2) what strategies do patients employ to minimise these treatment generated disruptions?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The search strategy centred on: treatment burden and qualitative methods. Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychINFO were searched electronically from inception to Dec 2013. No language limitations were set. Teams of two reviewers independently conducted paper screening, data extraction, and data analysis. Data were analysed using framework synthesis informed by Cumulative Complexity Model. Eleven papers reporting data from 294 patients, across a range of conditions, age groups and nationalities were included. Treatment burdens were experienced as a series of disruptions: biographical disruptions involved loss of freedom and independence, restriction of meaningful activities, negative emotions and stigma; relational disruptions included strained family and social relationships and feeling isolated; and, biological disruptions involved physical side-effects. Patients employed "adaptive treatment work" and "rationalised non-adherence" to minimise treatment disruptions. Rationalised non-adherence was sanctioned by health professionals at end of life; at other times it was a "secret-act" which generated feelings of guilt and impacted on family and clinical relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatments generate negative emotions and physical side effects, strain relationships and affect identity. Patients minimise these disruptions through additional adaptive work and/or by non-adherence. This affects physical outcomes and care relationships. There is a need for clinicians to engage with patients in honest conversations about treatment disruptions and the 'adhere-ability' of recommended regimens. Patient-centred practice requires management plans which optimise outcomes and minimise disruptions.