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

INTRODUCTION

The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures.

METHODS

In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025.

FINDINGS

Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2-6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5-5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4-10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32-4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23-11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation.

INTERPRETATION

After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Implementation and Effectiveness of a Learning Collaborative to Improve Palliative Care for Seriously Ill Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Limited implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis may contribute to end-of-life care that is intensive and not patient centered. We determined whether a learning collaborative for hemodialysis center providers improved delivery of palliative care best practices.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Ten US hemodialysis centers participated in a pre-post study targeting seriously ill patients between April 2019 and September 2020. Three practices were prioritized: screening for serious illness, goals of care discussions, and use of a palliative dialysis care pathway. The collaborative educational bundle consisted of learning sessions, communication skills training, and implementation support. The primary outcome was change in the probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients. Health care utilization was a secondary outcome, and implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and penetration were assessed using mixed methods.

RESULTS

One center dropped out due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Among the remaining nine centers, 20% (273 of 1395) of patients were identified as seriously ill preimplementation, and 16% (203 of 1254) were identified as seriously ill postimplementation. From the preimplementation to postimplementation period, the adjusted probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients increased by 34.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 4.4 to 68.5). There was no difference in mortality or in utilization of palliative hemodialysis, hospice referral, or hemodialysis discontinuation. Screening for serious illness was widely adopted, and goals of care discussions were adopted with incomplete integration. There was limited adoption of a palliative dialysis care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

A learning collaborative for hemodialysis centers spanning the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was associated with adoption of serious illness screening and goals of care discussions as well as improved documentation of advance care planning for seriously ill patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

Pathways Project: Kidney Supportive Care, NCT04125537.

Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of long COVID and association with 1-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

No effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions exist for patients with long COVID. We aimed to describe recovery 1 year after hospital discharge for COVID-19, identify factors associated with patient-perceived recovery, and identify potential therapeutic targets by describing the underlying inflammatory profiles of the previously described recovery clusters at 5 months after hospital discharge.

METHODS

The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study recruiting adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and 1 year after hospital discharge, and stratified by both patient-perceived recovery and recovery cluster. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at 1 year. Cluster analysis was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at 5 months. Inflammatory protein profiling was analysed from plasma at the 5-month visit. This study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10980107, and recruitment is ongoing.

FINDINGS

2320 participants discharged from hospital between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 (32·7%) participants completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits. 279 (35·6%) of these 807 patients were women and 505 (64·4%) were men, with a mean age of 58·7 (SD 12·5) years, and 224 (27·8%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation (WHO class 7-9). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between 5 months (501 [25·5%] of 1965) and 1 year (232 [28·9%] of 804). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at 1 year were female sex (odds ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·46-0·99]), obesity (0·50 [0·34-0·74]) and invasive mechanical ventilation (0·42 [0·23-0·76]). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate with cognitive impairment, and mild, relating to the severity of physical health, mental health, and cognitive impairment at 5 months. We found increased inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters compared with the mild cluster, including IL-6 concentration, which was increased in both comparisons (n=626 participants). We found a substantial deficit in median EQ-5D-5L utility index from before COVID-19 (retrospective assessment; 0·88 [IQR 0·74-1·00]), at 5 months (0·74 [0·64-0·88]) to 1 year (0·75 [0·62-0·88]), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at 1 year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters.

INTERPRETATION

The sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 were substantial 1 year after discharge across a range of health domains, with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient-perceived health-related quality of life was reduced at 1 year compared with before hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Effectiveness of a Lay Navigation Program in an Academic Cancer Center

PURPOSE

A navigation program with lay navigators that targets patients with cancer who are receiving multiple treatment modalities was launched with the goal of improving care coordination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Pseudo-randomization and mixed methods were used to evaluate the program: patients with even-numbered medical records were assigned to navigation help, and patients with odd-numbered medical records made up the control group. Eligible patients were those scheduled to receive at least two treatment modalities. Intent-to-treat, as-treated, and high-user cohorts with propensity matched controls were used to assess the outcomes: patient experience, emergency room (ER) use, and unplanned hospitalizations. In-depth patient interviews explored how and why patients interacted with the navigator program and overall patient experience.

RESULTS

Marginally lower incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for both ER visits (IRR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.36) and unplanned hospitalizations (IRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.43) occurred in as-treated patients who used navigation help and who lived within 50 miles of Stanford Hospital compared with their matched controls; other cohort analyses had similar results. Survey scores for patients who received help with navigation did not differ significantly from those for corresponding controls in any of the analytic cohorts. Patient interviews suggested that the navigation program had low visibility among patients and that lay navigators drove use of the program. Patient-reported positive experiences included getting help with complex scheduling, alleviating anxiousness through access to information and educational resources, and getting help with activities outside traditional health care; negative experiences stemmed from having expectations that were not met.

CONCLUSION

Marginally lower rates of ER visits and unplanned hospitalizations for a small subset of patients, low penetration of the navigation program, and mixed comments from patient interviews suggest that a navigation program with a broad scope that targets a large population is not effective. Modifying the program to have a narrower scope of practice may help better target anxious or high-risk patients.

Optimum hospice at home services for end-of-life care: protocol of a mixed-methods study employing realist evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Hospice at home (HAH) services aim to enable patients to be cared for and die in their place of choice, if that is at home, and to achieve a 'good death'. There is a considerable range of HAH services operating in England. The published evidence focuses on evaluations of individual services which vary considerably, and there is a lack of consistency in terms of the outcome measures reported. The evidence, therefore, does not provide generalisable information, so the question 'What are the features of hospice at home service models that work, for whom, and under what circumstances?' remains unanswered. The study aims to answer this question.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a mixed-methods study in three phases informed by realist evaluation methodology. All HAH services in England will be invited to participate in a telephone survey to enable the development of a typology of services. In the second phase, case study sites representing the different service types will collect patient data and recruit carers, service managers and commissioners to gather quantitative and qualitative data about service provision and outcomes. A third phase will synthesise and refine the results through consensus workshops.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The first survey phase has university ethics approval and the second phase, Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and Health Research Authority (HRA) approval (IRAS ID:205986, REC:17/LO/0880); the third phase does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will be facilitated by project coapplicants with established connections to national policy-making forums, in addition to publications, conference presentations and reports targeted to service providers and commissioners.

Preferences for end of life: views of hospice patients, family carers, and community nurse specialists

An exploratory qualitative study was undertaken with the aim of identifying issues around discussing and recording preferences on place of death from the perspective of hospice patients, carers, and hospice community nurses. A purposive sample was selected from three hospices in the south east of England of six community nurse specialists (CNSs), five patients, five carers, and five bereaved carers. The patients and carers said it was important to them to discuss their preferences, but they acknowledged that discussing dying was difficult. The CNSs stated that there were several barriers that inhibited end-of-life discussions and that discussing preferences was not always a primary goal of care planning. It was felt among the service users, particularly the bereaved carers, that having more knowledge about what to expect of the dying process, knowing their relative's wishes, and understanding the role of hospice and palliative care could improve the experience of events leading up to death.

A retrospective analysis of preferred and actual place of death for hospice patients

The purpose of this study was to explore recording rates of preferences, and the preferred and actual place of death among hospice patients. Data was collected retrospectively from a group of three hospices over a 6-month period. Of 298 patients, 174 patients (58.4%) had no expressed preference for place of death. The congruence of preferred and actual place of death was: home 52.5%; hospice 86.2%; hospital 100%; and care home 50%. The overall congruence was 61.7% and kappa value was 0.38 (0.23-0.52, 95% confidence interval). The low rate of expressed preferences suggests that congruence of preferred and actual place of death was a suitable outcome measurement for less than half of hospice patients. A wider range of patient-focused indicators for identifying the quality of end-of life services is needed as preferred place of death may not be the only suitable indicator for all patients.