Dataset Information

COVID-19 in critical care: epidemiology of the first epidemic wave across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To describe critical care patients with COVID-19 across England, Wales and Northern Ireland and compare them with a historic cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) and with international cohorts of COVID-19.

Methods

Extracted data on patient characteristics, acute illness severity, organ support and outcomes from the Case Mix Programme, the national clinical audit for adult critical care, for a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 (February to August 2020) are compared with a recent retrospective cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (2017-2019) and with other international cohorts of critical care patients with COVID-19, the latter identified from published reports.

Results

10,834 patients with COVID-19 (70.1% male, median age 60 years, 32.6% non-white ethnicity, 39.4% obese, 8.2% at least one serious comorbidity) were admitted across 289 critical care units. Of these, 36.9% had a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of ≤ 13.3 kPa (≤ 100 mmHg) consistent with severe ARDS and 72% received invasive ventilation. Acute hospital mortality was 42%, higher than for 5782 critical care patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (24.7%), and most COVID-19 deaths (88.7%) occurred before 30 days. Meaningful international comparisons were limited due to lack of standardised reporting.

Conclusion

Critical care patients with COVID-19 were disproportionately non-white, from more deprived areas and more likely to be male and obese. Conventional severity scoring appeared not to adequately reflect their acute severity, with the distribution across PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio categories indicating acutely severe respiratory disease. Critical care patients with COVID-19 experience high mortality and place a great burden on critical care services.

SUBMITTER: Richards-Belle A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7545019 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Although adolescence is a sensitive developmental period in oral health, the social equalization hypothesis that suggests health inequalities attenuate in adolescence has not been examined. This study analyses whether the socioeconomic gap and ethnic disadvantage in oral health among children aged 5 reduces among adolescents aged 15. METHODS:Data from the cross-sectional Children's Dental Health Survey 2013 were analysed, comprising of 8541 children aged 5, 8, 12 and 15 attending schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Oral health indicators included decayed and filled teeth, plaque, gingivitis and periodontal health. Ethnicity was measured using the 2011 UK census ethnic categories. Socioeconomic position was measured by family, school and residential deprivation. Negative binomial and probit regression models estimated the levels of oral health by ethnicity and socioeconomic position, adjusted for demographic and tooth characteristics. RESULTS:The predicted rate of decayed teeth for White British/Irish children aged 5 was 1.54 (95%CI 1.30-1.77). In contrast, the predicted rate for Indian and Pakistani children was about 2-2.5 times higher. At age 15, ethnic differences had reduced considerably. Family deprivation was associated with higher levels of tooth decay among younger children but not among adolescents aged 15. The influence of residential deprivation on the rate of tooth decay and filled teeth was similar among younger and older children. Moreover, inequalities in poor periodontal health by residential deprivation was significantly greater among 15-year-old children compared to younger children. CONCLUSIONS:This study found some evidence of smaller ethnic and family socioeconomic differences in oral health among British adolescents compared to younger children. However, substantial differences in oral health by residential deprivation remain among adolescents. Community levels of deprivation may be particularly important for the health of adolescents.

Project description:Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD), caused by Neisseria meningitidis, can have a fatality rate as high as 10%, even with appropriate treatment. In the UK, penicillin is administered to patients in primary care whilst third generation cephalosporins, cefotaxime and ceftriaxone, are administered in secondary care. The first-choice antibiotic for chemoprophylaxis of close contacts is ciprofloxacin, followed by rifampicin. Immunocompromised individuals are often recommended antibiotic chemoprophylaxis and vaccination due to a greater risk of IMD. Resistance to antibiotics among meningococci is relatively rare, however reduced susceptibility and resistance to penicillin are increasing globally. Resistance to third generation cephalosporins is seldom reported, however reduced susceptibility to both cefotaxime and ceftriaxone has been observed. Rifampicin resistance has been reported among meningococci, mainly following prophylaxis, and ciprofloxacin resistance, whilst uncommon, has also been reported across the globe. The Public Health England Meningococcal Reference Unit receives and characterises the majority of isolates from IMD cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This study assessed the distribution of antibiotic resistance to penicillin, rifampicin, ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime among IMD isolates received at the MRU from 2010/11 to 2018/19 (n = 4,122). Out of the 4,122 IMD isolates, 113 were penicillin-resistant, five were ciprofloxacin-resistant, two were rifampicin-resistant, and one was cefotaxime-resistant. Penicillin resistance was due to altered penA alleles whilst rifampicin and ciprofloxacin resistance was due to altered rpoB and gyrA alleles, respectively. Cefotaxime resistance was observed in one isolate which had an altered penA allele containing additional mutations to those harboured by the penicillin-resistant isolates. This study identified several isolates with resistance to antibiotics used for current treatment and prophylaxis of IMD and highlights the need for continued surveillance of resistance among meningococci to ensure continued effective use.

Project description:BackgroundChanging population-level exposure to modifiable risk factors is a key driver of changing cancer incidence. Understanding these changes is therefore vital when prioritising risk-reduction policies, in order to have the biggest impact on reducing cancer incidence. UK figures on the number of risk factor-attributable cancers are updated here to reflect changing behaviour as assessed in representative national surveys, and new epidemiological evidence. Figures are also presented by UK constituent country because prevalence of risk factor exposure varies between them.MethodsPopulation attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated for combinations of risk factor and cancer type with sufficient/convincing evidence of a causal association. Relative risks (RRs) were drawn from meta-analyses of cohort studies where possible. Prevalence of exposure to risk factors was obtained from nationally representative population surveys. Cancer incidence data for 2015 were sourced from national data releases and, where needed, personal communications. PAF calculations were stratified by age, sex and risk factor exposure level and then combined to create summary PAFs by cancer type, sex and country.ResultsNearly four in ten (37.7%) cancer cases in 2015 in the UK were attributable to known risk factors. The proportion was around two percentage points higher in UK males (38.6%) than in UK females (36.8%). Comparing UK countries, the attributable proportion was highest in Scotland (41.5% for persons) and lowest in England (37.3% for persons). Tobacco smoking contributed by far the largest proportion of attributable cancer cases, followed by overweight/obesity, accounting for 15.1% and 6.3%, respectively, of all cases in the UK in 2015. For 10 cancer types, including two of the five most common cancer types in the UK (lung cancer and melanoma skin cancer), more than 70% of UK cancer cases were attributable to known risk factors.ConclusionTobacco and overweight/obesity remain the top contributors of attributable cancer cases. Tobacco smoking has the highest PAF because it greatly increases cancer risk and has a large number of cancer types associated with it. Overweight/obesity has the second-highest PAF because it affects a high proportion of the UK population and is also linked with many cancer types. Public health policy may seek to mitigate the level of harm associated with exposure or reduce exposure levels-both approaches may effectively impact cancer incidence. Differences in PAFs between countries and sexes are primarily due to varying prevalence of exposure to risk factors and varying proportions of specific cancer types. This variation in turn is affected by socio-demographic differences which drive differences in exposure to theoretically avoidable 'lifestyle' factors. PAFs at UK country level have not been available previously and they should be used by policymakers in devolved nations. PAFs are estimates based on the best available data, limitations in those data would generally bias toward underestimation of PAFs. Regular collection of risk factor exposure prevalence data which corresponds with epidemiological evidence is vital for analyses like this and should remain a priority for the UK Government and devolved Administrations.