Dataset Information

Relation of severe COVID-19 in Scotland to transmission-related factors and risk conditions eligible for shielding support: REACT-SCOT case-control study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinically vulnerable individuals have been advised to shield themselves during the COVID-19 epidemic. The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) the rate ratio of severe COVID-19 associated with eligibility for the shielding programme in Scotland across the first and second waves of the epidemic and (2) the relation of severe COVID-19 to transmission-related factors in those in shielding and the general population.

Methods

In a matched case-control design, all 178,578 diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in Scotland from 1 March 2020 to 18 February 2021 were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 1,744,283 controls from the general population. This dataset (REACT-SCOT) was linked to the list of 212,702 individuals identified as eligible for shielding. Severe COVID-19 was defined as cases that entered critical care or were fatal. Rate ratios were estimated by conditional logistic regression.

Results

With those without risk conditions as reference category, the univariate rate ratio for severe COVID-19 was 3.21 (95% CI 3.01 to 3.41) in those with moderate risk conditions and 6.3 (95% CI 5.8 to 6.8) in those eligible for shielding. The highest rate was in solid organ transplant recipients: rate ratio 13.4 (95% CI 9.6 to 18.8). Risk of severe COVID-19 increased with the number of adults but decreased with the number of school-age children in the household. Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with recent exposure to hospital (defined as 5 to 14 days before presentation date): rate ratio 12.3 (95% CI 11.5 to 13.2) overall. The population attributable risk fraction for recent exposure to hospital peaked at 50% in May 2020 and again at 65% in December 2020.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of shielding vulnerable individuals was limited by the inability to control transmission in hospital and from other adults in the household. Mitigating the impact of the epidemic requires control of nosocomial transmission.

SUBMITTER: McKeigue PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8219469 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReports have suggested that the efficacy of vaccines against COVID-19 might have fallen since the delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant replaced the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant as the predominant variant. We aimed to investigate, for the two main classes of vaccine, whether efficacy against severe COVID-19 has decreased since delta became the predominant variant and whether the efficacy of two doses of vaccine against severe COVID-19 wanes with time since second dose.MethodsIn the REACT-SCOT case-control study, vaccine efficacy was estimated using a matched case-control design that includes all diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in Scotland up to Sept 8, 2021. For every incident case of COVID-19 in the Scottish population, ten controls matched for age rounded to the nearest year, sex, and primary care practice, and alive on the day of presentation of the case that they were matched to were selected using the Community Health Index database. To minimise ascertainment bias we prespecified the primary outcome measure to assess vaccine efficacy as severe COVID-19, defined as diagnosed patients with entry to critical care within 21 days of first positive test, death within 28 days of first positive test, or any death for which COVID-19 was coded as underlying cause. Although the data extracted for this study included cases presenting up to Sept 22, 2021, the analyses reported here are restricted to cases and controls presenting from Dec 1, 2020, to Sept 8, 2021, ensuring follow-up for at least 14 days after presentation date to allow classification of hospitalisation and (for most cases) severity based on entry to critical care or fatal outcome.FindingsDuring the study period, a total of 5645 severe cases of COVID-19 were recorded; these were matched to 50 096 controls. Of the severe cases, 4495 (80%) were not vaccinated, and of the controls, 36 879 (74%) were not vaccinated. Of the severe cases of COVID-19 who had been vaccinated, 389 had received an mRNA vaccine and 759 had received the ChAdOx1 vaccine. The efficacy of vaccination against severe COVID-19 decreased in May, 2021, coinciding with the replacement of the alpha SARS-CoV-2 variant by the delta variant in Scotland, but this decrease was reversed over the following month. In the most recent time window centred on July 29, 2021, the efficacy of two doses was 91% (95% CI 87-94) for the ChAdOx1 vaccine and 92% (88-95) for mRNA (Pfizer or Moderna) vaccines. The efficacy of the ChAdOx1 vaccine against severe COVID-19 declined with time since second dose to 69% (95% CI 52-80) at 20 weeks from second dose. The efficacy of mRNA vaccines declined in the first ten weeks from second dose but more slowly thereafter to 93% (88-96) at 20 weeks from second dose.InterpretationOur results are reassuring with respect to concerns that vaccine efficacy against severe COVID-19 might have fallen since the delta variant became predominant, or that efficacy of mRNA vaccines wanes within the first 5-6 months after second dose. However, the efficacy of the ChAdOx1 vaccine against severe COVID-19 wanes substantially by 20 weeks from second dose. Efficacy of mRNA vaccines after 20 weeks and against newer variants remains to be established. Our findings support the case for additional protective measures for those at risk of severe disease, including, but not limited to, booster doses, at times when transmission rates are high or expected to rise.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to investigate the relation of severe COVID-19 to prior drug prescribing.MethodsSevere cases were defined by entry to critical care or fatal outcome. For this matched case-control study (REACT-SCOT), all 4251 cases of severe COVID-19 in Scotland since the start of the epidemic were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 36,738 controls from the population register. Records were linked to hospital discharges since June 2015 and dispensed prescriptions issued in primary care during the last 240 days.ResultsSevere COVID-19 was strongly associated with the number of non-cardiovascular drug classes dispensed. This association was strongest in those not resident in a care home, in whom the rate ratio (95% CI) associated with dispensing of 12 or more drug classes versus none was 10.8 (8.8, 13.3), and in those without any of the conditions designated as conferring increased risk of COVID-19. Of 17 drug classes postulated at the start of the epidemic to be "medications compromising COVID", all were associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 and these associations were present in those without any of the designated risk conditions. The fraction of cases in the population attributable to exposure to these drug classes was 38%. The largest effect was for antipsychotic agents: rate ratio 4.18 (3.42, 5.11). Other drug classes with large effects included proton pump inhibitors (rate ratio 2.20 (1.72, 2.83) for = 2 defined daily doses/day), opioids (3.66 (2.68, 5.01) for = 50 mg morphine equivalent/day) and gabapentinoids. These associations persisted after adjusting for covariates and were stronger with recent than with non-recent exposure.ConclusionsSevere COVID-19 is associated with polypharmacy and with drugs that cause sedation, respiratory depression, or dyskinesia; have anticholinergic effects; or affect the gastrointestinal system. These associations are not easily explained by co-morbidity. Measures to reduce the burden of mortality and morbidity from COVID-19 should include reinforcing existing guidance on reducing overprescribing of these drug classes and limiting inappropriate polypharmacy.RegistrationENCEPP number EUPAS35558.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to lay the basis for risk stratification based on demographic data and health records. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The design was a matched case-control study. Severe COVID-19 was defined as either a positive nucleic acid test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the national database followed by entry to a critical care unit or death within 28 days or a death certificate with COVID-19 as underlying cause. Up to 10 controls per case matched for sex, age, and primary care practice were selected from the national population register. For this analysis-based on ascertainment of positive test results up to 6 June 2020, entry to critical care up to 14 June 2020, and deaths registered up to 14 June 2020-there were 36,948 controls and 4,272 cases, of which 1,894 (44%) were care home residents. All diagnostic codes from the past 5 years of hospitalisation records and all drug codes from prescriptions dispensed during the past 240 days were extracted. Rate ratios for severe COVID-19 were estimated by conditional logistic regression. In a logistic regression using the age-sex distribution of the national population, the odds ratios for severe disease were 2.87 for a 10-year increase in age and 1.63 for male sex. In the case-control analysis, the strongest risk factor was residence in a care home, with rate ratio 21.4 (95% CI 19.1-23.9, p = 8 × 10-644). Univariate rate ratios for conditions listed by public health agencies as conferring high risk were 2.75 (95% CI 1.96-3.88, p = 6 × 10-9) for type 1 diabetes, 1.60 (95% CI 1.48-1.74, p = 8 × 10-30) for type 2 diabetes, 1.49 (95% CI 1.37-1.61, p = 3 × 10-21) for ischemic heart disease, 2.23 (95% CI 2.08-2.39, p = 4 × 10-109) for other heart disease, 1.96 (95% CI 1.83-2.10, p = 2 × 10-78) for chronic lower respiratory tract disease, 4.06 (95% CI 3.15-5.23, p = 3 × 10-27) for chronic kidney disease, 5.4 (95% CI 4.9-5.8, p = 1 × 10-354) for neurological disease, 3.61 (95% CI 2.60-5.00, p = 2 × 10-14) for chronic liver disease, and 2.66 (95% CI 1.86-3.79, p = 7 × 10-8) for immune deficiency or suppression. Seventy-eight percent of cases and 52% of controls had at least one listed condition (51% of cases and 11% of controls under age 40). Severe disease was associated with encashment of at least one prescription in the past 9 months and with at least one hospital admission in the past 5 years (rate ratios 3.10 [95% CI 2.59-3.71] and 2.75 [95% CI 2.53-2.99], respectively) even after adjusting for the listed conditions. In those without listed conditions, significant associations with severe disease were seen across many hospital diagnoses and drug categories. Age and sex provided 2.58 bits of information for discrimination. A model based on demographic variables, listed conditions, hospital diagnoses, and prescriptions provided an additional 1.07 bits (C-statistic 0.804). A limitation of this study is that records from primary care were not available. CONCLUSIONS:We have shown that, along with older age and male sex, severe COVID-19 is strongly associated with past medical history across all age groups. Many comorbidities beyond the risk conditions designated by public health agencies contribute to this. A risk classifier that uses all the information available in health records, rather than only a limited set of conditions, will more accurately discriminate between low-risk and high-risk individuals who may require shielding until the epidemic is over.

Project description:BackgroundBecause cisplatin (CDDP) decreases upon light exposure, it is necessary to prevent such exposure during administration. However, the shielding conditions employed are not uniform. Therefore, in this study, we examined the shielding effects of four shading covers, which are commonly used to ensure the stability of CDDP in clinical settings.MethodsFour shielding conditions, along with a control, were tested under a 1000-Lux white fluorescent lamp at room temperature: aluminum foil (Al), brown shading cover (BSC), yellow shading cover (YSC), milky-white anti-exposure cover (MAC), and no shading cover (NSC). Under each shielding condition, the relationship between the wavelength and transmittance was monitored in the range of 200-800 nm. CDDP was diluted to three concentration levels: 50, 100, and 250 μg/mL. Furthermore, the amount of remaining CDDP and the pH in the solutions were measured for 120 h.ResultsWe found that BSC, YSC, and MAC conditions allowed various levels of transmittance; however, Al could not completely transmit light at all wavelengths. Moreover, we showed that the CDDP decreased under MAC and NSC conditions in a time-dependent manner, whereas this decrease was prevented under Al, BSC, and YSC conditions till 120 h. We also demonstrated increases in pH under MAC and NSC conditions in a time-dependent manner, which was prevented under Al, BSC, and YSC conditions till 120 h. Similar results were observed for all three CDDP concentration levels. The results also indicated the approximate relationship between the amount of remaining CDDP and the pH increase.ConclusionsConsidering the opacity of each cover, our results suggest that BSC and YSC are useful and effective for minimizing CDDP degradation in clinical settings. Our results also indicate the alternatives for preparing, storing, and administering CDDP in clinical facilities, making the treatment schedule more flexible. Cumulatively, these findings indicate that the use of the appropriate shading covers, such as BSC or YSC, prevents the decrease in CDDP under fluorescent lighting, potentially contributing to achieving its full therapeutic effect.

Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is found in regions where dengue (DENV) and chikungunya (CHIKV) viruses are endemic. Any serological cross-reactivity between DENV, CHIKV, and SARS-CoV-2 is significant as it could lead to misdiagnosis, increased severity, or cross-protection. This study examined the potential cross-reactivity of anti-DENV and CHIKV antibodies with SARS-CoV-2 using acute and convalescent-phase samples collected before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. These included healthy, normal human (NHS, n = 6), CHIKV-positive (n = 14 pairs acute and convalescent), primary DENV-positive (n = 20 pairs), secondary DENV-positive (n = 20 pairs), and other febrile illnesses sera (n = 23 pairs). Samples were tested using an in-house SARS-CoV-2 and a EUROIMMUN IgA and IgG ELISAs. All NHS samples were negative, whereas 3.6% CHIKV, 21.7% primary DENV, 15.7% secondary DENV, and 10.8% febrile diseases sera resulted as anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive. The EUROIMMUN ELISA using spike 1 as the antigen detected more positives among the primary DENV infections than the in-house ELISA using spike 1-receptor binding domain (RBD) protein. Among ELISA-positive samples, four had detectable neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reporter virus particles yet none had detectable neutralizing antibodies against the live Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2. These data demonstrated the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic cross-reactivity, but not neutralizing antibody cross-reactivity, among dengue seropositive cases. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 continues to cause significant morbidity globally, including in areas where DENV and CHIKV are endemic. Reports using rapid diagnostic and ELISAs have demonstrated that serological cross-reactivity between DENV and SARS-CoV-2 can occur. Furthermore, it has been observed that convalescent DENV patients are at a lower risk of developing COVID-19. This phenomenon can interfere with the accuracy of serological testing and clinical management of both DENV and COVID-19 patients. In this study, the cross-reactivity of primary/secondary anti-DENV, CHIKV, and other febrile illness antibodies with SARS-CoV-2 using two ELISAs has been shown. Among ELISA-positive samples, four had detectable levels of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reporter virus particles. However, none had detectable neutralizing antibodies against the live Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2. These data demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic cross-reactivity, but not neutralizing antibody cross-reactivity, among dengue seropositive cases. The data discussed here provide information regarding diagnosis and may help guide appropriate public health interventions.

Project description:IntroductionDespite evidence that cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an essential component of care for people with heart failure, uptake is low. A centre-based format is a known barrier, suggesting that home-based programmes might improve accessibility. The aim of SCOT: Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF home-based CR intervention in the context of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland.This paper presents the design and protocol for this observational implementation study. Specific objectives of SCOT:REACH-HF are to: (1) assess service-level facilitators and barriers to the implementation of REACH-HF; (2) compare real-world patient and caregiver outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial; and (3) estimate the economic (health and social) impact of implementing REACH-HF in Scotland.Methods and analysisThe REACH-HF intervention will be delivered in partnership with four 'Beacon sites' across six NHS Scotland Health Boards, covering rural and urban areas. Health professionals from each site will be trained to facilitate delivery of the 12-week programme to 140 people with heart failure and their caregivers. Patient and caregiver outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Assessments include the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), five-dimension EuroQol 5L, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with up to 20 health professionals involved in programme delivery (eg, cardiac nurses, physiotherapists). 65 facilitator-patient consultations will be audio recorded and assessed for fidelity. Integrative analysis will address key research questions on fidelity, context and CR participant-related outcomes. The SCOT:REACH-HF findings will inform the future potential roll-out of REACH-HF in Scotland.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been given ethical approval by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Service (reference 20/WS/0038, approved 25 March 2020). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study is listed on the ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN53784122. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with both General Data Protection Regulations and the University of Glasgow's Research Governance Framework. Findings will be reported to the funder and shared with Beacon Sites, to facilitate service evaluation, planning and good practice. To broaden interest in, and understanding of REACH-HF, we will seek to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals and present at stakeholder events, national and international conferences.