Differences in HADS and SF-36 scores 1 year after critical illness in COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tallarico RT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9267703 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe correlates of COVID-19 illness severity following infection with SARS-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are incompletely understood.MethodsWe assessed peripheral blood gene expression in 53 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection clinically adjudicated as having mild, moderate or severe disease. Supervised principal components analysis was used to build a weighted gene expression risk score (WGERS) to discriminate between severe and non-severe COVID.ResultsGene expression patterns in participants with mild and moderate illness were similar, but significantly different from severe illness. When comparing severe versus non-severe illness, we identified >4000 genes differentially expressed (FDR<0.05). Biological pathways increased in severe COVID-19 were associated with platelet activation and coagulation, and those significantly decreased with T cell signaling and differentiation. A WGERS based on 18 genes distinguished severe illness in our training cohort (cross-validated ROC-AUC=0.98), and need for intensive care in an independent cohort (ROC-AUC=0.85). Dichotomizing the WGERS yielded 100% sensitivity and 85% specificity for classifying severe illness in our training cohort, and 84% sensitivity and 74% specificity for defining the need for intensive care in the validation cohort.ConclusionThese data suggest that gene expression classifiers may provide clinical utility as predictors of COVID-19 illness severity.
| S-EPMC8767880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The correlates of COVID-19 illness severity following infection with SARS-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are incompletely understood. We assessed peripheral blood gene expression in 53 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection clinically adjudicated as having mild, moderate or severe disease. Supervised principal components analysis was used to build a weighted gene expression risk score (WGERS) to discriminate between severe and non-severe COVID. Gene expression patterns in participants with mild and moderate illness were similar, but significantly different from severe illness. When comparing severe versus non-severe illness, we identified >4000 genes differentially expressed (FDR<0.05). Biological pathways increased in severe COVID-19 were associated with platelet activation and coagulation, and those significantly decreased with T cell signaling and differentiation. A WGERS based on 18 genes distinguished severe illness in our training cohort (cross-validated ROC-AUC=0.98), and need for intensive care in an independent cohort (ROC-AUC=0.85). Dichotomizing the WGERS yielded 100% sensitivity and 85% specificity for classifying severe illness in our training cohort, and 84% sensitivity and 74% specificity for defining the need for intensive care in the validation cohort. These data suggest that gene expression classifiers may provide clinical utility as predictors of COVID-19 illness severity.
| S-EPMC8404885 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9123802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges in critical care medicine, including extreme demand for intensive care unit (ICU) resources and rapidly evolving understanding of a novel disease. Up to one-third of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 experience critical illness. The most common form of organ failure in COVID-19 critical illness is acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, which clinically presents as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in three-quarters of ICU patients. Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are being used with increasing frequency given their potential to reduce the need for intubation. Determining optimal patient selection for and timing of intubation remains a challenge. Management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 largely mirrors that of non-COVID-19 ARDS. Organ failure is common and portends a poor prognosis. Mortality rates have improved over the course of the pandemic, likely owing to increasing disease familiarity, data-driven pharmacologics, and improved adherence to evidence-based critical care.
| S-EPMC8795486 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST416 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine change in health-related quality of life in association with clinical outcomes of neuropsychiatric events in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsAn international study evaluated newly diagnosed SLE patients for neuropsychiatric events attributed to SLE and non-SLE causes. The outcome of events was determined by a physician-completed seven-point scale and compared with patient-completed Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaires. Statistical analysis used linear mixed-effects regression models with patient-specific random effects.Results274 patients (92% female; 68% Caucasian), from a cohort of 1400, had one or more neuropsychiatric event in which the interval between assessments was 12.3 ± 2 months. The overall difference in change between visits in mental component summary (MCS) scores of the SF-36 was significant (p<0.0001) following adjustments for gender, ethnicity, centre and previous score. A consistent improvement in neuropsychiatric status (N=295) was associated with an increase in the mean (SD) adjusted MCS score of 3.66 (0.89) in SF-36 scores. Between paired visits when the neuropsychiatric status consistently deteriorated (N=30), the adjusted MCS score decreased by 4.00 (1.96). For the physical component summary scores the corresponding changes were +1.73 (0.71) and -0.62 (1.58) (p<0.05), respectively. Changes in SF-36 subscales were in the same direction (p<0.05; with the exception of role physical). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Adjustment for age, education, medications, SLE disease activity, organ damage, disease duration, attribution and characteristics of neuropsychiatric events did not substantially alter the results.ConclusionChanges in SF-36 summary and subscale scores, in particular those related to mental health, are strongly associated with the clinical outcome of neuropsychiatric events in SLE patients.
| S-EPMC3795436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare disease with a median survival of 3-5 years after diagnosis with limited treatment options. The aim of this study is to assess the psychometric characteristics of the Short Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) in IPF and to provide disease specific minimally important differences (MID).MethodsData source was the European IPF Registry (eurIPFreg). The psychometric properties of the SF-36 version 2 were evaluated based on objective clinical measures as well as subjective perception. We analysed acceptance, feasibility, discrimination ability, construct and criterion validity, responsiveness and test-retest-reliability. MIDs were estimated via distribution and anchor-based approaches.ResultsThe study population included 258 individuals (73.3% male; mean age 67.3 years, SD 10.7). Of them 75.2% (194 individuals) had no missing item. The distribution of several items was skewed, although floor effect was acceptable. Physical component score (PCS) correlated significantly and moderately with several anchors, whereas the correlations of mental component score (MCS) and anchors were only small. The tests showed mainly significant lower HRQL in individuals with long-term oxygen therapy. Analyses in stable individuals did not show significant changes of HRQL except for one dimension and anchor. Individuals with relevant changes of the health status based on the anchors had significant changes in all SF-36 dimensions and summary scales except for the dimension PAIN. PCS and MCS had mean MIDs of five and six, respectively. Mean MIDs of the dimensions ranged from seven to 21.ConclusionIt seems that the SF-36 is a valid instrument to measure HRQL in IPF and so can be used in RCTs or individual monitoring of disease. Nevertheless, the additional evaluation of longitudinal aspects and MIDs can be recommended to further analyse these factors. Our findings have a great potential impact on the evaluation of IPF patients.Trial registrationThe eurIPFreg and eurIPFbank are listed in https://clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02951416 ).
| S-EPMC6397447 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7972647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRecent cohort studies have identified obesity as a risk factor for poor outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To further explore the relationship between obesity and critical illness in COVID-19, the association of BMI with baseline demographic and intensive care unit (ICU) parameters, laboratory values, and outcomes in a critically ill patient cohort was examined.MethodsIn this retrospective study, the first 277 consecutive patients admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital ICUs with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were examined. BMI class, initial ICU laboratory values, physiologic characteristics including gas exchange and ventilatory mechanics, and ICU interventions as clinically available were measured. Mortality, length of ICU admission, and duration of mechanical ventilation were also measured.ResultsThere was no difference found in respiratory system compliance or oxygenation between patients with and without obesity. Patients without obesity had higher initial ferritin and D-dimer levels than patients with obesity. Standard acute respiratory distress syndrome management, including prone ventilation, was equally distributed between BMI groups. There was no difference found in outcomes between BMI groups, including 30- and 60-day mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsIn this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, obesity was not associated with meaningful differences in respiratory physiology, inflammatory profile, or clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC8014725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the presence of chronic critical illness (CCI) in COVID-19 patients and compare clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with and without CCI admitted to intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsIt was a retrospective, observational study at a university hospital ICU. Patients were accepted as CCI if they had prolonged ICU stay (≥14 days) and got ≥1 score for cardiovascular sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and ≥2 score in other parameters on day 14 of ICU admission which was described as persistent organ dysfunction.Results131 of 397 (33%) patients met CCI criteria. CCI patients were older (p = 0.003) and frailer (p < 0.001). Their Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and SOFA scores were higher, PaO2/FiO2 ratio was lower (p < 0.001). Requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), steroid use, and septic shock on admission were higher in the CCI group (p < 0.001). CCI patients had higher ICU and hospital mortality than other patients (54.2% vs. 19.9% and 55.7% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.001, respectively). Regression analysis revealed that IMV (OR: 8.40, [5.10-13.83], p < 0.001) and PaO2/FiO2 < 150 on admission (OR: 2.25, [1.36-3.71], p = 0.002) were independent predictors for CCI.DiscussionOne-third of the COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU were considered as CCI with significantly higher ICU and hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC9996170 | biostudies-literature