Search

Background: Fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) is widely used in critically ill patients, despite a weak evidence base. Factors that influence the decision to transfuse FFP before intravascular catheter insertion are poorly described.Methods: We undertook a case-controlled study based on a prospective cohort study of 1923 admissions to 29 intensive care units in the UK. Non-bleeding patients with an international normalized ratio (INR) ≥1.5 who underwent intravascular catheterization, but no other invasive procedure, were identified. We compared patient characteristics, illness-related factors, and biochemical and haematological variables between patients who did or did not receive pre-procedural FFP.Results: One hundred and eighty-six patients fulfilled the criteria; 26 received FFP during the 24 h before line insertion (cases) and 160 did not (controls). Factors associated with greater use of prophylactic FFP by clinicians were pre-existing chronic liver disease (P=0.01), higher serum bilirubin before procedure (P=0.01), lower platelet count (P=0.01), higher activated partial thromboplastin time (P=0.001), lower fibrinogen (P=0.01), and concurrent red cell transfusion despite the absence of bleeding (P=0.001). There was no difference in pre-procedural INR [median (1st, 3rd quartile) cases: 1.95 (1.85, 2.6); controls 1.8 (1.6, 2.3); P=0.19]. The mean FFP dose was 11.1 ml kg(-1) (sd 5.7 ml kg(-1)); 53.8% of cases were transfused <10 ml kg(-1).Conclusions: Chronic liver disease and more abnormal coagulation tests were associated with greater probability of pre-procedural FFP administration before vascular catheterization, whereas the severity of prothrombin time prolongation alone was not. FFP was more likely to be administered when red cells were also transfused, even in the absence of bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring supplemental oxygen, dexamethasone reduces acute severity and improves survival, but longer-term effects are unknown. We hypothesised that systemic corticosteroid administration during acute COVID-19 would be associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 1 year after discharge., Methods: Adults admitted to hospital between February 2020 and March 2021 for COVID-19 and meeting current guideline recommendations for dexamethasone treatment were included using two prospective UK cohort studies (Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium). HRQoL, assessed by the EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels utility index (EQ-5D-5L UI), pre-hospital and 1 year after discharge were compared between those receiving corticosteroids or not after propensity weighting for treatment. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported recovery, physical and mental health status, and measures of organ impairment. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for survival and selection bias., Findings: Of the 1888 participants included in the primary analysis, 1149 received corticosteroids. There was no between-group difference in EQ-5D-5L UI at 1 year (mean difference 0.004, 95% CI -0.026-0.034). A similar reduction in EQ-5D-5L UI was seen at 1 year between corticosteroid exposed and nonexposed groups (mean±sd change -0.12±0.22 versus -0.11±0.22). Overall, there were no differences in secondary outcome measures. After sensitivity analyses modelled using a cohort of 109 318 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, EQ-5D-5L UI at 1 year remained similar between the two groups., Interpretation: Systemic corticosteroids for acute COVID-19 have no impact on the large reduction in HRQoL 1 year after hospital discharge. Treatments to address the persistent reduction in HRQoL are urgently needed., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: O.C. Leavy declares that their institute received joint funding from UKRI and NIHR (MR/V027859/1 and COV0319) to complete this work. A.B. Docherty declares that they were awarded funding from a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (216606/Z/19/Z) to complete this work. A Sheikh declares that their institute was awarded grant funding from NIHR and UKRI to complete this work; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca's Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce; and leadership or fiduciary roles for UK and Scottish Government COVID-19 advisory groups. C.E. Bolton declares that their institute received grant funding from NIHR/UKRI and NIHR to complete this work; and their institute received grant funding from Nottingham Hospitals Charity and University of Nottingham. G. Choudhury declares funding from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; received honoraria for delivering talks from GSK, AZ, Chiesi and BI; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board as Chair on the Act on COPD Programme for AZ in Scotland; and a leadership or fiduciary role as Chair for the Lothian Respiratory Managed Clinical Network. N.D. Bakerly declares they have received nonrestrictive educational grants from Chiesi, AZ and Teva for attending conferences; honoraria from Teva, AZ and GSK; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Chiesi and AZ; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Teva; and receipt of equipment from Global Access Diagnostics (previously Mologic Inc). A. Shikotra declares that their institute was awarded joint funding from UKRI and the NIHR (MR/V027859/1 and COV0319) to complete this work. R. Aul declares lecture fees and support for attending a meeting from Boehringer Ingelheim. C. Echevarria declares a grant from GSK. J.R. Hurst declares funding from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; payment for lectures and presentations from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Sanofi and Takeda; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca; and receipt of equipment from Nonin. M. Jones declares funding from the MRC to complete this work; funding from the MRC, British Lung Foundation and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees from Skyhawk Therapeutics; and a leadership or fiduciary role in the AAIR Charity Scientific Committee. P. Pfeffer declares funding from NIHR. S. Rowland-Jones declares that their institute received funding from UKRI to complete this work; and their institute received funding from NIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research centre, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UKRI (MRC) and EDCTP. D. Parekh declares funding from NIHR and MRC; and a leadership or fiduciary role for the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine Board. A.A.R. Thompson declares that their institute was awarded a fellowship from the British Heart Foundation, and grant funding from Heart Research UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research; payment for lectures and presentations from Janssen-Cilag Ltd; and support for attending meetings from Janssen-Cilag Ltd. M.J. Davies declares grant funding from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi; payment for speaking for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Napp Pharmaceuticals and Novartis; and is an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Lexicon, Pfizer, Medtronic and ShouTi Pharma Inc., and Zealand Pharma. A. De Soyza declares that their institute was awarded grant funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, GSK, Chiesi, Novartis and Pfizer, outside the submitted manuscript; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, GSK, Chiesi, Novartis, Pfizer, Insmed and Gilead; payment for lectures and presentations from AstraZeneca, Bayer, GSK, Chiesi, Novartis, Pfizer, Insmed, Gilead and 30T; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Bayer; and receipt of drugs from GSK outside the submitted manuscript. S. Heller declares consulting fees from NovoNordisk; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly with payments made to their institution. J. Jacob declares funding from Gilead, Microsoft Research and GlaxoSmithKline; consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline and NHSX; payment for lectures and presentations received from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim; patents planned, issued or pending (UK patent application number 2113765.8 and UK patent application number GB2211487.0); and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche. R.G. Jenkins declares that their institute received funding from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Galecto, GlaxoSmithKline, Nordic Biosciences, RedX and Pliant; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Brainomix, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Cohbar, Daewoong, GlaxoSmithKline, Veracyte, Resolution Therapeutics and Pliant; payment for lectures and presentations received from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Roche, PatientMPower and AstraZeneca; payment for expert testimony from Pinsent Masons LLP; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos and Vicore; and a leadership or fiduciary role for NuMedii and is president for Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis. W.D-C. Man declares that their institute received funding from National Institute for Health Research and NHS Accelerated Access Collaborative; and is Honorary President of the Association for Respiratory Technology and Physiology, and an associate editor of ERJ Open Research. G.P. McCann declares funding from NIHR (RP-2017-ST2-007) to complete this work; funding from the British Heart Foundation, Wellcome Trust and NIHR; and research support from Resonance Health, Circle CVi and Perspectum. S. Neubauer declares grant funding from Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research centre. P.J.M. Openshaw declares funding from UKRI-MRC/DHSC NIHR and UKRI-BEIS. M.J. Rowland declares support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis Pharmaceuticals; stock or stock options from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Roche Pharmaceuticals; and is employed full time as a Senior Clinical Development Medical Director at Novartis Pharmaceuticals. J. Porter declares funding from Breathing Matters and UCL/H BRC (NIHR), and consulting fees from The Limbic. L.G. Heaney declares that their institute received funding from GSK, AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech; payment for lectures received from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Circassia, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Teva; support to travel to meetings from AstraZeneca and GSK; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novartis, Roche/Genentech, GSK, Teva and Celltrion; and funding from the NIHR (RfPB grant PB-PG-0317-20032). J.T. Scott declares funding from UKRI. M.G. Semple declares grant funding from National Institute of Health Research UK, Medical Research Council UK and Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and University of Liverpool to complete this work; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Pfizer; leadership or fiduciary roles as Chair of Infectious Disease Scientific Advisory Board Integrum Scientific LLC and Director of MedEx Solutions Ltd; stock or stock options as minority owner of Integrum Scientific LLC and majority owner of MedEx Solutions Ltd; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA; and is a nonremunerated independent member of HMG UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), COVID-19 Response (March 2020 to March 2022) and a nonremunerated independent member of HMG UK New Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) (2014 to July 2023). S.J. Singh declares grants or contracts from NIHR (programme grant (NIHR 202020), Wellcome Doctoral Training Programme, HTA Project Grant (NIHR 131015), NIHR DHSC/UKRI COVID-19 Rapid Response Initiative, NIHR Global Research Group (NIHR 17/63/20)), Actegy Limited and NIHR Senior Investigator; payment for presentations for GSK, Ministry of Justice, CIPLA, Sherbourne Gibbs; participation on NICE Expert Adviser Panel (long COVID), Wales Long COVID Advisory Board and NHS-E Long Covid Your Covid Recovery working group; and leadership or fiduciary roles as ATS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly Chair, Clinical Lead RCP Pulmonary Rehabilitation Accreditation Scheme and Clinical Lead NACAP Audit for Pulmonary Rehabilitation. M. Toshner declares grant funding from the NIHR Cambridge BRC and NIHR HTA to complete this work; consulting fees from Janssen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK and Janssen; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for ComCov and FluCov. A. Horsley declares that their institute was awarded funding from UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027859/1), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (COV0319) and NIHR Manchester BRC; and is Chair for the NIHR Translational Research Collaboration. M. Marks declares that their institute received joint funding from UKRI and NIHR to complete this work. K. Poinasamy declares funding from UKRI and NIHR to complete this work. A. Briggs declares consulting fees from Roche, Merck, Sanofi and GSK. J.K. Quint declares that their institute received funding from the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, the Medical Research Council, Health Data Research, GSK, BI, Asthma+Lung UK and AZ; and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Evidera, Chiesi, AstraZeneca and Insmed. J.D. Chalmers declares funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Gilead Sciences, Insmed, Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Gilead Sciences, Insmed, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, Antabio, Zambon and Trudell; and leadership or fiduciary roles as Chief Editor of the European Respiratory Journal and associate editor of ERJ Open Research, Chair of the British Thoracic Society Science and Research Committee, and Trustee of the British Thoracic Society. L.V. Wain declares funding from UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027859/1), GSK/Asthma+Lung UK (Professorship (C17-1)) and National Institute of Health Research (COV0319) to complete this work; funding from Orion Pharma, GSK, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Nordic Bioscience and Sysmex (OGT); consulting fees Galapagos, Boehringer Ingelheim and GSK; support for attending meetings and/or travel Genentech; participation on Advisory Board for Galapagos; leadership or fiduciary roles as an associate editor for the European Respiratory Journal, and Medical Research Council Board member and Deputy Chair. C.E. Brightling declares that their institute received grant funding from MRC/NIHR and NIHR to complete this work; their institute received grant funding from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, Genentech, BI, Novartis, Chiesi, 4Dpharma and Mologic; and consulting fees from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, Genentech, BI, Novartis, Chiesi, 4Dpharma, Mologic and Areteia. R.A. Evans declares funding from UKRI/MRC/NIHR to complete this work; funding from Wolfson Foundation and Genentech/Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca/Evidera; speaking fees from Boehringer and Moderna; support for attending meetings from Chiesi; and leadership or fiduciary roles as ERS Group 01.02 Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Chronic Care Secretary, and ATS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly Chair. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Background: COVID-19 is known to be associated with increased risks of cognitive and psychiatric outcomes after the acute phase of disease. We aimed to assess whether these symptoms can emerge or persist more than 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, to identify which early aspects of COVID-19 illness predict longer-term symptoms, and to establish how these symptoms relate to occupational functioning., Methods: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) who were hospitalised with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 at participating National Health Service hospitals across the UK. In the C-Fog study, a subset of PHOSP-COVID participants who consented to be recontacted for other research were invited to complete a computerised cognitive assessment and clinical scales between 2 years and 3 years after hospital admission. Participants completed eight cognitive tasks, covering eight cognitive domains, from the Cognitron battery, in addition to the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale, and the 20-item Cognitive Change Index (CCI-20) questionnaire to assess subjective cognitive decline. We evaluated how the absolute risks of symptoms evolved between follow-ups at 6 months, 12 months, and 2-3 years, and whether symptoms at 2-3 years were predicted by earlier aspects of COVID-19 illness. Participants completed an occupation change questionnaire to establish whether their occupation or working status had changed and, if so, why. We assessed which symptoms at 2-3 years were associated with occupation change. People with lived experience were involved in the study., Findings: 2469 PHOSP-COVID participants were invited to participate in the C-Fog study, and 475 participants (191 [40·2%] females and 284 [59·8%] males; mean age 58·26 [SD 11·13] years) who were discharged from one of 83 hospitals provided data at the 2-3-year follow-up. Participants had worse cognitive scores than would be expected on the basis of their sociodemographic characteristics across all cognitive domains tested (average score 0·71 SD below the mean [IQR 0·16-1·04]; p<0·0001). Most participants reported at least mild depression (263 [74·5%] of 353), anxiety (189 [53·5%] of 353), fatigue (220 [62·3%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (184 [52·1%] of 353), and more than a fifth reported severe depression (79 [22·4%] of 353), fatigue (87 [24·6%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (88 [24·9%] of 353). Depression, anxiety, and fatigue were worse at 2-3 years than at 6 months or 12 months, with evidence of both worsening of existing symptoms and emergence of new symptoms. Symptoms at 2-3 years were not predicted by the severity of acute COVID-19 illness, but were strongly predicted by the degree of recovery at 6 months (explaining 35·0-48·8% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); by a biocognitive profile linking acutely raised D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits at 6 months (explaining 7·0-17·2% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); and by anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive deficit at 6 months. Objective cognitive deficits at 2-3 years were not predicted by any of the factors tested, except for cognitive deficits at 6 months, explaining 10·6% of their variance. 95 of 353 participants (26·9% [95% CI 22·6-31·8]) reported occupational change, with poor health being the most common reason for this change. Occupation change was strongly and specifically associated with objective cognitive deficits (odds ratio [OR] 1·51 [95% CI 1·04-2·22] for every SD decrease in overall cognitive score) and subjective cognitive decline (OR 1·54 [1·21-1·98] for every point increase in CCI-20)., Interpretation: Psychiatric and cognitive symptoms appear to increase over the first 2-3 years post-hospitalisation due to both worsening of symptoms already present at 6 months and emergence of new symptoms. New symptoms occur mostly in people with other symptoms already present at 6 months. Early identification and management of symptoms might therefore be an effective strategy to prevent later onset of a complex syndrome. Occupation change is common and associated mainly with objective and subjective cognitive deficits. Interventions to promote cognitive recovery or to prevent cognitive decline are therefore needed to limit the functional and economic impacts of COVID-19., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Wolfson Foundation, MQ Mental Health Research, MRC-UK Research and Innovation, and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AHa is co-director and owner of H2CD, and owner and director of Future Cognition, which support online studies and develop custom cognitive assessment software, respectively. PJHe is director and CEO of H2CD. JDC declares grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Insmed, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, and Genentech; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Insmed, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Chiesi, Zambon, and Genentech. L-PH declares grants to their institution from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Regenerative Medicine Platform, Celgene, British Lung Foundation, and Oxford Boehringer Ingleheim; the author is on the advisory board for the CATALYST trial and acts as chair of the Respiratory Translational Research Collaboration. AHo declares a grant to their institution from UKRI and the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to complete this work, funding from NIHR Manchester Clinical Research Facility to support study delivery, and personal funding from NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). AHo declares institutional payments to support grant-funded research from NIHR, UK Medical Research Council (MRC), Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, North West Lung Centre Charity, and Moulton Trust; consulting fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals for advisory board participation; and payment from Vertex Pharmaceuticals for educational presentation, participation on a clinical trials advisory board, and writing of a review article. AHo's non-paid roles include chair of the Cystic Fibrosis Clinical Trials Accelerator Program, deputy chair of the NIHR Respiratory Translational Research Collaboration, and director of a university spin-out company (Mi-trial). BR declares payments from the British Heart Foundation Oxford Centre of Research Excellence, NIHR Oxford BRC, and UKRI for grants and contracts; and consulting fees from Axcella Therapeutics. ASh, ASi, and MM declare a grant to their institution from UKRI and NIHR to complete this work. ASh declares unremunerated participation on the AstraZeneca Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce and Scottish and UK Governments COVID-19 advisory groups. LH-W declares a grant from NIHR unrelated to the submitted work; acting as independent chair of the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Committee for Colour COPD trial; and membership of the American Thoracic Society Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly Web and Planning Committees. NIL declares acting as director of research at the Intensive Care Society UK. CEB declares a grant to their institution from UKRI and NIHR to complete this work; the author reports grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, and 4DPharma; and consultancy fees paid to their institution from GSK, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma, and Teva. LVW declares research funding unrelated to the submitted work from GSK and Orion; consulting fees unrelated to the submitted work from Galapagos; a Wellcome Conference speaker honorarium; travel support from Genentech; advisory board participation for Galapagos; and an associate editor role for the European Respiratory Journal. RAE declares a grant to their institution from UKRI and NIHR to complete this work; the author declares speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and unpaid roles as European Respiratory Society Assembly 01·02 Pulmonary Rehabilitation secretary and with the American Thoracic Society Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly programme committee. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the effect of multimorbidity on adverse patient centred outcomes in people attending emergency department., Design: Population based cohort study., Setting: Emergency departments in NHS Lothian in Scotland, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019., Participants: Adults (≥18 years) attending emergency departments., Data Sources: Linked data from emergency departments, hospital discharges, and cancer registries, and national mortality data., Main Outcome Measures: Multimorbidity was defined as at least two conditions from the Elixhauser comorbidity index. Multivariable logistic or linear regression was used to assess associations of multimorbidity with 30 day mortality (primary outcome), hospital admission, reattendance at the emergency department within seven days, and time spent in emergency department (secondary outcomes). Primary analysis was stratified by age (<65  v ≥65 years)., Results: 451 291 people had 1 273 937 attendances to emergency departments during the study period. 43 504 (9.6%) had multimorbidity, and people with multimorbidity were older (median 73 v 43 years), more likely to arrive by emergency ambulance (57.8% v 23.7%), and more likely to be triaged as very urgent (23.5% v 9.2%) than people who do not have multimorbidity. After adjusting for other prognostic covariates, multimorbidity, compared with no multimorbidity, was associated with higher 30 day mortality (8.2% v 1.2%, adjusted odds ratio 1.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 1.91)), higher rate of hospital admission (60.1% v 20.5%, 1.81 (1.76 to 1.86)), higher reattendance to an emergency department within seven days (7.8% v 3.5%, 1.41 (1.32 to 1.50)), and longer time spent in the department (adjusted coefficient 0.27 h (95% CI 0.26 to 0.27)). The size of associations between multimorbidity and all outcomes were larger in younger patients: for example, the adjusted odds ratio of 30 day mortality was 3.03 (95% CI 2.68 to 3.42) in people younger than 65 years versus 1.61 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.71) in those 65 years or older., Conclusions: Almost one in ten patients presenting to emergency department had multimorbidity using Elixhauser index conditions. Multimorbidity was strongly associated with adverse outcomes and these associations were stronger in younger people. The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity in the population is likely to exacerbate strain on emergency departments unless practice and policy evolve to meet the growing demand., Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: NL is supported by Wellcome ISSF3 grant (ref. IS3-R1.05 19/20) for the completion of this work; NLM is supported by a Chair Award, Programme Grant, and Research Excellence Award (CH/F/21/90010, RG/20/10/34966, RE/18/5/34216) from the British Heart Foundation. MR is supported by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Clinician award. NLM has also received payment for lectures by Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers, has participated on advisory boards for LumiraDx, Roche Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers, and has received equipment from Siemens Healthineers (not related to this project). All other authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The long-term outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalisation in individuals with pre-existing airway diseases are unknown., Methods: Adult participants hospitalised for confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 and discharged between 5 March 2020 and 31 March 2021 were recruited to the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. Participants attended research visits at 5 months and 1 year post discharge. Clinical characteristics, perceived recovery, burden of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of individuals with pre-existing airway disease ( i.e. , asthma, COPD or bronchiectasis) were compared to the non-airways group., Results: A total of 615 out of 2697 (22.8%) participants had a history of pre-existing airway diseases (72.0% diagnosed with asthma, 22.9% COPD and 5.1% bronchiectasis). At 1 year, the airways group participants were less likely to feel fully recovered (20.4% versus 33.2%, p<0.001), had higher burden of anxiety (29.1% versus 22.0%, p=0.002), depression (31.2% versus 24.7%, p=0.006), higher percentage of impaired mobility using short physical performance battery ≤10 (57.4% versus 45.2%, p<0.001) and 27% had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning) versus 16.6%, p=0.014. HRQoL assessed using EQ-5D-5L Utility Index was lower in the airways group (mean±SD 0.64±0.27 versus 0.73±0.25, p<0.001). Burden of breathlessness, fatigue and cough measured using a study-specific tool was higher in the airways group., Conclusion: Individuals with pre-existing airway diseases hospitalised due to COVID-19 were less likely to feel fully recovered, had lower physiological performance measurements, more burden of symptoms and reduced HRQoL up to 1 year post-hospital discharge., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J.R. Hurst has received support to attend meetings, research grants, and personal payment and payment to his employer from pharmaceutical companies that make medicines to treat airways diseases. J.K. Quint reports grants from Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, the Medical Research Council, Health Data Research, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Asthma+Lung UK and AstraZeneca (AZ), and consulting fees from GSK, Evidera, Chiesi, AZ and Insmed outside the submitted work. P.E. Pfeffer reports grants from NIHR and GSK, Honoraria payments for lectures from AZ, GSK, Sanofi and Chiesi and travel fees from AZ, GSK, Sanofi outside the submitted work. N.J. Greening reports grants from GSK and BioAge, and personal fees and travel grants from Genentech, Roche, Chiesi, AZ, GSK, Pulmonx and Chiesi outside the submitted work. J.D. Chalmers is an associate editor of this journal. A. Horsley reports grants from UKRI, NIHR and NIHR Manchester BRC during the conduct of this study and unenumerated role as the chair of NIHR Translational Research Collaboration. A. Sheikh has served on AZ's thrombotic thrombocytopenic taskforce, and on a number of UK and Scottish Government COVID-19 advisory bodies; all these roles were unremunerated. B. Raman reports grant from BHF Oxford CRE and speaker fees from Axcella Therapeutics. R.A. Evans reports grants from UKRI/MRC, DHSC/NIHR, Wolfson Foundation and Genentec/Roche during the conduct of this study, travel and speaker fees from AZ/Evidera, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Moderna and Chiesi, and unremunerated leadership roles in ERS/ATS outside the submitted work. C.E. Brightling declares that their institute was awarded a grant from UKRI/NIHR to complete this work; the author reports grants from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, Regeneron, BI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic and 4DPharma; and consultancy fees paid to their institution from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, BI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma and Areteia. A. De Soyza declares receiving personal consulting fees and travel grants from AZ, Bayer, GSK, Chiesi, Novartis, Pfizer, Insmed, Gilead and 30T outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Purpose: Factors increasing the risk of maternal critical illness are rising in prevalence in maternity populations. Studies of general critical care populations highlight that severe illness is associated with longer-term physical and psychological morbidity. We aimed to compare short- and longer-term outcomes between women who required critical care admission during pregnancy/puerperium and those who did not., Methods: This is a cohort study including all women delivering in Scottish hospitals between 01/01/2005 and 31/12/2018, using national healthcare databases. The primary exposure was intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while secondary exposures included high dependency unit admission. Outcomes included hospital readmission (1-year post-hospital discharge, 1-year mortality, psychiatric hospital admission, stillbirth, and neonatal critical care admission). Multivariable Cox and logistic regression were used to report hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) of association between ICU admission and outcomes., Results: Of 762,918 deliveries, 1449 (0.18%) women were admitted to ICU, most commonly due to post-partum hemorrhage (225, 15.5%) followed by eclampsia/pre-eclampsia (133, 9.2%). Over-half (53.8%) required mechanical ventilation. One-year hospital readmission was more frequent in women admitted to ICU compared with non-ICU populations [24.5% (n = 299) vs 8.9% (n = 68,029)]. This association persisted after confounder adjustment (HR 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33, 2.81, p < 0.001). Furthermore, maternal ICU admission was associated with increased 1-year mortality (HR 40.06, 95% CI 24.04, 66.76, p < 0.001), stillbirth (OR 12.31, 95% CI 7.95,19.08, p < 0.001) and neonatal critical care admission (OR 6.99, 95% CI 5.64,8.67, p < 0.001) after confounder adjustment., Conclusion: Critical care admission increases the risk of adverse short-term and long-term maternal, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Optimizing long-term post-partum care may benefit maternal critical illness survivors., (© 2024. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cardiovascular risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of complications following hospitalisation with COVID-19, but their impact on the rate of recovery following discharge is not known., Objectives: To determine whether the rate of patient-perceived recovery following hospitalisation with COVID-19 was affected by the presence of CVD or cardiovascular risk factors., Methods: In a multicentre prospective cohort study, patients were recruited following discharge from the hospital with COVID-19 undertaking two comprehensive assessments at 5 months and 12 months. Patients were stratified by the presence of either CVD or cardiovascular risk factors prior to hospitalisation with COVID-19 and compared with controls with neither. Full recovery was determined by the response to a patient-perceived evaluation of full recovery from COVID-19 in the context of physical, physiological and cognitive determinants of health., Results: From a total population of 2545 patients (38.8% women), 472 (18.5%) and 1355 (53.2%) had CVD or cardiovascular risk factors, respectively. Compared with controls (n=718), patients with CVD and cardiovascular risk factors were older and more likely to have had severe COVID-19. Full recovery was significantly lower at 12 months in patients with CVD (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89) and cardiovascular risk factors (aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86)., Conclusion: Patients with CVD or cardiovascular risk factors had a delayed recovery at 12 months following hospitalisation with COVID-19. Targeted interventions to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in patients with cardiovascular disease remain an unmet need., Trail Registration Number: ISRCTN10980107., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KK is chair of the ethnicity subgroup of the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and is a member of SAGE. KK (Chair) and RE are members of the Long COVID Epidemiological Research Group that reports to the CMO. CB is an author of the COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19 NICE guideline (NG188) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/history. CB is a member of the NHS National Services Scotland Long COVID group and his employer, the University of Glasgow, holds a research agreement with AstraZeneca and Somalogic for research in COVID-19. AJM is an employee of AstraZeneca., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Predicting risk of care home admission could identify older adults for early intervention to support independent living but require external validation in a different dataset before clinical use. We systematically reviewed external validations of care home admission risk prediction models in older adults., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library until 14 August 2023 for external validations of prediction models for care home admission risk in adults aged ≥65 years with up to 3 years of follow-up. We extracted and narratively synthesised data on study design, model characteristics, and model discrimination and calibration (accuracy of predictions). We assessed risk of bias and applicability using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool., Results: Five studies reporting validations of nine unique models were included. Model applicability was fair but risk of bias was mostly high due to not reporting model calibration. Morbidities were used as predictors in four models, most commonly neurological or psychiatric diseases. Physical function was also included in four models. For 1-year prediction, three of the six models had acceptable discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)/c statistic 0.70-0.79) and the remaining three had poor discrimination (AUC < 0.70). No model accounted for competing mortality risk. The only study examining model calibration (but ignoring competing mortality) concluded that it was excellent., Conclusions: The reporting of models was incomplete. Model discrimination was at best acceptable, and calibration was rarely examined (and ignored competing mortality risk when examined). There is a need to derive better models that account for competing mortality risk and report calibration as well as discrimination., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes., Methods and Analysis: This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored., Ethics and Dissemination: All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement., Trial Registration Number: NCT03653832., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

One in ten severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections result in prolonged symptoms termed long coronavirus disease (COVID), yet disease phenotypes and mechanisms are poorly understood 1 . Here we profiled 368 plasma proteins in 657 participants ≥3 months following hospitalization. Of these, 426 had at least one long COVID symptom and 233 had fully recovered. Elevated markers of myeloid inflammation and complement activation were associated with long COVID. IL-1R2, MATN2 and COLEC12 were associated with cardiorespiratory symptoms, fatigue and anxiety/depression; MATN2, CSF3 and C1QA were elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms and C1QA was elevated in cognitive impairment. Additional markers of alterations in nerve tissue repair (SPON-1 and NFASC) were elevated in those with cognitive impairment and SCG3, suggestive of brain-gut axis disturbance, was elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) was persistently elevated in some individuals with long COVID, but virus was not detected in sputum. Analysis of inflammatory markers in nasal fluids showed no association with symptoms. Our study aimed to understand inflammatory processes that underlie long COVID and was not designed for biomarker discovery. Our findings suggest that specific inflammatory pathways related to tissue damage are implicated in subtypes of long COVID, which might be targeted in future therapeutic trials., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Endocrine systems are disrupted in acute illness, and symptoms reported following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are similar to those found with clinical hormone deficiencies. We hypothesised that people with severe acute COVID-19 and with post-COVID symptoms have glucocorticoid and sex hormone deficiencies., Design/patients: Samples were obtained for analysis from two UK multicentre cohorts during hospitalisation with COVID-19 (International Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Consortium/World Health Organisation [WHO] Clinical Characterization Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections in the UK study), and at follow-up 5 months after hospitalisation (Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study)., Measurements: Plasma steroids were quantified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Steroid concentrations were compared against disease severity (WHO ordinal scale) and validated symptom scores. Data are presented as geometric mean (SD)., Results: In the acute cohort (n = 239, 66.5% male), plasma cortisol concentration increased with disease severity (cortisol 753.3 [1.6] vs. 429.2 [1.7] nmol/L in fatal vs. least severe, p < .001). In males, testosterone concentrations decreased with severity (testosterone 1.2 [2.2] vs. 6.9 [1.9] nmol/L in fatal vs. least severe, p < .001). In the follow-up cohort (n = 198, 62.1% male, 68.9% ongoing symptoms, 165 [121-192] days postdischarge), plasma cortisol concentrations (275.6 [1.5] nmol/L) did not differ with in-hospital severity, perception of recovery, or patient-reported symptoms. Male testosterone concentrations (12.6 [1.5] nmol/L) were not related to in-hospital severity, perception of recovery or symptom scores., Conclusions: Circulating glucocorticoids in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 reflect acute illness, with a marked rise in cortisol and fall in male testosterone. These findings are not observed 5 months from discharge. The lack of association between hormone concentrations and common post-COVID symptoms suggests steroid insufficiency does not play a causal role in this condition., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Endocrinology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Discontinuation of important chronic medication after hospitalisation is common. This study aimed to investigate the association between critical care (vs non-critical care) admission and discontinuation of chronic medications post-hospital discharge, along with factors associated with discontinuation among critical care survivors. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in Lothian, Scotland of adults who were admitted to hospital between 01/01/2012 and 31/12/2019 and survived to hospital discharge. Medication classes investigated were statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs), beta-blockers, oral anticoagulants, and thyroid hormones. The risk of medication discontinuation for each class was estimated by odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient demographics, main clinical condition, and index comorbidity. A secondary analysis assessed factors associated with discontinuation in critical care survivors. Results: There were 22,340 critical care and 367,185 non-critical care survivors included. Critical care admission had the highest association with ACEi/ARBs discontinuation (adjusted OR 2.41, 95%CI: 2.26-2.58), followed by oral anticoagulants (adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI: 1.15-1.53), and beta blockers (adjusted OR 1.18, 95%CI: 1.07-1.29). There was no significant association with thyroid hormones or statin discontinuation. Among critical care survivors, hospital length of stay of 14 days or more was associated with increased discontinuation across all medication classes. Conclusion: Critical care admission was associated with discontinuation of three out of five medication classes studied (ACEi/ARBs, beta-blockers, and oral anticoagulants). Further research is needed to understand the reason for increased medication discontinuation in critical care survivors and how these risks can be mitigated to improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Intensive Care Society 2024.)

Mortality prediction models support identifying older adults with short life expectancy for whom clinical care might need modifications. We systematically reviewed external validations of mortality prediction models in older adults (ie, aged 65 years and older) with up to 3 years of follow-up. In March, 2023, we conducted a literature search resulting in 36 studies reporting 74 validations of 64 unique models. Model applicability was fair but validation risk of bias was mostly high, with 50 (68%) of 74 validations not reporting calibration. Morbidities (most commonly cardiovascular diseases) were used as predictors by 45 (70%) of 64 of models. For 1-year prediction, 31 (67%) of 46 models had acceptable discrimination, but only one had excellent performance. Models with more than 20 predictors were more likely to have acceptable discrimination (risk ratio [RR] vs <10 predictors 1·68, 95% CI 1·06-2·66), as were models including sex (RR 1·75, 95% CI 1·12-2·73) or predicting risk during comprehensive geriatric assessment (RR 1·86, 95% CI 1·12-3·07). Development and validation of better-performing mortality prediction models in older people are needed., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many people survive critical illness with the burden of new or worsened mental health issues and sleep disturbances. We examined the frequency of psychotropic prescribing after critical illness, comparing critical care to non-critical care hospitalised survivors, and whether this varied in important subgroups., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 23,340 critical care and 367,185 non-critical care hospitalised adults from 2012 through 2019 in Lothian, Scotland, who survived to discharge., Results: One-third of critical care survivors (32%; 7527/23,340) received a psychotropic prescription within 90 days after hospital discharge (25% antidepressants; 14% anxiolytics/hypnotics; 4% antipsychotics/mania medicines). In contrast, 15% (54,589/367,185) of non-critical care survivors received a psychotropic prescription (12% antidepressants; 5% anxiolytics/hypnotics; 2% antipsychotics/mania medicines). Among patients without psychotropic prescriptions within 180 days prior to hospitalisation, after hospital discharge, the critical care group had a higher incidence of psychotropic prescription (10.3%; 1610/15,609) compared with the non-critical care group (3.2%; 9743/307,429); unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3.39, 95% CI: 3.22-3.57. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk remained elevated (adjusted HR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.91-2.16), persisted later in follow-up (90-365 days; adjusted HR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.30-1.46), and was more pronounced in those without recorded comorbidities (adjusted HR 3.49, 95% CI: 3.22-3.78)., Conclusions: Critical care survivors have a higher risk of receiving psychotropic prescriptions than hospitalised patients, with a significant proportion receiving benzodiazepines and other hypnotics. Future research should focus on the requirement for and safety of psychotropic medicines in survivors of critical illness, to help guide policy for clinical practice., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: NL received funding from the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund-3 (ISR-R1.05 19/20) for data extraction and preparation. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (© The Intensive Care Society 2024.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a large number of critical care admissions. While national reports have described the outcomes of patients with COVID-19, there is limited international data of the pandemic impact on non-COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care treatment., Methods: We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study using 2019 and 2020 data from 11 national clinical quality registries covering 15 countries. Non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 were compared with all admissions in 2019, prepandemic. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and standardised mortality ratio (SMR). Analyses were stratified by the country income level(s) of each registry., Findings: Among 1 642 632 non-COVID-19 admissions, there was an increase in ICU mortality between 2019 (9.3%) and 2020 (10.4%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.17, p<0.001). Increased mortality was observed in middle-income countries (OR 1.25 95% CI 1.23 to 1.26), while mortality decreased in high-income countries (OR=0.96 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Hospital mortality and SMR trends for each registry were consistent with the observed ICU mortality findings. The burden of COVID-19 was highly variable, with COVID-19 ICU patient-days per bed ranging from 0.4 to 81.6 between registries. This alone did not explain the observed non-COVID-19 mortality changes., Interpretation: Increased ICU mortality occurred among non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, driven by increased mortality in middle-income countries, while mortality decreased in high-income countries. The causes for this inequity are likely multi-factorial, but healthcare spending, policy pandemic responses, and ICU strain may play significant roles., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DP and Dr EL are members of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Centre for Outcome and Resources Evaluation management committee. AB is funded by Wellcome. JS and MS are cofounders and shareholders of Epimed Solutions, a healthcare cloud-based analytics company. They are also supported in part by individual research grants from CNPq and FAPERJ. SB is the current chair, and MR is the past chair of the Finnish Intensive Care Consortium (both unpaid). DAD is unpaid chair of NICE foundation. NI's primary affiliation is the Department of Healthcare Quality Assessment, which is a social collaboration department at the University of Tokyo supported by National Clinical Database, Johnson & Johnson K.K., and Nipro corporation. BKTV is the National Coordinator for the Indian Registry of IntenSive care (IRIS) and is supported for 0.5 FTE by funding from the Wellcome Trust, UK. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring treatment with renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a common complication after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the prevalence of RRT use and the associated outcomes in critically patients across the globe are not well described. Therefore, we describe the epidemiology and outcomes of patients receiving RRT for AKI in ICUs across several large health system jurisdictions., Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis using nationally representative and comparable databases from seven health jurisdictions in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Scotland, and the USA between 2006 and 2023, depending on data availability of each dataset. Patients with a history of end-stage kidney disease receiving chronic RRT and patients with a history of renal transplant were excluded., Results: A total of 4,104,480 patients in the ICU cohort and 3,520,516 patients in the mechanical ventilation cohort were included. Overall, 156,403 (3.8%) patients in the ICU cohort and 240,824 (6.8%) patients in the mechanical ventilation cohort were treated with RRT for AKI. In the ICU cohort, the proportion of patients treated with RRT was lowest in Australia and Brazil (3.3%) and highest in Scotland (9.2%). The in-hospital mortality for critically ill patients treated with RRT was almost fourfold higher (57.1%) than those not receiving RRT (16.8%). The mortality of patients treated with RRT varied across the health jurisdictions from 37 to 65%., Conclusion: The outcomes of patients who receive RRT in ICUs throughout the world vary widely. Our research suggests that differences in access to and provision of this therapy are contributing factors., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) have been implemented worldwide by several medical specialties aiming to generate a better characterization of epidemiology, treatments, and outcomes of patients. National ICU registries were created almost 3 decades ago to improve the understanding of case-mix, resource use, and outcomes of critically ill patients. This narrative review describes the challenges, proposed solutions, and evidence generated by National ICU registries as facilitators for research and quality improvement., Data Sources: English language articles were identified in PubMed using phrases related to ICU registries, CQRs, outcomes, and case-mix., Study Selection: Original research, review articles, letters, and commentaries, were considered., Data Extraction: Data from relevant literature were identified, reviewed, and integrated into a concise narrative review., Data Synthesis: CQRs have been implemented worldwide by several medical specialties aiming to generate a better characterization of epidemiology, treatments, and outcomes of patients. National ICU registries were created almost 3 decades ago to improve the understanding of case-mix, resource use, and outcomes of critically ill patients. The initial experience in European countries and in Oceania ensured that through locally generated data, ICUs could assess their performances by using risk-adjusted measures and compare their results through fair and validated benchmarking metrics with other ICUs contributing to the CQR. The accomplishment of these initiatives, coupled with the increasing adoption of information technology, resulted in a broad geographic expansion of CQRs as well as their use in quality improvement studies, clinical trials as well as international comparisons, and benchmarking for ICUs., Conclusions: ICU registries have provided increased knowledge of case-mix and outcomes of ICU patients based on real-world data and contributed to improve care delivery through quality improvement initiatives and trials. Recent increases in adoption of new technologies (i.e., cloud-based structures, artificial intelligence, machine learning) will ensure a broader and better use of data for epidemiology, healthcare policies, quality improvement, and clinical trials., Competing Interests: Dr. Beane received support for article research from Wellcome Trust/Charity Open Access Fund (COAF). Drs. Pilcher and Litton are members of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for Outcome and Resources Evaluation management committee. Drs Salluh is co-founder and shareholder of Epimed Solutions, a healthcare cloud-based analytics company. He is also supported, in part, by individual research grants from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development and Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio de Janeiro. Dr. Dongelmans is unpaid chair of National Intensive Care Evaluation Foundation. Dr. Ichihara’s primary affiliation is the Department of Healthcare Quality Assessment, which is a social collaboration department at the University of Tokyo supported by National Clinical Database, Johnson & Johnson K.K., and Nipro Corporation. Dr. Vijayaraghavan is the National Coordinator for the Indian Registry of IntenSive Care and is supported for 0.5 full-time equivalent hours by funding from the Wellcome Trust, U.K. Dr. Bagshaw received funding from Baxter and BioPorto. Dr. Hashimoto’s institution received funding from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare for the Japanese Intensive care PAtient Database (JIPAD), the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and JMS. Dr. Haniffa’s institution received funding from Wellcome Trust/COAF and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI); he disclosed that he is an honorary director of National Intensive Care Surveillance MORU. Dr. Pisani received funding from Wellcome Trust and The African Critical Care registry network funded by this UKRI MRC (grant MR/V030884/1). The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Despite high rates of cardiovascular disease in Scotland, the prevalence and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock are unknown., Methods: We undertook a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit at 13 hospitals in Scotland for a 6-month period. Denominator data from the Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group were used to estimate ICU prevalence; data for coronary care units were unavailable. We undertook multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality., Results: In total, 247 patients with cardiogenic shock were included. After exclusion of coronary care unit admissions, this comprised 3.0% of all ICU admissions during the study period (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6%-3.5%). Aetiology was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 48%. The commonest vasoactive treatment was noradrenaline (56%) followed by adrenaline (46%) and dobutamine (40%). Mechanical circulatory support was used in 30%. Overall in-hospital mortality was 55%. After multivariable logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), admission lactate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), Society for Cardiovascular Angiographic Intervention stage D or E at presentation (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.10-4.29) and use of adrenaline (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.40-5.40) were associated with mortality., Conclusions: In Scotland the prevalence of cardiogenic shock was 3% of all ICU admissions; more than half died prior to discharge. There was significant variation in treatment approaches, particularly with respect to vasoactive support strategy., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Intensive Care Society 2023.)

A proportion of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms months after infection, including cognitive deficits, depression and anxiety. The mechanisms underpinning such symptoms remain elusive. Recent research has demonstrated that nervous system injury can occur during COVID-19. Whether ongoing neural injury in the months after COVID-19 accounts for the ongoing or emergent neuropsychiatric symptoms is unclear. Within a large prospective cohort study of adult survivors who were hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, we analysed plasma markers of nervous system injury and astrocytic activation, measured 6 months post-infection: neurofilament light, glial fibrillary acidic protein and total tau protein. We assessed whether these markers were associated with the severity of the acute COVID-19 illness and with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder assessment for anxiety, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for objective cognitive deficit and the cognitive items of the Patient Symptom Questionnaire for subjective cognitive deficit) at 6 months and 1 year post-hospital discharge from COVID-19. No robust associations were found between markers of nervous system injury and severity of acute COVID-19 (except for an association of small effect size between duration of admission and neurofilament light) nor with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. These results suggest that ongoing neuropsychiatric symptoms are not due to ongoing neural injury., Competing Interests: H.Z. has served at scientific advisory boards and/or as a consultant for Abbvie, Acumen, Alector, Alzinova, ALZPath, Annexon, Apellis, Artery Therapeutics, AZTherapies, CogRx, Denali, Eisai, Nervgen, Novo Nordisk, Passage Bio, Pinteon Therapeutics, Prothena, Red Abbey Labs, reMYND, Roche, Samumed, Siemens Healthineers, Triplet Therapeutics and Wave, has given lectures in symposia sponsored by Cellectricon, Fujirebio, Alzecure, Biogen and Roche, and is a co-founder of Brain Biomarker Solutions in Gothenburg AB (BBS), which is a part of the GU Ventures Incubator Program (outside submitted work). I.K. declares grant fundind and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Introduction: Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care., Methods and Analysis: Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of -2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40-50 UK ICUs., Ethics and Dissemination: The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: To describe the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine whether treatment protocols monitoring daily CRP (C-reactive protein) or PCT (procalcitonin) safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised adult patients with sepsis., Design: Multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial., Setting: UK NHS hospitals., Target Population: Hospitalised critically ill adults who have been commenced on intravenous antibiotics for sepsis., Health Technology: Three protocols for guiding antibiotic discontinuation will be compared: (a) standard care; (b) standard care + daily CRP monitoring; (c) standard care + daily PCT monitoring. Standard care will be based on routine sepsis management and antibiotic stewardship. Measurement of outcomes and costs. Outcomes will be assessed to 28 days. The primary outcomes are total duration of antibiotics and safety outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include: escalation of care/re-admission; infection re-lapse/recurrence; antibiotic dose; length and level of critical care stay and length of hospital stay. Ninety-day all-cause mortality rates will also be collected. An assessment of cost effectiveness will be performed., Conclusion: In the setting of routine NHS care, if this trial finds that a treatment protocol based on monitoring CRP or PCT safely allows a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy, and is cost effective, then this has the potential to change clinical practice for critically ill patients with sepsis. Moreover, if a biomarker-guided protocol is not found to be effective, then it will be important to avoid its use in sepsis and prevent ineffective technology becoming widely adopted in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A.C.G. reports that outside of this work he has received speaker fees from Orion Corporation Orion Pharma and Amomed Pharma. He has consulted for Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Tenax Therapeutics, Baxter Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb and GSK, and received grant support from Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Tenax Therapeutics and HCA International with funds paid to his institution. Authors otherwise declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Intensive Care Society 2023.)

Post-COVID cognitive deficits, including 'brain fog', are clinically complex, with both objective and subjective components. They are common and debilitating, and can affect the ability to work, yet their biological underpinnings remain unknown. In this prospective cohort study of 1,837 adults hospitalized with COVID-19, we identified two distinct biomarker profiles measured during the acute admission, which predict cognitive outcomes 6 and 12 months after COVID-19. A first profile links elevated fibrinogen relative to C-reactive protein with both objective and subjective cognitive deficits. A second profile links elevated D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits and occupational impact. This second profile was mediated by fatigue and shortness of breath. Neither profile was significantly mediated by depression or anxiety. Results were robust across secondary analyses. They were replicated, and their specificity to COVID-19 tested, in a large-scale electronic health records dataset. These findings provide insights into the heterogeneous biology of post-COVID cognitive deficits., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Although the exact prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is unknown, more than a third of patients with COVID-19 develop symptoms that persist for more than 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. These sequelae are highly heterogeneous in nature and adversely affect multiple biological systems, although breathlessness is a frequently cited symptom. Specific pulmonary sequelae, including pulmonary fibrosis and thromboembolic disease, need careful assessment and might require particular investigations and treatments. COVID-19 outcomes in people with pre-existing respiratory conditions vary according to the nature and severity of the respiratory disease and how well it is controlled. Extrapulmonary complications such as reduced exercise tolerance and frailty might contribute to breathlessness in post-COVID-19 condition. Non-pharmacological therapeutic options, including adapted pulmonary rehabilitation programmes and physiotherapy techniques for breathing management, might help to attenuate breathlessness in people with post-COVID-19 condition. Further research is needed to understand the origins and course of respiratory symptoms and to develop effective therapeutic and rehabilitative strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SJS has received project funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Research and Innovation, the Department of Health and Social Care, and Actegy. She has received funding for a doctoral training programme from the Wellcome Trust, and reports funding for presentations from GSK, the UK Ministry of Justice, Cipla, and Sherbourne Gibbs. SJS is the American Thoracic Society Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly Chair, clinical lead for the Royal College of Physicians Pulmonary Rehabilitation Accreditation Scheme, clinical lead for the National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme for Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and is on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence expert advisory panel for long COVID. CEB has received funding to his institution for consultancy and investigator roles from GSK, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mologic, and 4DPharma. RAE reports research funding from the NIHR, UKRI, and the Wolfson Foundation. She has received payment for a consultancy role from AstraZeneca, for invited lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, and for conference attendance from Chiesi. RAE is secretary of the European Respiratory Society Group 01.02 Rehabilitation and Chronic Care. RGJ has received grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Galecto, GSK, Nordic Biosciences, RedX, and Pilant. He reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Brainomix, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Cohbar, Daewoong, GSK, Pliant, Resolution Therapeutics, Roche, and Veracyte, and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Roche, and PatientMPower. RGJ is on data safety monitoring boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, and Vicore, and is on the advisory board of NuMedii. RGJ is the current president of Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis. MT has received funding from MorphogenIX and Jansen for taking part in advisory boards and has received support from GSK and Jansen to travel and attend meetings. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sleep disturbance is common following hospital admission both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations of this for recovery after hospital admission are poorly understood despite sleep disturbance contributing to morbidity in other scenarios. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after discharge following hospital admission for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnoea., Methods: CircCOVID was a prospective multicentre cohort substudy designed to investigate the effects of circadian disruption and sleep disturbance on recovery after COVID-19 in a cohort of participants aged 18 years or older, admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in the UK, and discharged between March, 2020, and October, 2021. Participants were recruited from the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID). Follow-up data were collected at two timepoints: an early time point 2-7 months after hospital discharge and a later time point 10-14 months after hospital discharge. Sleep quality was assessed subjectively using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and a numerical rating scale. Sleep quality was also assessed with an accelerometer worn on the wrist (actigraphy) for 14 days. Participants were also clinically phenotyped, including assessment of symptoms (ie, anxiety [Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale questionnaire], muscle function [SARC-F questionnaire], dyspnoea [Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire] and measurement of lung function), at the early timepoint after discharge. Actigraphy results were also compared to a matched UK Biobank cohort (non-hospitalised individuals and recently hospitalised individuals). Multivariable linear regression was used to define associations of sleep disturbance with the primary outcome of breathlessness and the other clinical symptoms. PHOSP-COVID is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107)., Findings: 2320 of 2468 participants in the PHOSP-COVID study attended an early timepoint research visit a median of 5 months (IQR 4-6) following discharge from 83 hospitals in the UK. Data for sleep quality were assessed by subjective measures (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and the numerical rating scale) for 638 participants at the early time point. Sleep quality was also assessed using device-based measures (actigraphy) a median of 7 months (IQR 5-8 months) after discharge from hospital for 729 participants. After discharge from hospital, the majority (396 [62%] of 638) of participants who had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19 reported poor sleep quality in response to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A comparable proportion (338 [53%] of 638) of participants felt their sleep quality had deteriorated following discharge after COVID-19 admission, as assessed by the numerical rating scale. Device-based measurements were compared to an age-matched, sex-matched, BMI-matched, and time from discharge-matched UK Biobank cohort who had recently been admitted to hospital. Compared to the recently hospitalised matched UK Biobank cohort, participants in our study slept on average 65 min (95% CI 59 to 71) longer, had a lower sleep regularity index (-19%; 95% CI -20 to -16), and a lower sleep efficiency (3·83 percentage points; 95% CI 3·40 to 4·26). Similar results were obtained when comparisons were made with the non-hospitalised UK Biobank cohort. Overall sleep quality (unadjusted effect estimate 3·94; 95% CI 2·78 to 5·10), deterioration in sleep quality following hospital admission (3·00; 1·82 to 4·28), and sleep regularity (4·38; 2·10 to 6·65) were associated with higher dyspnoea scores. Poor sleep quality, deterioration in sleep quality, and sleep regularity were also associated with impaired lung function, as assessed by forced vital capacity. Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea, while muscle weakness mediated 27-41% of this effect., Interpretation: Sleep disturbance following hospital admission for COVID-19 is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety, and muscle weakness. Due to the association with multiple symptoms, targeting sleep disturbance might be beneficial in treating the post-COVID-19 condition., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests IDS declares a statistical editor honoraria role with Thorax. TP declares support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) to complete the work. ALH declares an editor-in-chief role for Computer Physics Communications. RA declares speaker fees and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim. CEB declares their institute was awarded a grant from the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)/NIHR and institutional support from NIHR Nottingham BRC to complete this work; the author reports grants from Nottingham Hospitals Charity and Nottingham University Hospitals Research and Innovation Department. TC declares support from the NIHR South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London BRC to complete the work; the author reports grants from Guy's and St Thomas' Charity, NIHR, and UKRI; the author has published self-help books on chronic fatigue for which she receives royalties; the author has received ad-hoc payments for workshops carried out in long-term conditions; the author declares travel and accommodation support; the author is part of the scientific committee of the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP) and she is on the expert advisory panel for COVID-19 Rapid Guidelines. JDC declares grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Insmed, GlaxoSmithKline, and Grifols; the author reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Insmed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Antabio, Chiesi, Novartis, Pfizer, Zambon, GlaxoSmithKline, and Grifols. GD declares support from the NIHR Imperial BRC, Royal Brompton and Harefield NGS Foundation Trust, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals Charity, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, and the Medical Research Council (MRC) to complete this work; the author reports grants from Genentech, AstraZeneca, British Lung Foundation (BLF) Early Cohort, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Chiesi, and Boehringer Ingelheim; the author has a published chapter in a textbook for which he receives payment; the author declares a role in the advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Novartis and as honorarium as deputy editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM). L-PH declares grants from NIHR Oxford BRC. MGJ declares grants from the Royal Society, MRC, BLF, Boehringer Ingelheim, and the Asthma, Allergy and Inflammatory Research Charity. BR declares support from the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Oxford Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) to complete this work. SLR-J declares support for her institute from UKRI to complete the work; the author reports grants from UKRI, The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), MRC, Rosetrees Trust, and the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF); the author reports an honorarium for chapter contribution from the Federation of European Academies of Medicine; the author is Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) Chair for a Bexsero trial funded by Wellcome Trust; the author declares an editor role for AIDS journal. AVR declares support from NIHR Leicester BRC to complete the work. MS declares support for his institute from MRC/Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to complete the work. ASi declares support for her institute from UKRI/NIHR to complete the work. DGW declares an advanced Fellowship grant from NIHR; the author receives an honorarium from bioMérieux to present. TY declares support from the NIHR Leicester BRC to complete the work. RGJ declares grants from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Galecto, GlaxoSmithKline, Nordic Biosciences, RedX, Pliant; the author received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Brainomix, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Cohbar, Daewoong, GlaxoSmithKline, Veracyte, Resolution Therapeutics, and Pliant; the author has received payments from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Roche, patientMpower, and AstraZeneca; the author was paid for expert testimony by Pinsent Masons LLP; the author has participated on a DSMB for Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, and Vicore; the author has held a leadership role at NuMedii and is President of Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis. SJS declares grants from NIHR, Wellcome Doctoral Training Programme (DTP), the Human Tissue Authority, NIHR DHSC/UKRI COVID-19 Rapid Response Initiative, NIHR Global Research Group, Actegy Limited, and as an NIHR Senior Investigator; the author has presented for GlaxoSmithKline, Ministry of Justice, CIPLA, and Sherbourne Gibbs; the author is on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Expert Advisor Panel for Long COVID and was on the Wales Long COVID Advisory Board; the author is the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly Chair, Clinical Lead Royal Society of Physicians (RSP) Pulmonary Rehabilitation Accreditation Scheme, and Clinical Lead Nation Asthma and COPD Audit Programme (NACAP) for Pulmonary Rehabilitation. WD-CM declares grants for his institution from NIHR, National Health Service (NHS) Accelerated Access Collaborative, and BLF; the author is the honorary President of the Association for Respiratory Technology and Physiology but receives no payment. CEBr declares support from UKRI/DHSC and NIHR Leicester BRC to complete the work; the author reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, CI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, and 4DPharma; the author received consulting fees paid to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, BI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma, and TEVA. LVW declares support from UKRI, GlaxoSmithKline/Asthma + Lung UK, and NIHR to complete this work; the author receives grants from Orion Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, and AstraZeneca; the author received consulting fees paid to her institution from Galapagos and Boehringer Ingelheim; the author received support for attending a meeting from Genentech. JCP received consulting fees from Istesso and The Limbic; the author participated on a DSMB for Vicore. AART declares a fellowship grant from BHF and a grant from NIHR to his institution; the author received an honorarium for lectures from Janssen-Cilag Ltd; the author received support for attending meetings from Janssen-Cilag Ltd. AH declares support from UKRI, NIHR, and NIHR Manchester BRC to complete the work; the author is Chair NIHR Translational Research Collaboration (unpaid). PLM declares a grant for his institution from AstraZeneca; the author received consulting fees from Hoffmann-La Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Trevi, and Qureight; the author received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hoffmann-La Roche. RAE declares support from UKRI/MRC to complete the work; the author reports a grant from NIHR/Wolfson Foundation; the author received consulting fees from AstraZeneca for Long COVID; the author received a speaker fee from Boehringer Ingelheim for a lecture on Long COVID; the author received support to attend BTS conference virtually from Chiesi; the author is the European Respiratory Society Group 01.02 Pulmonary Rehabilitation Secretary (unpaid). JFB declares support to his institute from an MRC Transition Fellowship, Asthma + Lung UK, NIHR Manchester BRC, and UKRI; the author reports grants paid to his institution from the Small Business Research Initiative Home Spirometer and the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia; the author has received support for attending meetings from TEVA and Therakos; the author is a committee member of the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Identify prevalence of self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19., Design: Multicentre prospective observational cohort study using questionnaire data at visit 1 (2-7 months post discharge) and visit 2 (10-14 months post discharge) from hospitalised patients in the UK. Lasso logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify associations., Setting: 64 UK acute hospital Trusts., Participants: Adults aged >18 years, discharged from an admissions unit or ward at a UK hospital with COVID-19., Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise., Results: Compromised swallowing post intensive care unit (post-ICU) admission was reported in 20% (188/955); 60% with swallow problems received invasive mechanical ventilation and were more likely to have undergone proning (p=0.039). Voice problems were reported in 34% (319/946) post-ICU admission who were more likely to have received invasive (p<0.001) or non-invasive ventilation (p=0.001) and to have been proned (p<0.001). Communication compromise was reported in 23% (527/2275) univariable analysis identified associations with younger age (p<0.001), female sex (p<0.001), social deprivation (p<0.001) and being a healthcare worker (p=0.010). Cognitive issues were reported by 70% (1598/2275), consistent at both visits, at visit 1 respondents were more likely to have higher baseline comorbidities and at visit 2 were associated with greater social deprivation (p<0.001)., Conclusion: Swallow, communication, voice and cognitive problems were prevalent post hospitalisation for COVID-19, alongside whole system compromise including reduced mobility and overall health scores. Research and testing of rehabilitation interventions are required at pace to explore these issues., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CEB has a UKRI PHOSP grant through NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre for support to conduct the PHOSP study, and Nottingham Hospital Trust Charity donations to support her research. JC has grants/contracts with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Insmed, Gilead Sciences, Grifols and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Insmed, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Pfizer, Zambon, Antabio, Janssen. LVW holds a UK Research and Innovation GSK/Asthma + Lung UK National Institute of Health Research Grant and Orion Pharma GSK Genentech AstraZeneca research funding and has received consulting fees from Galapagos Boehringer Ingelheim and travel fees from Greentech, is on the advisory board for Galapagos and is the Associate Editor for European Respiratory Journal. MR has received consulting fees from Galapagos Boehringer Ingelheim. ASi received joint funding UKRI & NIHR grant references: MR/V027859/1 and COV031. CB has received UKRI/DHSC PHOSP-COVID grant via NIHR Leicester BRC, grants from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, BI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma, consultancy paid to institution from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, BI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma, TEVA. RAE has received NIHR/UKRI/Wolfson Foundation grants, consulting fees from AstraZeneca for long COVID, honoraria payment from Boeringher, support from Chiesi to attend BTS, and is ERS Group 01.02 Pulmonary Rehabilitation Secretary. JKQ is on the Thorax editorial board., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: We aimed to compare the prevalence and severity of fatigue in survivors of Covid-19 versus non-Covid-19 critical illness, and to explore potential associations between baseline characteristics and worse recovery., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of two prospectively collected datasets. The population included was 92 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with Covid-19, and 240 patients who received IMV with non-Covid-19 illness before the pandemic. Follow-up data were collected post-hospital discharge using self-reported questionnaires. The main outcome measures were self-reported fatigue severity and the prevalence of severe fatigue (severity >7/10) 3 and 12-months post-hospital discharge., Results: Covid-19 IMV-patients were significantly younger with less prior comorbidity, and more males, than pre-pandemic IMV-patients. At 3-months, the prevalence (38.9% [7/18] vs. 27.1% [51/188]) and severity (median 5.5/10 vs 5.0/10) of fatigue were similar between the Covid-19 and pre-pandemic populations, respectively. At 6-months, the prevalence (10.3% [3/29] vs. 32.5% [54/166]) and severity (median 2.0/10 vs. 5.7/10) of fatigue were less in the Covid-19 cohort. In the total sample of IMV-patients included (i.e. all Covid-19 and pre-pandemic patients), having Covid-19 was significantly associated with less severe fatigue (severity <7/10) after adjusting for age, sex and prior comorbidity (adjusted OR 0.35 (95%CI 0.15-0.76, p =0.01)., Conclusion: Fatigue may be less severe after Covid-19 than after other critical illness., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Intensive Care Society 2021.)

Background: The scale of COVID-19 and its well documented long-term sequelae support a need to understand long-term outcomes including frailty., Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited adults who had survived hospitalisation with clinically diagnosed COVID-19 across 35 sites in the UK (PHOSP-COVID). The burden of frailty was objectively measured using Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FFP). The primary outcome was the prevalence of each FFP group-robust (no FFP criteria), pre-frail (one or two FFP criteria) and frail (three or more FFP criteria)-at 5 months and 1 year after discharge from hospital. For inclusion in the primary analysis, participants required complete outcome data for three of the five FFP criteria. Longitudinal changes across frailty domains are reported at 5 months and 1 year post-hospitalisation, along with risk factors for frailty status. Patient-perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were retrospectively rated for pre-COVID-19 and prospectively rated at the 5 month and 1 year visits. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN10980107., Findings: Between March 5, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 2419 participants were enrolled with FFP data. Mean age was 57.9 (SD 12.6) years, 933 (38.6%) were female, and 429 (17.7%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation. 1785 had measures at both timepoints, of which 240 (13.4%), 1138 (63.8%) and 407 (22.8%) were frail, pre-frail and robust, respectively, at 5 months compared with 123 (6.9%), 1046 (58.6%) and 616 (34.5%) at 1 year. Factors associated with pre-frailty or frailty were invasive mechanical ventilation, older age, female sex, and greater social deprivation. Frail participants had a larger reduction in HRQoL compared with before their COVID-19 illness and were less likely to describe themselves as recovered., Interpretation: Physical frailty and pre-frailty are common following hospitalisation with COVID-19. Improvement in frailty was seen between 5 and 12 months although two-thirds of the population remained pre-frail or frail. This suggests comprehensive assessment and interventions targeting pre-frailty and frailty beyond the initial illness are required., Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: RAE declares speaker fees or support from Boeringher Ingelheim and 10.13039/100019719Chiesi as well as their role as ERS Group 01.02 Pulmonary Rehabilitation Secretary. CEBo and AG declare support from 10.13039/501100020624NIHR Nottingham BRC and Nottingham university Hospitals Trust R&I and Nottingham Hospitals Charity. CEB declares grants and consultancy paid to institution from GSK, AZ, 10.13039/100004339Sanofi, 10.13039/100001003Boeringher Ingelheim, Chiesi, 10.13039/100004336Novartis, 10.13039/100004337Roche, 10.13039/100004328Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma outside of this work. JDC declares grants from 10.13039/100004337Roche, Insmed, 10.13039/100001003Boehringer Ingelheim, 10.13039/100004336Novartis, GSK, 10.13039/100005564Gilead Sciences and 10.13039/501100016387Grifols as well as consulting fees from 10.13039/100004325Astrazeneca, Insmed, 10.13039/100001003Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Chiesi, 10.13039/100004336Novartis, Grifols, Zambon, Pfizer and GSK outside of this work. AH declares institutional and individual support from the NIHR Manchester BRC as well as their role as Deputy Chair NIHR Translational Research Collaboration. WD-CM declares grants or contracts from National Institute for Health Research, Asthma + Lung UK and NHSX as well as payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Mundipharma, 10.13039/100004336Novartis and European Conference and Incentive Services and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Jazz Pharmaceuticals and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from GSK for funds for blood analysis outside of this work. JKQ declares grants paid to institution from the Medical Research Council, HDR UK, GSK, Bayer, 10.13039/100001003Boehringer Ingelheim, Asthma + Lung UK, 10.13039/100019719Chiesi and 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca as well as advisory bord participation or speaking fees from 10.13039/100004330GlaxoSmithKline, 10.13039/100001003Boehringer Ingelheim, 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca, 10.13039/100019719Chiesi, Teva, Insmed and 10.13039/100004326Bayer. BR declares consulting fees from Axcella Therapeutics outside of this work. SJS declares grants from the NIHR programme grant (NIHR 202020) as an NIHR Senior Investigator, the Wellcome Doctoral Training Programme, HTA Project Grant (NIHR: 131015), NIHR DHSC/UKRI COVID-19 Rapid Response Initiative, NIHR Global Research Group (NIHR 17/63/20) and Actegy Limited, honoraria paid by GSK, Ministry of Justice, CIPLA and Sherbourne Gibbs for presentations, participation on the NICE Expert Adviser Panel - Long COVID and Wales Long COVID Advisory Board (expired) and a role as ATS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly Chair, Clinical Lead RCP Pulmonary Rehabilitation Accreditation Scheme and Clinical Lead NACAP Audit for Pulmonary Rehabilitation. LVW declares additional support from GSK and 10.13039/501100000362Asthma + Lung UK (Professorship (C17-1)) relating to this work as well as research funding from Orion Pharma and GSK, research collaboration contracts from Genentech and 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca, consulting fees paid to institution from Galapagos for participation in an advisory board, support for travel from Genentech and their role as Associate Editor for European Respiratory Journal outside of this work. JW declares grants from the 10.13039/501100009130NIHR programme development grant and 10.13039/100015544King’s College Hospital Charity as well as participation on the trial steering group for “Falls in Care Homes (FinCH)” and programme steering group member for “Promoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia (PrAISED) research programme” as their role as Clinical lead for national audit of inpatient falls (Royal College of Physicians) outside of this work. NJG declares grants or contracts from the NIHR, GSK and MRC, consulting fees paid to institution from Genentech, lecture fees from 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca and 10.13039/100001003Boehringer Ingelheim as well as both lecture fees and support for travel from 10.13039/100019719Chiesi outside of this work. HJCM, ABD, OE, PLG, VCH, EMH, L-PH, LH-W, CJJ, OCL, NIL, MM, DP, KP, MR, RMS, MSe, AShi, ASi, MSt, ALT, CW, MDW and JML declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Persistence of respiratory symptoms, particularly breathlessness, after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation., Methods: PHOSP-COVID is a multicentre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0-10. We defined post-COVID-19 breathlessness as an increase in score of ≥1 compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID-19 breathlessness., Results: We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median 5 months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness were socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14-2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35), female sex (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00) and admission duration (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02). Black ethnicity (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89) and older age groups (adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance statistic 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.69) and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.21)., Conclusions: Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: C.E. Brightling, A. Shikotra and M. Sereno report grants from UKRI–MRC/DHSC–NIHR during the conduct of the study. J.D. Chalmers reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and BI, personal fees from Chiesi, grants from Gilead Sciences, grants and personal fees from GSK and Insmed, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Novartis, and personal fees from Zambon outside the submitted work, and is an associate editor of this journal. A. De Soyza reports grants, personal fees and other support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BI, Chiesi, Forest Labs, GSK, Grifols, Insmed, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer and 30T outside the submitted work. R.A. Evans reports grants from UKRI/MRC/NIHR during the conduct of the study and speaker fees from BI. A. Horsley reports funding from NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, JP Moulton Trust and NIHR, and personal fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Mylan Healthcare, all outside the submitted work. L.G. Heaney reports support from AstraZeneca, BI, Chiesi, GSK and Napp Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Novartis, Hoffman la Roche/Genentech Inc., Sanofi, Evelo Biosciences, GSK, AstraZeneca, Teva, Theravance and Circassia, grants from Medimmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genetech Inc and GSK, Amgen, Genetech/Hoffman la Roche, AZ, Medimmune, GSK, Aerocrine and Vitalograph, outside the submitted work. J.R. Hurst reports grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from pharmaceutical companies that make medicines to treat respiratory disease, outside the submitted work. G. Jenkins reports grants from GSK, grants and personal fees from Pliant Therapeutics, and grants from Biogen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Galapagos, other support from Galecto, personal fees and other support from GSK and AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pliant, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi and Roche/Promedior, personal fees and other support from RedX, other support from NuMedii and Nordic Biosciences, personal fees from Veracyte, PatientMPower, Resolution Therapeutics and Vicore, outside the submitted work; and is supported by a National Institute of Health Research Professorship (NIHR ref. RP-2017-08-ST2-014) and is trustee for Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis. P. Pfeffer reports grants from NIHR outside the submitted work. J.K. Quint reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Bayer, grants and personal fees from BI, Chiesi and GSK, grants from MRC, The Health Foundation and AUK/BLF, outside the submitted work. B. Raman is supported by the British Heart Foundation Oxford Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/3/34214). A. Sheikh reports grants from HDRUK, NIHR, MRC and ICSF, during the conduct of the study; and is a Member of the Scottish Government's CMO COVID-19 Advisory Group and Standing Committee on Pandemics. A. Singapuri reports grants from MRC during the conduct of the study. S. Siddiqui reports grants from NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR PHOSP COVID, personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, CSL Behring, Knopp Biosciences, Owlstone Medical and Chiesi, outside the submitted work; and has a patent pending for volatile breath biomarkers of breathlessness. M. Toshner reports personal fees from Actelion/J&J and GSK, and other support from Morphogen-IX, outside the submitted work. L.V. Wain reports grants from GSK and Orion, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

The influence of comorbidities on COVID-19 outcomes has been recognized since the earliest days of the pandemic. But establishing causality and determining underlying mechanisms and clinical implications has been challenging-owing to the multitude of confounding factors and patient variability. Several distinct pathological mechanisms, not active in every patient, determine health outcomes in the three different phases of COVID-19-from the initial viral replication phase to inflammatory lung injury and post-acute sequelae. Specific comorbidities (and overall multimorbidity) can either exacerbate these pathological mechanisms or reduce the patient's tolerance to organ injury. In this Review, we consider the impact of specific comorbidities, and overall multimorbidity, on the three mechanistically distinct phases of COVID-19, and we discuss the utility of host genetics as a route to causal inference by eliminating many sources of confounding. Continued research into the mechanisms of disease-state interactions will be crucial to inform stratification of therapeutic approaches and improve outcomes for patients., (© 2023. Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Background: Previous research has shown that, in comparison with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to be admitted to critical care, receive invasive ventilation, and die. At present there are limited data in relation to outcomes and healthcare utilisation following hospital discharge of pregnant and recently pregnant women admitted to critical care., Methods: A national cohort study of pregnant and recently pregnant women who were admitted to critical care in Scotland with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. We examined hospital outcomes as well as hospital re-admission rates., Results: Between March 2020 and March 2022, 75 pregnant or recently pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were admitted to 24 Intensive Care Units across Scotland. Almost two thirds (n=49, 65%) were from the most deprived socio-economic areas. Complete 90-day acute hospital re-admission data were available for 74 (99%) patients. Nine (12%) women required an emergency non-obstetric hospital re-admission within 90 days. Less than 5% of the cohort had received any form of vaccination., Conclusions: This national cohort study has demonstrated that pregnant or recently pregnant women admitted to critical care with COVID-19 were more likely to reside in areas of socio-economic deprivation, and fewer than 5% of the cohort had received any form of vaccination. More targeted public health campaigning across the socio-economic gradient is urgently required., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine the incidence and characteristics of ICU admissions in the Scottish population of patients treated with chronic kidney replacement therapy (KRT) over an 11-year period and determine factors associated with post-ICU admission mortality., Design: Retrospective observational cohort study., Setting: We analyzed admissions to Scottish intensive care environments between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019., Patients: All patients receiving chronic KRT-including maintenance dialysis and kidney transplant-in Scotland., Intervention: None., Measurements and Main Results: Descriptive statistics and factors associated with mortality using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. From 10,657 unique individuals registered in the Scottish Renal Registry over the 11-year study period and alive as of January 1, 2009, 1,402 adult patients were identified as being admitted to a Scottish critical care setting. Between 2009 and 2019, admissions to ICU increased in a nonlinear manner driven by increases in admissions for renal causes and elective cardiac surgery. The ICU admission rate was higher among patients on chronic dialysis than in kidney transplant recipients (59.1 vs 19.9 per 1,000 person-years), but post-ICU mortality was similar (about 24% at 30 d and 40% at 1 year). Admissions for renal reasons were most common (20.9%) in patients undergoing chronic dialysis, whereas kidney transplant recipients were most frequently admitted for pneumonia (19.3%) or sepsis (12.8%). Adjusted Cox PH models showed that receiving invasive ventilation and vasoactive drugs was associated with an increased risk of death at 30 days post-ICU admission (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.39 and 1.72; 95% CI, 1.28-2.31, respectively)., Conclusions: With a growing population of kidney transplant recipients and the improved survival of patients on chronic dialysis, the number of ICU admissions is rising in the chronic KRT population. Mortality post-ICU admission is high for these patients., Competing Interests: Dr. Bell received funding from Astra Zeneca. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection rarely causes hospitalisation in children and young people (CYP), but mild or asymptomatic infections are common. Persistent symptoms following infection have been reported in CYP but subsequent healthcare use is unclear. We aim to describe healthcare use in CYP following community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify those at risk of ongoing healthcare needs., Methods and Analysis: We will use anonymised individual-level, population-scale national data linking demographics, comorbidities, primary and secondary care use and mortality between 1 January 2019 and 1 May 2022. SARS-CoV-2 test data will be linked from 1 January 2020 to 1 May 2022. Analyses will use Trusted Research Environments: OpenSAFELY in England, Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales and Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 in Scotland (EAVE-II). CYP aged ≥4 and &lt;18 years who underwent SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing between 1 January 2020 and 1 May 2021 and those untested CYP will be examined.The primary outcome measure is cumulative healthcare cost over 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 testing, stratified into primary or secondary care, and physical or mental healthcare. We will estimate the burden of healthcare use attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infections in the 12 months after testing using a matched cohort study of RT-PCR positive, negative or untested CYP matched on testing date, with adjustment for confounders. We will identify factors associated with higher healthcare needs in the 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection using an unmatched cohort of RT-PCR positive CYP. Multivariable logistic regression and machine learning approaches will identify risk factors for high healthcare use and characterise patterns of healthcare use post infection., Ethics and Dissemination: This study was approved by the South-Central Oxford C Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (13/SC/0149). Findings will be preprinted and published in peer-reviewed journals. Analysis code and code lists will be available through public GitHub repositories and OpenCodelists with meta-data via HDR-UK Innovation Gateway., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OVS reports an institutional payment from HDR-UK/Alan Turing for work on this study. LAT reports institutional contracts with UKRI, NIHR, MRC, institutional consulting fees from Bayer, support to attend MHRA meetings and unpaid membership of two non-industry funded trial advisory committees. MJS reports an institutional payment from HDR-UK/Alan Turing for work on this study. CRS reports institutional grants from MBIE, HRC and MRC. SVK reports funding from NRS, MRC and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office. He was co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on Ethnicity and COVID-19 and a member of the UK Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies subgroup on ethnicity. MGS reports grants from NIHR, MRC and Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool. He also reports a role as Independent external and non-remunerated member of Pfizer’s External Data Monitoring Committee for their mRNA vaccine program. He is Chair of Infectious Disease Scientific Advisory Board for Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA and director of MedEx Solutions Ltd. He reports minority stock ownership for Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA and majority stock ownership for MedEx Solutions Ltd. He also reports a gift from Chiesi Farmaceutici SPA to his institution of a clinical trial investigational medicinal product without encumbrance and distribution of same to trial sites. He is also a non-remunerated independent member of HMG UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE, COVID-19 Response) and HMG UK New Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG). SB has received an institutional payment from HDR-UK/Alan Turing funding UOE Ref: 11563729 for work on this study. She also reports institutional payments from MRC, Welsh Government and NIHR. She is a member of the Population and Systems Medicine MRC board. AS reports an institutional payment from HDR-UK/Alan Turing and research grants for EAVE II and BREATHE Hub. He also reports non-remunerated positions on AstraZeneca’s Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce and Scottish and UK Government Advisory Committees. RAL is a member of the Welsh Government COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group. BG has received research funding from HDRUK, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Using a cohort study design, we analysed 17 diagnoses and 9 interventions (including critical care admission) as a composite measure of severe maternal morbidity for pregnancies recorded over 14 years in Scotland. There were 762,918 pregnancies, of which 7947 (10 in 1000 pregnancies) recorded 9345 severe maternal morbidity events, 2802 episodes of puerperal sepsis being the most common (30%). Severe maternal morbidity incidence increased from 9 in 1000 pregnancies in 2012 to 17 in 1000 pregnancies in 2018, due in part to puerperal sepsis recording. The odds ratio (95%CI) for severe maternal morbidity was higher for: older women, for instance 1.22 (1.13-1.33) for women aged 35-39 years and 1.44 (1.27-1.63) for women aged > 40 years compared with those aged 25-29 years; obese women, for instance 1.13 (1.06-1.21) for BMI 30-40 kg.m -2 and 1.32 (1.15-1.51) for BMI > 40 kg.m -2 compared with BMI 18.5-24.9 kg.m -2 ; multiple pregnancy, 2.39 (2.09-2.74); and previous caesarean delivery, 1.52 (1.40-1.65). The median (IQR [range]) hospital stay was 3 (2-5 [1-8]) days with severe maternal morbidity and 2 (1-3 [1-5]) days without. Forty-one women died during pregnancy or up to 42 days after delivery, representing mortality rates per 100,000 pregnancies of about 365 with severe maternal morbidity and 1.6 without. There were 1449 women admitted to critical care, 807 (58%) for mechanical ventilation or support of at least two organs. We recorded an incidence of severe maternal morbidity higher than previously published, possibly because sepsis was coded inaccurately in our databases. Further research may determine the value of this composite measure of severe maternal morbidity., (© 2022 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.)

Background: The number of individuals recovering from severe COVID-19 is increasing rapidly. However, little is known about physical behaviours that make up the 24-h cycle within these individuals. This study aimed to describe physical behaviours following hospital admission for COVID-19 at eight months post-discharge including associations with acute illness severity and ongoing symptoms., Methods: One thousand seventy-seven patients with COVID-19 discharged from hospital between March and November 2020 were recruited. Using a 14-day wear protocol, wrist-worn accelerometers were sent to participants after a five-month follow-up assessment. Acute illness severity was assessed by the WHO clinical progression scale, and the severity of ongoing symptoms was assessed using four previously reported data-driven clinical recovery clusters. Two existing control populations of office workers and individuals with type 2 diabetes were comparators., Results: Valid accelerometer data from 253 women and 462 men were included. Women engaged in a mean ± SD of 14.9 ± 14.7 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 12.1 ± 1.7 h/day spent inactive and 7.2 ± 1.1 h/day asleep. The values for men were 21.0 ± 22.3 and 12.6 ± 1.7 h /day and 6.9 ± 1.1 h/day, respectively. Over 60% of women and men did not have any days containing a 30-min bout of MVPA. Variability in sleep timing was approximately 2 h in men and women. More severe acute illness was associated with lower total activity and MVPA in recovery. The very severe recovery cluster was associated with fewer days/week containing continuous bouts of MVPA, longer total sleep time, and higher variability in sleep timing. Patients post-hospitalisation with COVID-19 had lower levels of physical activity, greater sleep variability, and lower sleep efficiency than a similarly aged cohort of office workers or those with type 2 diabetes., Conclusions: Those recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19 have low levels of physical activity and disrupted patterns of sleep several months after discharge. Our comparative cohorts indicate that the long-term impact of COVID-19 on physical behaviours is significant., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with COVID-19 can require critical care for prolonged periods. Patients with persistent critical Illness can have complex recovery trajectories, but this has not been studied for patients with COVID-19. We examined the prevalence, risk factors, and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and persistent critical illness., Methods: This was a national cohort study of all adults admitted to Scottish critical care units with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020 to September 4, 20. Persistent critical illness was defined as a critical care length of stay (LOS) of ≥10 days. Outcomes included 1-yr mortality and hospital readmission after critical care discharge. Fine and Gray competing risk analysis was used to identify factors associated with persistent critical Illness with death as a competing risk., Results: A total of 2236 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to critical care; 1045 patients were identified as developing persistent critical Illness, comprising 46.7% of the cohort but using 80.6% of bed-days. Patients with persistent critical illness used more organ support, had longer post-critical care LOS, and longer total hospital LOS. Persistent critical illness was not significantly associated with long-term mortality or hospital readmission. Risk factors associated with increased hazard of persistent critical illness included age, illness severity, organ support on admission, and fewer comorbidities., Conclusions: Almost half of all patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care developed persistent critical illness, with high resource use in critical care and beyond. However, persistent critical illness was not associated with significantly worse long-term outcomes compared with patients who were critically ill for shorter periods., (Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Families of intensive care unit (ICU) decedents are at increased risk of experiencing complicated grief. However, factors associated with complicated grief in ICU and bereavement needs assessment are not available routinely. We aimed to conduct a systematic review identifying risk factors associated with complicated grief among family members of ICU decedents., Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant articles. Observational studies and randomised and non-randomised controlled trials were included. Studies were screened and quality appraised in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis was undertaken., Results: Seven studies conducted across three continents were eligible. Four studies were of high quality. 61 risk factors were investigated across the studies. Factors associated with a decreased risk of complicated grief included age, patient declining treatment and involvement in decision-making. Factors associated with increased risk included living alone, partner, dying while intubated, problematic communication, and not having the opportunity to say goodbye., Conclusion: This systematic review has identified risk factors which may help identify family members at increased risk of complicated grief. Many of the studies has small sample sizes increasing the risk of erroneously reporting no effect due to type II error. Some factors are specific to the ICU setting and are potentially modifiable. Bereavement services tailored to the needs of bereaved family members in ICU settings are required. (PROSPERO registration ID 209503)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

This special article outlines the background to bereavement in critical care and scopes the current provision and evidence for bereavement support following death in critical care. Co-authored by a family member and former critical care patient, we aim to draw out the current challenges and think about how and where support can be implemented along the bereavement pathway. We draw on the literature to examine different trajectories of dying in critical care and explore how these might impact bereavement, highlighting important points and risk factors for complicated grief. We present graphic representation of the critical junctures for bereavement in critical care. Adjustment disorders around grief are explored and the consequences for families, including the existing evidence base. Finally, we propose new areas for research in this field., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Intensive Care Society 2020.)

Background: Survivors of critical illness have poor long-term outcomes with subsequent increases in health care utilization. Less is known about the interplay between multimorbidity and long-term outcomes., Research Question: How do baseline patient demographics impact mortality and health care utilization in the year after discharge from critical care?, Study Design and Methods: Using data from a prospectively collected cohort, we used propensity score matching to assess differences in outcomes between patients with a critical care encounter and patients admitted to the hospital without critical care. Long-term mortality was examined via nationally linked data as was hospital resource use in the year after hospital discharge. The cause of death was also examined., Results: This analysis included 3,112 participants. There was no difference in long-term mortality between the critical care and hospital cohorts (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90-1.32; P = .39). Prehospitalization emotional health issues (eg, clinical diagnosis of depression) were associated with increased long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.96; P < .004). Health care utilization was different between the two cohorts in the year after discharge with the critical care cohort experiencing a 29% increased risk of hospital readmission (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.11-1.50; P = .001)., Interpretation: This national cohort study has demonstrated increased resource use for critical care survivors in the year after discharge but fails to replicate past findings of increased longer-term mortality. Multimorbidity, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic status appear to influence long-term outcomes and should be the focus of future research., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes., Methods: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107)., Findings: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity., Interpretation: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care., Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JDC reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Insmed, personal fees from Chiesi, Zambon, Janssen, and Grifols, and grants from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. TC reports grants from Guy's and St Thomas' Charity, fees from workshops, and fees from writing self-help books on fatigue, outside the submitted work. NE received a donation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen test kits from Mologic, in relation to an unrelated COVID-19 project. Neither NE nor his institution have received any financial compensation and he has no financial relationship of any kind with Mologic. RAE reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline during the conduct of the study; and grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi, outside the submitted work. AH reports personal fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Mylan Healthcare, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and grants from JP Moulton Trust and NIHR, outside the submitted work. LGH reports receiving sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Novartis, Hoffman la Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Evelo Biosciences, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Theravance, and Circassia, and grants from Medimmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph, outside the submitted work. NH reports that his research group has received unrestricted grants (managed by Guy's & St Thomas' Foundation Trust) from Philips and Resmed. Philips are contributing to the development of the MYOTRACE technology. SH reports personal fees and fees to institution for advisory boards and consultancy from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Zealand Pharma, and Sanofi Aventis, outside the submitted work. JJ reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and NHSX, outside the submitted work. RGJ reports personal fees and research funding from Biogen, personal fees from Galapagos, Heptares, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pliant, Roche/InterMune, MedImmune, PharmAkea, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Roche/Promedior, Veracyte, and GlaxoSmithKline research funding from Galecto, collaborative award from RedX and Nordic Biosciences, and was an advisory board member for NuMedii, outside the submitted work. RGJ is supported by an NIHR Professorship (RP-2017-08-ST2-014) and is a trustee for Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis. GM reports grants from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. PJMO reports grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), the EU, and NIHR, and personal fees from Pfizer, Nestle, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. PP reports a grant from NIHR, outside the submitted work. MRo reports a senior clinical fellowship as part of research training and a 1-year post working in Pharma Development Neurosciences with Roche Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. ADS reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Chiesi, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Insmed, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and 30T, outside the submitted work. MGS reports grants from NIHR, MRC, and the Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool, during the conduct of the study; and reports being a minority owner and chair of the infectious disease scientific advisory board for Integrum Scientific, outside the submitted work. AShe reports being a Member of the Scottish Government's Chief Medical Officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group. MT reports personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and GlaxoSmithKline, and grants and personal fees from Bayer and Actelion, during the conduct of the study. LVW reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Orion, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To understand the effect of COVID-19 lockdown measures on severity of illness and mortality in non-COVID-19 acute medical admissions., Design: A prospective observational study., Setting: 3 large acute medical receiving units in NHS Lothian, Scotland., Participants: Non-COVID-19 acute admissions (n=1682) were examined over the first 31 days after the implementation of the COVID-19 lockdown policy in the UK on 23 March 2019. Patients admitted over a matched interval in the previous 5 years were used as a comparator cohort (n=14 954)., Main Outcome Measures: Patient demography, biochemical markers of clinical acuity and 7-day hospital inpatient mortality., Results: Non-COVID-19 acute medical admissions reduced by 44.9% across all three sites in comparison with the mean of the preceding 5 years (p<0.001). Patients arriving during this period were more likely to be male, of younger age and to arrive by emergency ambulance transport. Non-COVID-19 admissions during lockdown had a greater incidence of acute kidney injury, lactic acidaemia and an increased risk of hospital death within 7 days (4.2% vs 2.5%), which persisted after adjustment for confounders (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.41, p<0.001)., Conclusions: These data demonstrate a significant reduction in non-COVID-19 acute medical admissions during the early weeks of lockdown. Patients admitted during this period were of higher clinical acuity with a higher incidence of early inpatient mortality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Acute kidney injury demonstrates a high incidence in critically ill populations, with many requiring renal replacement therapy. Patients may be at increased risk of acute kidney injury if prescribed certain potentially nephrotoxic medications. We aimed to evaluate this association in ICU survivors., Methods: Study design - secondary analysis of national cohort of ICU survivors to hospital discharge linked to Scottish healthcare datasets. Outcomes: primary - renal replacement therapy in ICU; secondary - early acute kidney injury (calculated using urine output and relative change from estimated baseline serum creatinine within first 24 h of ICU admission using modified-RIFLE criteria). Primary exposure: pre-admission community prescribing of at least one potential nephrotoxin: angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers, diuretics or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Statistical analyses: unadjusted associations - univariable logistic regression; confounder adjusted: multivariable logistic regression., Results: During 2011-2013, 12,838 of 23,116 patients (55.5%) were prescribed at least one community prescription of at least one nephrotoxin; 1330 (5.8%) patients received renal replacement therapy; 3061 (15.7%) had acute kidney injury. Patients exposed to at least one examined nephrotoxin experienced higher incidence of renal replacement therapy (6.8% vs 4.5%; adjOR 1.46, 95%CI 1.24, 1.72, p  < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (19.8% vs 10.9%; adjOR 1.61, 1.44, 1.80, p  < 0.001). Increased risk of RRT was also found for angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (adjOR 1.65, 1.40, 1.94), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (adjOR 1.12, 1.02, 1.44) and diuretics (adjOR 1.35, 1.14, 1.59)., Conclusions: Community prescribing of potential nephrotoxins increases the risk of renal replacement therapy/early acute kidney injury in ICU populations. Analyses were limited by the survivor dataset and potential residual confounding. Findings add consistency to previous research improving understanding of the harmful potential of these important medications and their timely cessation in acute illness., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Intensive Care Society 2020.)

Introduction: Very little is known about possible clinical sequelae that may persist after resolution of acute COVID-19. A recent longitudinal cohort from Italy including 143 patients followed up after hospitalisation with COVID-19 reported that 87% had at least one ongoing symptom at 60-day follow-up. Early indications suggest that patients with COVID-19 may need even more psychological support than typical intensive care unit patients. The assessment of risk factors for longer term consequences requires a longitudinal study linked to data on pre-existing conditions and care received during the acute phase of illness. The primary aim of this study is to characterise physical and psychosocial sequelae in patients post-COVID-19 hospital discharge., Methods and Analysis: This is an international open-access prospective, observational multisite study. This protocol is linked with the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) and the WHO's Clinical Characterisation Protocol, which includes patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 during hospitalisation. This protocol will follow-up a subset of patients with confirmed COVID-19 using standardised surveys to measure longer term physical and psychosocial sequelae. The data will be linked with the acute phase data. Statistical analyses will be undertaken to characterise groups most likely to be affected by sequelae of COVID-19. The open-access follow-up survey can be used as a data collection tool by other follow-up studies, to facilitate data harmonisation and to identify subsets of patients for further in-depth follow-up. The outcomes of this study will inform strategies to prevent long-term consequences; inform clinical management, interventional studies, rehabilitation and public health management to reduce overall morbidity; and improve long-term outcomes of COVID-19., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol and survey are open access to enable low-resourced sites to join the study to facilitate global standardised, longitudinal data collection. Ethical approval has been given by sites in Colombia, Ghana, Italy, Norway, Russia, the UK and South Africa. New sites are welcome to join this collaborative study at any time. Sites interested in adopting the protocol as it is or in an adapted version are responsible for ensuring that local sponsorship and ethical approvals in place as appropriate. The tools are available on the ISARIC website (www.isaric.org). PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/c5rw3/ PROTOCOL VERSION: 3 August 2020 EUROQOL ID: 37035., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)