90
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Association between pre-existing respiratory disease and its treatment, and severe COVID-19: a population cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Previous studies suggested that the prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 was lower than its prevalence in the general population. The aim of this study was to assess whether chronic lung disease or use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) affects the risk of contracting severe COVID-19.

          Methods

          In this population cohort study, records from 1205 general practices in England that contribute to the QResearch database were linked to Public Health England's database of SARS-CoV-2 testing and English hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths for COVID-19. All patients aged 20 years and older who were registered with one of the 1205 general practices on Jan 24, 2020, were included in this study. With Cox regression, we examined the risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation, admission to ICU, and death in relation to respiratory disease and use of ICS, adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic status and comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19.

          Findings

          Between Jan 24 and April 30, 2020, 8 256 161 people were included in the cohort and observed, of whom 14 479 (0·2%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, 1542 (<0·1%) were admitted to ICU, and 5956 (0·1%) died. People with some respiratory diseases were at an increased risk of hospitalisation (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] hazard ratio [HR] 1·54 [95% CI 1·45–1·63], asthma 1·18 [1·13–1·24], severe asthma 1·29 [1·22–1·37; people on three or more current asthma medications], bronchiectasis 1·34 [1·20–1·50], sarcoidosis 1·36 [1·10–1·68], extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·35 [0·82–2·21], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·59 [1·30–1·95], other interstitial lung disease 1·66 [1·30–2·12], and lung cancer 2·24 [1·89–2·65]) and death (COPD 1·54 [1·42–1·67], asthma 0·99 [0·91–1·07], severe asthma 1·08 [0·98–1·19], bronchiectasis 1·12 [0·94–1·33], sarcoidosis 1·41 [0·99–1·99), extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·56 [0·78–3·13], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·47 [1·12–1·92], other interstitial lung disease 2·05 [1·49–2·81], and lung cancer 1·77 [1·37–2·29]) due to COVID-19 compared with those without these diseases. Admission to ICU was rare, but the HR for people with asthma was 1·08 (0·93–1·25) and severe asthma was 1·30 (1·08–1·58). In a post-hoc analysis, relative risks of severe COVID-19 in people with respiratory disease were similar before and after shielding was introduced on March 23, 2020. In another post-hoc analysis, people with two or more prescriptions for ICS in the 150 days before study start were at a slightly higher risk of severe COVID-19 compared with all other individuals (ie, no or one ICS prescription): HR 1·13 (1·03–1·23) for hospitalisation, 1·63 (1·18–2·24) for ICU admission, and 1·15 (1·01–1·31) for death.

          Interpretation

          The risk of severe COVID-19 in people with asthma is relatively small. People with COPD and interstitial lung disease appear to have a modestly increased risk of severe disease, but their risk of death from COVID-19 at the height of the epidemic was mostly far lower than the ordinary risk of death from any cause. Use of inhaled steroids might be associated with a modestly increased risk of severe COVID-19.

          Funding

          National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Wellcome Trust.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Management of post-acute covid-19 in primary care

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Associations of type 1 and type 2 diabetes with COVID-19-related mortality in England: a whole-population study

            Summary Background Although diabetes has been associated with COVID-19-related mortality, the absolute and relative risks for type 1 and type 2 diabetes are unknown. We assessed the independent effects of diabetes status, by type, on in-hospital death in England in patients with COVID-19 during the period from March 1 to May 11, 2020. Methods We did a whole-population study assessing risks of in-hospital death with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 11, 2020. We included all individuals registered with a general practice in England who were alive on Feb 16, 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the effect of diabetes status, by type, on in-hospital death with COVID-19, adjusting for demographic factors and cardiovascular comorbidities. Because of the absence of data on total numbers of people infected with COVID-19 during the observation period, we calculated mortality rates for the population as a whole, rather than the population who were infected. Findings Of the 61 414 470 individuals who were alive and registered with a general practice on Feb 16, 2020, 263 830 (0·4%) had a recorded diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, 2 864 670 (4·7%) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, 41 750 (0·1%) had other types of diabetes, and 58 244 220 (94·8%) had no diabetes. 23 698 in-hospital COVID-19-related deaths occurred during the study period. A third occurred in people with diabetes: 7434 (31·4%) in people with type 2 diabetes, 364 (1·5%) in those with type 1 diabetes, and 69 (0·3%) in people with other types of diabetes. Unadjusted mortality rates per 100 000 people over the 72-day period were 27 (95% CI 27–28) for those without diabetes, 138 (124–153) for those with type 1 diabetes, and 260 (254–265) for those with type 2 diabetes. Adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, and geographical region, compared with people without diabetes, the odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital COVID-19-related death were 3·51 (95% CI 3·16–3·90) in people with type 1 diabetes and 2·03 (1·97–2·09) in people with type 2 diabetes. These effects were attenuated to ORs of 2·86 (2·58–3·18) for type 1 diabetes and 1·80 (1·75–1·86) for type 2 diabetes when also adjusted for previous hospital admissions with coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, or heart failure. Interpretation The results of this nationwide analysis in England show that type 1 and type 2 diabetes were both independently associated with a significant increased odds of in-hospital death with COVID-19. Funding None.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of frailty on survival in patients with COVID-19 (COPE): a multicentre, European, observational cohort study

              Summary Background The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on health-care systems. Frailty is being used in clinical decision making for patients with COVID-19, yet the prevalence and effect of frailty in people with COVID-19 is not known. In the COVID-19 in Older PEople (COPE) study we aimed to establish the prevalence of frailty in patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and investigate its association with mortality and duration of hospital stay. Methods This was an observational cohort study conducted at ten hospitals in the UK and one in Italy. All adults (≥18 years) admitted to participating hospitals with COVID-19 were included. Patients with incomplete hospital records were excluded. The study analysed routinely generated hospital data for patients with COVID-19. Frailty was assessed by specialist COVID-19 teams using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and patients were grouped according to their score (1–2=fit; 3–4=vulnerable, but not frail; 5–6=initial signs of frailty but with some degree of independence; and 7–9=severe or very severe frailty). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality (time from hospital admission to mortality and day-7 mortality). Findings Between Feb 27, and April 28, 2020, we enrolled 1564 patients with COVID-19. The median age was 74 years (IQR 61–83); 903 (57·7%) were men and 661 (42·3%) were women; 425 (27·2%) had died at data cutoff (April 28, 2020). 772 (49·4%) were classed as frail (CFS 5–8) and 27 (1·7%) were classed as terminally ill (CFS 9). Compared with CFS 1–2, the adjusted hazard ratios for time from hospital admission to death were 1·55 (95% CI 1·00–2·41) for CFS 3–4, 1·83 (1·15–2·91) for CFS 5–6, and 2·39 (1·50–3·81) for CFS 7–9, and adjusted odds ratios for day-7 mortality were 1·22 (95% CI 0·63–2·38) for CFS 3–4, 1·62 (0·81–3·26) for CFS 5–6, and 3·12 (1·56–6·24) for CFS 7–9. Interpretation In a large population of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, disease outcomes were better predicted by frailty than either age or comorbidity. Our results support the use of CFS to inform decision making about medical care in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Funding None.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet Respir Med
                Lancet Respir Med
                The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                2213-2600
                2213-2619
                1 April 2021
                1 April 2021
                Affiliations
                [a ]Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [b ]Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [c ]Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [d ]NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
                [e ]School of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Centre, Beijing, China
                [f ]University of Nottingham, Division of Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University Park, Nottingham, UK
                [g ]Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Paul Aveyard, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
                [†]

                Authors contributed equally

                Article
                S2213-2600(21)00095-3
                10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00095-3
                8016404
                33812494
                01f940b5-af9f-4a2d-928a-066c4a0f413a
                © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article