Search

Background\ud \ud Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions.\ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal–external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London).\ud \ud \ud Findings\ud \ud 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal–external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [–0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model.\ud \ud \ud Interpretation\ud \ud The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.\ud \ud \ud Funding\ud \ud National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.

Background The epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in the Russian population are unknown. Information on the differences between laboratory-confirmed and clinically-diagnosed COVID-19 in real-life settings is lacking. Methods We extracted data from the medical records of adult patients who were consecutively admitted for suspected COVID-19 infection in Moscow, between April 8 and May 28, 2020. Results Of the 4261 patients hospitalised for suspected COVID-19, outcomes were available for 3480 patients (median age 56 years (interquartile range 45-66). The commonest comorbidities were hypertension, obesity, chronic cardiac disease and diabetes. Half of the patients (n=1728) had a positive RT-PCR while 1748 were negative on RT-PCR but had clinical symptoms and characteristic CT signs suggestive of COVID-19 infection.No significant differences in frequency of symptoms, laboratory test results and risk factors for in-hospital mortality were found between those exclusively clinically diagnosed or with positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.In a multivariable logistic regression model the following were associated with in-hospital mortality; older age (per 1 year increase) odds ratio [OR] 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 - 1.06); male sex (OR 1.71, 1.24 - 2.37); chronic kidney disease (OR 2.99, 1.89 – 4.64); diabetes (OR 2.1, 1.46 - 2.99); chronic cardiac disease (OR 1.78, 1.24 - 2.57) and dementia (OR 2.73, 1.34 – 5.47). Conclusions Age, male sex, and chronic comorbidities were risk factors for in-hospital mortality. The combination of clinical features were sufficient to diagnoseCOVID-19 infection indicating that laboratory testing is not critical in real-life clinical practice.

Objectives\ud The aims of the present study was to examine the associations between the severity of pain and anxiety in a community population reporting joint pain, and to investigate the management of joint pain in the presence of comorbid anxiety.\ud \ud Methods\ud A population survey was carried out of people aged ≥45 years, registered with eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, UK. Respondents were asked to report pain intensity in their hands, hips, knees and feet (on a numerical rating scale), anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder seven‐item [GAD‐7] scale) and guideline‐recommended treatments used to manage pain. Clinical anxiety was defined by a GAD‐7 score of 10 or more.\ud \ud Results\ud A total of 11,222 respondents with joint pain were included in the analysis, with 1,802 (16.1%) reporting clinical anxiety. Respondents reporting more severe pain were more likely to report clinical anxiety (severe versus mild pain, odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.56 to 6.31). The number of pain sites was also positively associated with clinical anxiety (four versus one site; OR 3.64, 95% CI 3.09 to 4.30). Those with clinical anxiety were less likely to undertake general fitness exercises (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.70), but more likely to diet (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.69), use walking aids (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.77) and assistive devices (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49), and more likely to use opioids (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to1.52).\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Anxiety is common among patients presenting to primary care with joint pain. Patients with anxiety are likely to manage their joint pain differently to those without. Case‐finding to identify and treat anxiety would be appropriate in this population, with caution about opioid prescribing and consideration of exercise as an intervention.

Background There is limited evidence concerning the effectiveness of enhanced recovery programmes in hip and knee replacement surgery, particularly when applied nationwide across a health-care system. Objectives To determine the effect of hospital organisation, surgical factors and the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway on patient outcomes and NHS costs of hip and knee replacement. Design (1) Statistical analysis of national linked data to explore geographical variations in patient outcomes of surgery. (2) A natural experimental study to determine clinical effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery. (3) A qualitative study to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, change. (4) Health economics analysis to establish NHS costs and cost-effectiveness. Setting Data from the National Joint Registry, linked to English Hospital Episode Statistics and patient-reported outcome measures in both the geographical variation and natural experiment studies, together with the economic evaluation. The ethnographic study took place in four hospitals in a region of England. Participants Qualitative study – 38 health professionals working in hip and knee replacement services in secondary care and 37 patients receiving hip or knee replacement. Interventions Natural experiment – implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery at each hospital between 2009 and 2011. Enhanced recovery after surgery is a complex intervention focusing on several areas of patients’ care pathways through surgery: preoperatively (patient is in best possible condition for surgery), perioperatively (patient has best possible management during and after operation) and postoperatively (patient experiences best rehabilitation). Main outcome measures Patient-reported pain and function (Oxford Hip Score/Oxford Knee Score); 6-month complications; length of stay; bed-day costs; and revision surgery within 5 years. Results Geographical study – there are potentially unwarranted variations in patient outcomes of hip and knee replacement surgery. This variation cannot be explained by differences in patients, case mix, surgical or hospital organisational factors. Qualitative – successful implementation depends on empowering patients to work towards their recovery, providing post-discharge support and promoting successful multidisciplinary team working. Care processes were negotiated between patients and health-care professionals. ‘Good care’ remains an aspiration, particularly in the post-discharge period. Natural experiment – length of stay has declined substantially, pain and function have improved, revision rates are in decline and complication rates remain stable. The introduction of a national enhanced recovery after surgery programme maintained improvement, but did not alter the rate of change already under way. Health economics – costs are high in the year of joint replacement and remain higher in the subsequent year after surgery. There is a strong economic incentive to identify ways of reducing revisions and complications following joint replacement. Published cost-effectiveness evidence supports enhanced recovery pathways as a whole. Limitations Short duration of follow-up data prior to enhanced recovery after surgery implementation and missing data, particularly for hospital organisation factors. Conclusion No evidence was found to show that enhanced recovery after surgery had a substantial impact on longer-term downwards trends in costs and length of stay. Trends of improving outcomes were seen across all age groups, in those with and without comorbidity, and had begun prior to the formal enhanced recovery after surgery roll-out. Reductions in length of stay have been achieved without adversely affecting patient outcomes, yet, substantial variation remains in outcomes between hospital trusts. Future work There is still work to be done to reduce and understand unwarranted variations in outcome between individual hospitals. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059473. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objectives Clinical characterisation studies have been essential in helping inform research, diagnosis and clinical management efforts, particularly early in a pandemic. This systematic review summarises the early literature on clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital, and evaluates the quality of evidence produced during the initial stages of the pandemic. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases were searched for studies published from January 1st 2020 to April 28th 2020. Studies which reported on at least 100 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 of any age were included. Data on clinical characteristics were independently extracted by two review authors. Study design specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate included studies: the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort and cross sectional studies, Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series and the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Results The search yielded 78 studies presenting data on 77,443 people. Most studies (82%) were conducted in China. No studies included patients from low- and middle-income countries. The overall quality of included studies was low to moderate, and the majority of studies did not include a control group. Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms early in the pandemic. Laboratory and imaging findings were diverse with lymphocytopenia and ground glass opacities the most common findings respectively. Clinical data in children and vulnerable populations were limited. Conclusions The early Covid-19 literature had moderate to high risk of bias and presented several methodological issues. Early clinical characterisation studies should aim to include different at-risk populations, including patients in non-hospital settings. Pandemic preparedness requires collection tools to ensure observational studies are methodologically robust and will help produce high-quality data early on in the pandemic to guide clinical practice and public health policy. Review registration Available at https://osf.io/mpafn

Neer type II (Edinburgh type 3B) fractures of the lateral clavicle are unstable fractures. The optimal management of these fractures remains controversial with many surgical techniques described in the literature. Our study reports the long-term results of a modified suture (1.5-mm polydioxanone cord) and sling technique for these fractures to avoid complications associated with current techniques in the literature. Over a 5-year period, 23 patients who were (12 males, 11 females; 14 left, 9 right) with a mean age of 42 years were treated with this technique. At last follow-up, the mean Oxford score was 45.1 (range 36-48); the mean SPADI score was 7.4 (range 0-32.3); and the mean Constant score was 91.5 (range 71-100). There were one non-union and no malunion. All patients in our series, except one, returned to their pre-injury activity level. This modified suture fixation technique is safe, technically simple to perform and cheap. It achieves excellent rates of fracture union without the complications associated with other fixation methods in the literature.

IntroductionHip and knee replacement represents a significant burden to the UK healthcare system. ‘Enhanced recovery’ pathways have been introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement, with the aim of improving outcomes and timely recovery after surgery. To support policymaking, there is a need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways across jurisdictions. Our aim is to systematically summarise the published cost-effectiveness evidence on enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement, both as a whole and for each of the various components of enhanced recovery pathways.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit and the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database. Separate search strategies were developed for each database including terms relating to hip and knee replacement/arthroplasty, economic evaluations, decision modelling and quality of life measures.We will extract peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2017 reporting economic evaluations of preoperative, perioperative or postoperative enhanced recovery interventions within hip or knee replacement. Economic evaluations alongside cohort studies or based on decision models will be included. Only studies with patients undergoing elective replacement surgery of the hip or knee will be included. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice guidelines for economic evaluation, decision modelling and model validation.Our primary outcome will be the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery (entire pathway and individual components) in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented, focussing on cost-effectiveness results, study design, quality and validation status.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review is exempted from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed academic journal and at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017059473.