Search

Key Points: Question: Do critically ill adult patients hospitalized for suspected sepsis and treated with intravenous antibiotics based on procalcitonin (PCT) or C-reactive protein (CRP) protocols, have a safe reduction in treatment duration compared with standard care? Findings: In this multicenter, randomized trial of 2760 patients, the daily PCT-guided protocol reduced total antibiotic duration and had noninferior all-cause mortality compared with standard care. No difference was found in total antibiotic duration between standard care and daily CRP-guided protocol, and CRP showed inconclusive results for all-cause mortality. Meaning: In hospitalized adults, daily PCT-guided protocol reduced antibiotic duration safely compared with standard care, but daily CRP-guided protocol does not. Importance: For hospitalized critically ill adults with suspected sepsis, procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) monitoring protocols can guide the duration of antibiotic therapy, but the evidence of the effect and safety of these protocols remains uncertain. Objective: To determine whether decisions based on assessment of CRP or PCT safely results in a reduction in the duration of antibiotic therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, intervention-concealed randomized clinical trial, involving 2760 adults (≥18 years), in 41 UK National Health Service (NHS) intensive care units, requiring critical care within 24 hours of initiating intravenous antibiotics for suspected sepsis and likely to continue antibiotics for at least 72 hours. Intervention: From January 1, 2018, to June 5, 2024, 918 patients were assigned to the daily PCT-guided protocol, 924 to the daily CRP-guided protocol, and 918 assigned to standard care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were total duration of antibiotics (effectiveness) and all-cause mortality (safety) to 28 days. Secondary outcomes included critical care unit data and hospital stay data. Ninety-day all-cause mortality was also collected. Results: Among the randomized patients (mean age 60.2 [SD, 15.4] years; 60.3% males), there was a significant reduction in antibiotic duration from randomization to 28 days for those in the daily PCT-guided protocol compared with standard care (mean duration, 10.7 [SD, 7.6] days for standard care and 9.8 [SD, 7.2] days for PCT; mean difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.58, P =.01). For all-cause mortality up to 28 days, the daily PCT-guided protocol was noninferior to standard care, where the noninferiority margin was set at 5.4% (19.4% [170 of 878] of patients receiving standard care; 20.9% [184 of 879], PCT; absolute difference, 1.57; 95% CI, −2.18 to 5.32; P =.02). No difference was found in antibiotic duration for standard care vs daily CRP-guided protocol (mean duration, 10.6 [7.7] days for CRP; mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI, −0.60 to 0.79; P =.79). For all-cause mortality, the daily CRP-guided protocol was inconclusive compared with standard care (21.1% [184 of 874] for CRP; absolute difference, 1.69; 95% CI, −2.07 to 5.45; P =.03). Conclusions and Relevance: Care guided by measurement of PCT reduces antibiotic duration safely compared with standard care, but CRP does not. All-cause mortality for CRP was inconclusive. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN47473244 This clinical trial assessed whether treatment protocols for monitoring C-reactive protein or procalcitonin safely reduced the amount of time critically ill adults with suspected sepsis received antibiotics while maintaining treatment safety measured by 28-day all-cause mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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). 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. 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. UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mortality rates in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the UK appeared to decline during the first wave of the pandemic. We aimed to quantify potential drivers of this change and identify groups of patients who remain at high risk of dying in hospital. In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK recruited a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 247 acute hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales during the first wave of the pandemic (between March 9 and Aug 2, 2020). We included all patients aged 18 years and older with clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19 (by RT-PCR test) from assumed community-acquired infection. We did a three-way decomposition mediation analysis using natural effects models to explore associations between week of admission and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for confounders (demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness) and quantifying potential mediators (level of respiratory support and steroid treatment). The primary outcome was weekly in-hospital mortality at 28 days, defined as the proportion of patients who had died within 28 days of admission of all patients admitted in the observed week, and it was assessed in all patients with an outcome. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN66726260. Between March 9, and Aug 2, 2020, we recruited 80 713 patients, of whom 63 972 were eligible and included in the study. Unadjusted weekly in-hospital mortality declined from 32·3% (95% CI 31·8–32·7) in March 9 to April 26, 2020, to 16·4% (15·0–17·8) in June 15 to Aug 2, 2020. Reductions in mortality were observed in all age groups, in all ethnic groups, for both sexes, and in patients with and without comorbidities. After adjustment, there was a 32% reduction in the risk of mortality per 7-week period (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·65–0·71]). The higher proportions of patients with severe disease and comorbidities earlier in the first wave (March and April) than in June and July accounted for 10·2% of this reduction. The use of respiratory support changed during the first wave, with gradually increased use of non-invasive ventilation over the first wave. Changes in respiratory support and use of steroids accounted for 22·2%, OR 0·95 (0·94–0·95) of the reduction in in-hospital mortality. The reduction in in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in the UK was partly accounted for by changes in the case-mix and illness severity. A significant reduction in in-hospital mortality was associated with differences in respiratory support and critical care use, which could partly reflect accrual of clinical knowledge. The remaining improvement in in-hospital mortality is not explained by these factors, and could be associated with changes in community behaviour, inoculum dose, and hospital capacity strain. National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The number of patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) is likely to increase. Transferring patients to specialised weaning units may improve outcomes and reduce costs. The aim of this study was to establish the incidence and outcomes of PMV in a UK administrative health care region without a dedicated weaning unit, and model the potential impact of establishing a dedicated weaning unit.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using a database of admissions to three intensive care units (ICU) in a UK region from 2002 to 2006. Using a 21 day cut-off to define PMV, incidence was calculated using all ICU admissions and ventilated ICU admissions as denominators. Outcomes for the PMV cohort (mortality and hospital resource use) were compared with the non-PMV cohort. Length of ICU stay beyond 21 days was used to model the effect of establishing a weaning unit in terms of unit occupancy rates, admission refusal rates, and healthcare costs.Results: Out of 8290 ICU admission episodes, 7848 were included in the analysis. Mechanical ventilation was required during 5552 admission episodes, of which 349 required PMV. The incidence of PMV was 4.4 per 100 ICU admissions, and 6.3 per 100 ventilated ICU admissions. PMV patients used 29.1% of all general ICU bed days, spent longer in hospital after ICU discharge than non-PMV patients (median 17 vs 7 days, P < 0.001) and had higher hospital mortality (40.3% vs 33.8%, P = 0.02). For the region, in which about 70 PMV patients were treated each year, a weaning unit with a capacity of three beds appeared most cost efficient, resulting in an occupancy rate of 73%, admission refusal rate at 21 days of 36%, and potential cost saving of £344,000 (€418,000) using UK healthcare tariffs.Conclusions: One in every sixteen ventilated patients requires PMV in our region and this group use a substantial amount of health care resource. Establishing a weaning unit would potentially reduce acute bed occupancy by 8-10% and could reduce overall treatment costs. Restructuring the current configuration of critical care services to introduce weaning units should be considered if the expected increase in PMV incidence occurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have elevated incidence of diabetes. However, it is unclear whether this is due to shared risk factors, confounding or stress hyperglycaemia in response to acute illness., Methods: We analysed a multicentre prospective cohort study (PHOSP-COVID) of people ≥18 years discharged from NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom following COVID-19. Individuals were included if they attended at least one research visit with a HbA1c measurement within 14 months of discharge and had no history of diabetes at baseline. The primary outcome was new onset diabetes (any type), as defined by a first glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol). Follow-up was censored at the last HbA1c measurement. Age-standardised incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, length of hospital stay, body mass index, smoking, physical activity, deprivation, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia/hypercholesterolaemia, intensive therapy unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, corticosteroid use and C-reactive protein score) were calculated using Poisson regression. Incidence rates were compared with the control groups of published clinical trials in the United Kingdom by applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, where possible., Results: Incidence of diabetes was 91.4 per 1000 person-years and was higher in South Asian (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 3.60; 1.77, 7.32; p < 0.001) and Black ethnic groups (IRR = 2.36; 1.07, 5.21; p = 0.03) compared with White ethnic groups. When restricted to similar characteristics, the incidence rates were similar to those in UK clinical trials data., Conclusion: Diabetes incidence following hospitalisation for COVID-19 is high, but it remains uncertain whether it is disproportionately higher than pre-pandemic levels., (© 2024 The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Benzodiazepines and z-drugs are often prescribed to critical care survivors due to high prevalence of mental health problems and insomnia. However, their safety has not been studied in this population., Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 28,678 adult critical care survivors hospitalised in 2010 and 2018: 4844 prescribed benzodiazepines or z-drugs, matched to 23,834 unexposed survivors using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked datasets. Multivariable stratified Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted hazards ratio (adjHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of community benzodiazepine/z-drug prescribing and falls/trauma-related events, as well as all-cause 30-day rehospitalisation or death. We performed subgroup analyses on patients without pre-critical care admission prescription of benzodiazepines/z-drugs ('treatment-naïve'), and sensitivity analyses excluding patients receiving palliative care after discharge., Results: Prescription of benzodiazepines or z-drugs showed no conclusive evidence of increased risk of falls/trauma-related events in the whole cohort (adjHR 1.27; 95%CI 0.76-2.14) or in treatment-naïve individuals (adjHR 1.79; 95%CI 0.61-5.26), because estimates lacked precision due to low event rates. For all-cause rehospitalisation or death, benzodiazepines/z-drugs were associated with increased risk (whole cohort adjHR 1.24, 95%CI 1.14-1.36; treatment-naïve adjHR 1.66, 95%CI 1.49-1.86). However, after excluding patients treated for palliative care, the association persisted only in treatment-naïve individuals (whole cohort adjHR 1.08, 95%CI 0.98-1.19; treatment-naïve adjHR 1.42, 95%CI1.25-1.62)., Conclusions: Community benzodiazepine and z-drug prescribing was associated with increased risk of all-cause, but not falls/trauma-related, rehospitalisations and deaths in critical care survivors who had not been prescribed these before hospitalisation. Clinicians should balance the possible benefits with the likely harms of prescribing these drugs in this potentially vulnerable patient group., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflicts of interest: All authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2024. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Survivors of critical illness are often affected by new or worsened mental health conditions and sleep disorders. We examined the incidence, practice variation and factors associated with new benzodiazepine and z-drug community prescriptions among critical illness survivors., Methods: A retrospective cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink data included 52 846 adult critical care survivors hospitalised in 2010 and 2018 who were not prescribed benzodiazepines or z-drugs before hospitalisation. We performed multilevel multivariable logistic regression to assess patient factors associated with new (any prescription within 90 days) and with new-and-persistent (2+ prescriptions within 180 days) benzodiazepine or z-drug prescribing, and to evaluate variation by primary care practice., Results: 5.2% (2769/52846) of treatment-naïve survivors (95% CI 5.1-5.4) were prescribed a benzodiazepine or z-drug, and 2.5% (1311/52846) had new-and-persistent prescribing. A history of insomnia (adjusted OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.74-2.21), anxiety or depression (adjusted OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.28-1.53) and recent prescription opioid use (adjusted OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.34-1.61) were associated with new community prescription. Sex was not associated with new prescriptions and older patients were less likely to receive a prescription. 2.6% of the variation in new prescribing and 4.1% of the variation in new-and-persistent prescribing were attributable to the prescribing practice., Conclusions: One in twenty critical illness survivors receive a new community benzodiazepine or z-drug prescription. Further research is needed to understand where in the patient care pathway initiation occurs and the risk of adverse events in survivors of recent critical illness., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

Purpose: To establish the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) in ICU patients with co-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), and explore its association with long-term survival., Methods: In a multi-centre prospective cohort study in 11 UK ICUs, we enrolled 273 critically ill patients with co-existing CVD. We measured troponin I (cTnI) with a high sensitivity assay for 10 days; ECGs were carried out daily for 5 days and analysed by blinded cardiologists for dynamic changes. Data were combined to diagnose myocardial 'infarction', 'injury' or 'no injury' according to the third universal definition of MI. Patients were followed-up for 6 months. Regression and mediation analyses were used to explore relationships between acute physiological derangements, MI, and mortality., Results: cTnI was detected in all patients, with a rise/fall pattern consistent with an acute hit. In 73% of patients, this peaked on days 1-3 [median 114 ng/l (first, third quartiles: 27, 393)]. Serial ECGs indicated 24.2% (n = 66) of patients experienced MI, but > 95% were unrecognized by clinical teams. Type 2 MI was the most likely aetiology in all cases. A further 46.1% (n = 126) experienced injury (no ECG changes). Injury and MI were both associated with 6-month mortality (reference: no injury): OR injury 2.28 (95% CI 1.06-4.92, p = 0.035), OR MI 2.70 (95% CI 1.11-6.55, p = 0.028). Mediation analysis suggested MI partially mediated the relationship between acute physiological derangement and 6-month mortality (p = 0.002), suggesting a possible causal association., Conclusions: Undiagnosed MI occurs in around a quarter of critically ill patients with co-existing CVD and is associated with lower long-term survival.

Background: Many intensive care (ICU) survivors experience early unplanned hospital readmission, but the reasons and potential prevention strategies are poorly understood. We aimed to understand contributors to readmissions from the patient/carer perspective., Methods: This is a mixed methods study with qualitative data taking precedence. Fifty-eight ICU survivors and carers who experienced early unplanned rehospitalisation were interviewed. Thematic analysis was used to identify factors contributing to readmissions, and supplemented with questionnaire data measuring patient comorbidity and carer strain, and importance rating scales for factors that contribute to readmissions in other patient groups. Data were integrated iteratively to identify patterns, which were discussed in five focus groups with different patients/carers who also experienced readmissions. Major patterns and contexts in which unplanned early rehospitalisation occurred in ICU survivors were described., Results: Interviews suggested 10 themes comprising patient-level and system-level issues. Integration with questionnaire data, pattern exploration and discussion at focus groups suggested two major readmission contexts. A 'complex health and psychosocial needs' context occurred in patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, who frequently also had significant psychological problems, mobility issues, problems with specialist aids/equipment and fragile social support. These patients typically described inadequate preparation for hospital discharge, poor communication between secondary/primary care, and inadequate support with psychological care, medications and goal setting. This complex multidimensional situation contrasted markedly with the alternative 'medically unavoidable' readmission context. In these patients medical issues/complications primarily resulted in hospital readmission, and the other issues were absent or not considered important., Conclusions: Although some readmissions are medically unavoidable, for many ICU survivors complex health and psychosocial issues contribute concurrently to early rehospitalisation. Care pathways that anticipate and institute anticipatory multifaceted support for these patients merit further development and evaluation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)