ORCID Profile
0000-0002-3948-0756
Current Organisation
University of Oxford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 12-05-2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.07.20094839
Abstract: New emerging infections have no known treatment. Assessing potential drugs for safety and efficacy enables clinicians to make evidence-based treatment decisions, and contributes to overall outbreak control. However, it is difficult to launch clinical trials in the unpredictable environment of an outbreak. We conducted a bibliometric systematic review for the 2009 influenza pandemic to determine the speed, and quality of evidence generation for treatments. This informs approaches to high-quality evidence generation in this and future pandemics. We searched PubMed for all clinical data (including clinical trial, observational and case series) describing treatment for patients with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and ClinicalTrials.gov for research that aimed to enrol patients with the disease. 33869 treatment courses for patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 were detailed in 160 publications. Most were retrospective observational studies or case series. 592 patients received treatment (or placebo) as participants in a registered interventional clinical trial with results publicly available. None of these registered trial results were available during the timeframe of the pandemic, and the median date of publication was 213 days after the Public Health Emergency of International Concern ended. Patients were frequently treated for pandemic influenza with drugs not registered for this indication, but rarely under circumstances of high-quality data capture. The result was a reliance on use under compassionate circumstances, resulting in continued uncertainty regarding the potential benefits and harms of anti-viral treatment. Rapid scaling of clinical trials is critical for generating a quality evidence base during pandemics. Wellcome Trust.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 05-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2021-054601
Abstract: Many COVID-19 patients are discharged home from hospital with instructions to self-isolate. This reduces the burden on potentially overwhelmed hospitals. The Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) Home Monitoring Programme (HMP) is a model of care for COVID-19 patients which chiefly tracks pulse oximetry and body temperature readings. To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the HMP from a patient perspective. Of 46 COVID-19 patients who used the HMP through RMH during April to August 2020, 16 were invited to participate in this qualitative evaluation study all accepted, including 6 healthcare workers. Attempts were made to recruit a gender-balanced s le across a range of COVID-19 severities and comorbidities. Participants completed a brief semistructured phone interview discussing their experience of using the HMP. A thematic analysis of interview data was conducted. Feasibility was defined as the HMP’s reported ease of use. Acceptability was considered holistically by reviewing themes in the interview data. The HMP allowed clinical deterioration to be recognised as it occurred enabling prompt intervention. All participants reported a positive opinion of the HMP, stating it was highly acceptable and easy to use. Almost all participants said they found using it reassuring. Patients frequently mentioned the importance of the monitoring clinicians as an information conduit. The most suggested improvement was to monitor a broader set of symptoms. The HMP is highly feasible and acceptable to patients. This model of care could potentially be implemented on a mass-scale to reduce the burden of COVID-19 on hospitals. A key benefit of the HMP is the ability to reassure patients they will receive suitable intervention should they deteriorate while isolating outside of hospital settings.
Publisher: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Date: 05-10-2022
DOI: 10.7554/ELIFE.80556
Abstract: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, in idual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61–0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available in idual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z] and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135] Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford’s COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health “Fondi Ricerca corrente–L1P6” to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore–Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-05-2022
Abstract: To identify behavioural drivers and barriers that may have contributed to changes in ED attendance during the first 10 months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic in Victoria. We conducted a mixed methods analysis of patients who attended one of eight participating EDs between 1 November 2019 and 31 December 2020. A random s le of patients were chosen after their visit and invited to participate in an online survey assessing behavioural drivers and barriers to attendance. The study timespan was ided into four periods based on local and world events to assess changes in attitudes and behaviours over this period. A total of 5600 patients were invited to complete the survey and 606 (11%) submitted sufficient information for analysis. There were significant differences in participants' attitudes towards healthcare and EDs, levels of concern about contracting and spreading COVID‐19 and the influence of mask wearing. Patients expressed more concern about the safety of an ED during the largest outbreak of COVID‐19 infections than they did pre‐COVID, but this difference was not sustained once community infection numbers dropped. General concerns about hospital attendance were higher after COVID than they were pre‐COVID. A total of 27% of patients specifically stated that they had delayed their ED attendance. Patients expressed increased concerns around attending ED during the first 10 months of the 2020 COVID‐19 pandemic and frequently cited COVID‐19 as a reason for delaying their presentation. These factors would be amenable to mitigation via focussed public health messaging.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2021
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-08-2020
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 05-09-2022
DOI: 10.1111/IRV.13039
Abstract: Case definitions are used to guide clinical practice, surveillance and research protocols. However, how they identify COVID‐19‐hospitalised patients is not fully understood. We analysed the proportion of hospitalised patients with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19, in the ISARIC prospective cohort study database, meeting widely used case definitions. Patients were assessed using the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), World Health Organization (WHO) and UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) case definitions by age, region and time. Case fatality ratios (CFRs) and symptoms of those who did and who did not meet the case definitions were evaluated. Patients with incomplete data and non‐laboratory‐confirmed test result were excluded. A total of 263,218 of the patients (42%) in the ISARIC database were included. Most patients (90.4%) were from Europe and Central Asia. The proportions of patients meeting the case definitions were 56.8% (WHO), 74.4% (UKHSA), 81.6% (ECDC) and 82.3% (CDC). For each case definition, patients at the extremes of age distribution met the criteria less frequently than those aged 30 to 70 years geographical and time variations were also observed. Estimated CFRs were similar for the patients who met the case definitions. However, when more patients did not meet the case definition, the CFR increased. The performance of case definitions might be different in different regions and may change over time. Similarly concerning is the fact that older patients often did not meet case definitions, risking delayed medical care. While epidemiologists must balance their analytics with field applicability, ongoing revision of case definitions is necessary to improve patient care through early diagnosis and limit potential nosocomial spread.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2023
Publisher: AMPCo
Date: 12-07-2020
DOI: 10.5694/MJA2.50699
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-09-2011
DOI: 10.1111/J.1742-6723.2011.01470.X
Abstract: The objective of the present study was to determine the prevalence of exercise-associated hyponatraemia in hikers/trekkers along the Kokoda Trail. This was a cross-sectional study of 191 trekkers on the Kokoda Trail, Papua New Guinea. Blood was taken and analysed immediately using point-of-care technology 2 days walk from each end of the Trail. The main outcome measure was hyponatraemia defined as serum sodium level less than 135 mmol/L. Three participants (1.6%, 95% CI 0.5-4.5%) were found to have mild hyponatraemia. The hyponatraemic group had a median estimated fluid intake on the day of testing that was almost double that of the normal sodium group (6 L vs 3.3 L). Exercise-associated hyponatraemia occurs in trekkers on the Kokoda Trail. Strategies for prevention of exercise-associated hyponatraemia should be delivered to trekkers via the trekking companies, chiefly focussing on only drinking in response to thirst.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 25-07-2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.07.17.20155218
Abstract: ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium) partnerships and outbreak preparedness initiatives enabled the rapid launch of standardised clinical data collection on COVID-19 in Jan 2020. Extensive global participation has resulted in a large, standardised collection of comprehensive clinical data from hundreds of sites across dozens of countries. Data are analysed regularly and reported publicly to inform patient care and public health response. This report, our 17th report, is a part of a series published over the past 2 years. Data have been entered for 800,459 in iduals from 1701 partner institutions and networks across 60 countries. The comprehensive analyses detailed in this report includes hospitalised in iduals of all ages for whom data collection occurred between 30 January 2020 and up to and including 5 January 2022, AND who have laboratory-confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection or clinically diagnosed COVID-19. For the 699,014 cases who meet eligibility criteria for this report, selected findings include: median age of 58 years, with an approximately equal (50/50) male:female sex distribution 29% of the cohort are at least 70 years of age, whereas 4% are 0-19 years of age the most common symptom combination in this hospitalised cohort is shortness of breath, cough, and history of fever, which has remained constant over time the five most common symptoms at admission were shortness of breath, cough, history of fever, fatigue/malaise, and altered consciousness/confusion, which is unchanged from the previous reports age-associated differences in symptoms are evident, including the frequency of altered consciousness increasing with age, and fever, respiratory and constitutional symptoms being present mostly in those 40 years and above 16% of patients with relevant data available were admitted at some point during their illness into an intensive care unit (ICU), which is slightly lower than previously reported (19%) antibiotic agents were used in 35% of patients for whom relevant data are available (669,630), a significant reduction from our previous reports (80%) which reflects a shifting proportion of data contributed by different institutions in ICU/HDU admitted patients with data available (50,560), 91% received antibiotics use of corticosteroids was reported in 24% of all patients for whom data were available (677,012) in ICU/HDU admitted patients with data available (50,646), 69% received corticosteroids outcomes are known for 632,518 patients and the overall estimated case fatality ratio (CFR) is 23.9% (95%CI 23.8-24.1), rising to 37.1% (95%CI 36.8-37.4) for patients who were admitted to ICU/HDU, demonstrating worse outcomes in those with the most severe disease To access previous versions of ISARIC COVID-19 Clinical Data Report please use the link below: esearch/covid-19-clinical-research-resources/evidence-reports/
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2023
Publisher: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Date: 23-11-2021
DOI: 10.7554/ELIFE.70970
Abstract: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic. Improvements in care and clinician confidence may shorten the time spent as an inpatient, or the need for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU). On the other hand, limited resources at times of high demand may lead to rationing. Nevertheless, these variables may be used as static proxies for disease severity, as outcome measures for trials, and to inform planning and logistics. We investigate these time trends in an extremely large international cohort of 142,540 patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Investigated are: time from symptom onset to hospital admission, probability of ICU/HDU admission, time from hospital admission to ICU/HDU admission, hospital case fatality ratio (hCFR) and total length of hospital stay. Time from onset to admission showed a rapid decline during the first months of the pandemic followed by peaks during August/September and December 2020. ICU/HDU admission was more frequent from June to August. The hCFR was lowest from June to August. Raw numbers for overall hospital stay showed little variation, but there is clear decline in time to discharge for ICU/HDU survivors. Our results establish that variables of these kinds have limitations when used as outcome measures in a rapidly evolving situation. This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-07-2022
DOI: 10.1038/S41597-022-01534-9
Abstract: The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use.
Publisher: European Respiratory Society (ERS)
Date: 10-12-2021
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00552-2021
Abstract: Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55–78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5–19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6–23) days versus 8 (4–15) days, p .0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p .0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65–0.75 p .0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.
Publisher: IOP Publishing
Date: 06-07-2007
DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/28/8/009
Abstract: Venous occlusion plethysmography (VOP) is a technique used for the non-invasive measurement of limb blood flow. A fundamental technical consideration of venous occlusion plethysmography is that the limb in question must be placed above heart level. However, in light of advances in technology and methodology, the necessity of this has been questioned. We investigated the validity of the VOP technique with the forearm approximately 10 cm above and below the level of the heart in both resting and dynamic conditions. Nine healthy male participants performed four bouts of handgrip exercise, two at each of 15% and 30% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) (one above and one below the heart). As hypothesized, resting forearm blood flow (FBF) measured below the level of the heart was significantly lower than for above the heart (p = 0.046). However, the opposite occurred during exercise, where FBF measured after the fifth minute of handgrip contractions was significantly higher below the level of the heart (p = 0.013). Furthermore, the ability to accurately quantify FBF below the level of the heart was severely impeded by artifact, and as such VOP appears to remain constricted to use above the phlebostatic level.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 15-03-2012
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2023
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJPO-2022-001657
Abstract: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric populations varied between high-income countries (HICs) versus low-income to middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to investigate differences in paediatric clinical outcomes and identify factors contributing to disparity between countries. The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database was queried to include children under 19 years of age admitted to hospital from January 2020 to April 2021 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Univariate and multivariable analysis of contributing factors for mortality were assessed by country group (HICs vs LMICs) as defined by the World Bank criteria. A total of 12 860 children (3819 from 21 HICs and 9041 from 15 LMICs) participated in this study. Of these, 8961 were laboratory-confirmed and 3899 suspected COVID-19 cases. About 52% of LMICs children were black, and more than 40% were infants and adolescent. Overall in-hospital mortality rate (95% CI) was 3.3% [=(3.0% to 3.6%), higher in LMICs than HICs (4.0% (3.6% to 4.4%) and 1.7% (1.3% to 2.1%), respectively). There were significant differences between country income groups in intervention profile, with higher use of antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, prone positioning, high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs. Out of the 439 mechanically ventilated children, mortality occurred in 106 (24.1%) subjects, which was higher in LMICs than HICs (89 (43.6%) vs 17 (7.2%) respectively). Pre-existing infectious comorbidities (tuberculosis and HIV) and some complications (bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and myocarditis) were significantly higher in LMICs compared with HICs. On multivariable analysis, LMIC as country income group was associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 4.73 (3.16 to 7.10)). Mortality and morbidities were higher in LMICs than HICs, and it may be attributable to differences in patient demographics, complications and access to supportive and treatment modalities.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 25-06-2021
DOI: 10.1007/S15010-021-01599-5
Abstract: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69% at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65 90%), and women (66, 66, 64 90% vs. men 71, 70, 67 93%, each P 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-08-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S12916-020-01732-5
Abstract: New emerging infections have no known treatment. Assessing potential drugs for safety and efficacy enables clinicians to make evidence-based treatment decisions and contributes to overall outbreak control. However, it is difficult to launch clinical trials in the unpredictable environment of an outbreak. We conducted a bibliometric systematic review for the 2009 influenza pandemic to determine the speed and quality of evidence generation for treatments. This informs approaches to high-quality evidence generation in this and future pandemics. We searched PubMed for all clinical data (including clinical trial, observational and case series) describing treatment for patients with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and ClinicalTrials.gov for research that aimed to enrol patients with the disease. Thirty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-nine treatment courses for patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 were detailed in 160 publications. Most were retrospective observational studies or case series. Five hundred ninety-two patients received treatment (or placebo) as participants in a registered interventional clinical trial with results publicly available. None of these registered trial results was available during the timeframe of the pandemic, and the median date of publication was 213 days after the Public Health Emergency of International Concern ended. Patients were frequently treated for pandemic influenza with drugs not registered for this indication, but rarely under circumstances of high-quality data capture. The result was a reliance on use under compassionate circumstances, resulting in continued uncertainty regarding the potential benefits and harms of anti-viral treatment. Rapid scaling of clinical trials is critical for generating a quality evidence base during pandemics.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 28-02-2023
DOI: 10.1093/IJE/DYAD012
Abstract: We describe demographic features, treatments and clinical outcomes in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 cohort, one of the world's largest international, standardized data sets concerning hospitalized patients. The data set analysed includes COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 2020 and January 2022 in 52 countries. We investigated how symptoms on admission, co-morbidities, risk factors and treatments varied by age, sex and other characteristics. We used Cox regression models to investigate associations between demographics, symptoms, co-morbidities and other factors with risk of death, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Data were available for 689 572 patients with laboratory-confirmed (91.1%) or clinically diagnosed (8.9%) SARS-CoV-2 infection from 52 countries. Age [adjusted hazard ratio per 10 years 1.49 (95% CI 1.48, 1.49)] and male sex [1.23 (1.21, 1.24)] were associated with a higher risk of death. Rates of admission to an ICU and use of IMV increased with age up to age 60 years then dropped. Symptoms, co-morbidities and treatments varied by age and had varied associations with clinical outcomes. The case-fatality ratio varied by country partly due to differences in the clinical characteristics of recruited patients and was on average 21.5%. Age was the strongest determinant of risk of death, with a ∼30-fold difference between the oldest and youngest groups each of the co-morbidities included was associated with up to an almost 2-fold increase in risk. Smoking and obesity were also associated with a higher risk of death. The size of our international database and the standardized data collection method make this study a comprehensive international description of COVID-19 clinical features. Our findings may inform strategies that involve prioritization of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have a higher risk of death.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 09-02-2011
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Amanda Rojek.