Post-COVID-19 assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre, prospective study in 1325 individuals, 2021, Heightman et al

[Andy]

** Now published, see next post for final paper. **

Pre-print full title: Post-COVID assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre analysis of symptoms and healthcare needs in 1325 individuals.

Abstract
Background. Complications following SARS-CoV-2 infection require simultaneous characterisation and management to plan policy and health system responses. We describe the 12-month experience of the first UK dedicated Post-COVID clinical service to include both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients.

Methods. In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report outcomes for 1325 individuals assessed in the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Post-COVID service between April 2020 and April 2021. Demography, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation were compared by referral route ('post hospitalisation', PH; 'non-hospitalised', NH; and 'post emergency department', PED). Symptoms associated with poor recovery or inability to return to work full-time were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

Findings. 1325 individuals were assessed (PH 547 [41.3%], PED 212 [16%], NH 566 [42.7%]. Compared with PH and PED groups, NH were younger (median 44.6 [35.6-52.8] vs 58.3 [47.0-67.7] and 48.5 [39.4-55.7] years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be from an ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) and seen later after symptom onset (median [IQR]:194 [118-298], 69 [51-111] and 76 [55-128] days) (all p<0.0001). NH patients had similar rates of onward specialist referral as PH and PED groups (18.7%, 16.1% and 18.9%, p=0.452), and were more likely to require support for breathlessness (23.7%, 5.5% and 15.1%, p<0.001) and fatigue (17.8%, 4.8%, 8.0%, p<0.001). Hospitalised patients had higher rates of pulmonary emboli, persistent lung interstitial abnormalities, and other organ impairment. 716 (54.0%) individuals reported <75% of optimal health (median [IQR] 70% [55%-85%]).

Overall, less than half of employed individuals felt able to return to work full-time at first assessment. Interpretation. Symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were significant in both post- and non-hospitalised patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.25.21257730v1

ETA: Add details for published paper.

 

[Andy]

Now published.

Post-COVID-19 assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre, prospective study in 1325 individuals


Abstract
Introduction

Post-COVID-19 complications require simultaneous characterisation and management to plan policy and health system responses. We describe the 12-month experience of the first UK dedicated post-COVID-19 clinical service to include hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients.

Methods

In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report the demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation of 1325 individuals assessed at the University College London Hospitals post-COVID-19 service between April 2020 and April 2021, comparing by referral route: posthospitalised (PH), non-hospitalised (NH) and post emergency department (PED). Symptoms associated with poor recovery or inability to return to work full time were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

1325 individuals were assessed (PH: 547, 41.3%; PED: 212, 16%; NH: 566, 42.7%). Compared with the PH and PED groups, the NH group were younger (median 44.6 (35.6–52.8) years vs 58.3 (47.0–67.7) years and 48.5 (39.4–55.7) years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be of ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) or seen later after symptom onset (median (IQR): 194 (118–298) days, 69 (51–111) days and 76 (55–128) days; all p<0.0001). All groups had similar rates of onward specialist referral (NH 18.7%, PH 16.1% and PED 18.9%, p=0.452) and were more likely to require support for breathlessness (23.7%, 5.5% and 15.1%, p<0.001) and fatigue (17.8%, 4.8% and 8.0%, p<0.001). Hospitalised patients had higher rates of pulmonary emboli, persistent lung interstitial abnormalities and other organ impairment. 716 (54.0%) individuals reported <75% optimal health (median 70%, IQR 55%–85%). Less than half of employed individuals could return to work full time at first assessment.

Conclusion

Post-COVID-19 symptoms were significant in PH and NH patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.

Open access, https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/content/8/1/e001041.full

 

[Andy]

From the paper:

Chronic diseases and risk factors

Hypertension (17.5%), asthma (13.4%), cardiovascular disease (12.5%), diabetes (11.8%) and thyroid disease (6.6%) were the most common comorbidities. Most premorbid chronic diseases were more common among PH patients, compared with NH and PED patients, except asthma (12.1% vs 14.0% and 15.6%), anxiety (3.5% vs 2.7% and 4.7%), depression (2.9% vs 3.0% and 5.7%) and chronic fatigue syndrome (0.0% vs 1.4% and 0.9%). Current smoking was uncommon (1.3% overall) (table 1). Overall, 86 PH patients died before a post-COVID-19 clinical assessment, with a further two PH patients dying after clinical review.

 

[Trish]

I wonder why abstracts never present results in tables. Stringing out data in sentences like this seems daft to me.

 

[rvallee]

Less than half of employed individuals could return to work full time at first assessment.

It turns out that imaginary savings are very lousy compared to very real losses. The fiscal consequences of this for governments are massive, and they are completely oblivious to it because they are badly advised by their medical advisers that this is not a real issue. And of course the typical response of governments to those circumstances is austerity, to force people back to work by leaving them no choice. Which is exactly the policy that will guarantee the worst outcomes and losses.

As an economic policy, this is basically the Arrested Development "take a dollar, throw away a banana" model of smart economic, not only wasting resources but wasting them twice over by sheer foolishness. But there's always money in the banana stand for the BPS ideology. Someone's else money, far easier to waste. The lives ruined are out of sight, so out of mind. The banality of evil. Hell, the bananality of evil, because why not?