P190英国某三级医疗中心药物治疗对COVID-19死亡率的影响

T. Kurmoo, M. Mayisha Ahmad, R. Wang, N. Chaudhuri
{"title":"P190英国某三级医疗中心药物治疗对COVID-19死亡率的影响","authors":"T. Kurmoo, M. Mayisha Ahmad, R. Wang, N. Chaudhuri","doi":"10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction and ObjectivesThe availability of treatment options for Covid-19 is rapidly expanding. Whilst the efficacy data is well-established from clinical trials, real-life efficacy of drug therapies remains lacking. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between first and second wave of Covid-19 and determine real-world effectiveness of dexamethasone on 30-day mortality.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study. Clinical data and information regarding 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission of hospitalised Covid-19 patients during early first wave (10.03.2020 to 13.04.2020) and second wave (01.12.2020 to 09.02.2021) were collected. Treatment was limited to second wave and included either dexamethasone only or both remdesivir and dexamethasone. The effectiveness of dexamethasone only on 30-day mortality was measured.ResultsOf 373 patients (64.3% male) during the first wave, 24.9% died within 30 days. The 30-day mortality rate was lower during the second wave (61/324, 18.8%, p-value= 0.064). Patients were younger (mean [SD], 60.0 [16.5] years) and had higher body mass index (mean [SD], 30.3 [11.0] kg/m2) during the second wave than the first wave (68.7 [14.8] years and 28.2 [7.70] kg/m2). In the first wave, no patients received specific drug therapy for Covid-19. However, 86.5% of patients received dexamethasone only during the second wave. The LOS for the first wave was longer (median (IQR): 5 (2–11) days) compared to the second wave (4 (2–9) days, p=0.013). ICU admission during the second wave (11.2%) was also lower than the first wave (23.4%, p<0.001). In second wave, 14.3% of patients who were given dexamethasone died within 30 days compared to 25% who had no treatment (p-value=0.088).ConclusionsIn the real-world setting, there was an improvement in mortality, shortened hospital LOS and lower ICU admission rate between early first and second waves of the pandemic. The major difference in treatment strategy between the two waves was the approval of drug therapies in hospitalised patients. Dexamethasone reduced the 30-day mortality, although it did not reach statistical significance, likely due to the retrospective nature and small sample size of this study. Our findings corroborate clinical trial data on the benefit of dexamethasone therapy.","PeriodicalId":143926,"journal":{"name":"Fighting back: optimising treatment for COVID-19","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"P190 The impact of drug therapies on COVID-19 mortality in a UK tertiary centre\",\"authors\":\"T. Kurmoo, M. Mayisha Ahmad, R. Wang, N. Chaudhuri\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.299\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction and ObjectivesThe availability of treatment options for Covid-19 is rapidly expanding. Whilst the efficacy data is well-established from clinical trials, real-life efficacy of drug therapies remains lacking. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between first and second wave of Covid-19 and determine real-world effectiveness of dexamethasone on 30-day mortality.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study. Clinical data and information regarding 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission of hospitalised Covid-19 patients during early first wave (10.03.2020 to 13.04.2020) and second wave (01.12.2020 to 09.02.2021) were collected. Treatment was limited to second wave and included either dexamethasone only or both remdesivir and dexamethasone. The effectiveness of dexamethasone only on 30-day mortality was measured.ResultsOf 373 patients (64.3% male) during the first wave, 24.9% died within 30 days. The 30-day mortality rate was lower during the second wave (61/324, 18.8%, p-value= 0.064). Patients were younger (mean [SD], 60.0 [16.5] years) and had higher body mass index (mean [SD], 30.3 [11.0] kg/m2) during the second wave than the first wave (68.7 [14.8] years and 28.2 [7.70] kg/m2). In the first wave, no patients received specific drug therapy for Covid-19. However, 86.5% of patients received dexamethasone only during the second wave. The LOS for the first wave was longer (median (IQR): 5 (2–11) days) compared to the second wave (4 (2–9) days, p=0.013). ICU admission during the second wave (11.2%) was also lower than the first wave (23.4%, p<0.001). In second wave, 14.3% of patients who were given dexamethasone died within 30 days compared to 25% who had no treatment (p-value=0.088).ConclusionsIn the real-world setting, there was an improvement in mortality, shortened hospital LOS and lower ICU admission rate between early first and second waves of the pandemic. The major difference in treatment strategy between the two waves was the approval of drug therapies in hospitalised patients. Dexamethasone reduced the 30-day mortality, although it did not reach statistical significance, likely due to the retrospective nature and small sample size of this study. Our findings corroborate clinical trial data on the benefit of dexamethasone therapy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fighting back: optimising treatment for COVID-19\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fighting back: optimising treatment for COVID-19\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.299\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fighting back: optimising treatment for COVID-19","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言和目标Covid-19治疗方案的可用性正在迅速扩大。虽然临床试验的疗效数据得到了证实,但药物治疗的实际疗效仍然缺乏。我们的目的是比较第一波和第二波Covid-19的临床结果,并确定地塞米松对30天死亡率的实际有效性。方法回顾性观察性研究。收集第一波早期(2020年3月10日至2020年4月13日)和第二波(2020年12月1日至2021年2月9日)住院Covid-19患者的30天死亡率、住院时间(LOS)和重症监护病房(ICU)入院的临床数据和信息。治疗仅限于第二波,包括仅地塞米松或瑞德西韦和地塞米松。仅测量地塞米松对30天死亡率的影响。结果第一波373例患者(男性64.3%),30 d内死亡24.9%。第二波30天死亡率较低(61/324,18.8%,p值= 0.064)。第二波患者年龄较轻(平均[SD], 60.0[16.5]岁),体重指数(平均[SD], 30.3 [11.0] kg/m2)高于第一波患者(68.7[14.8]岁,28.2 [7.70]kg/m2)。在第一波中,没有患者接受针对Covid-19的特异性药物治疗。然而,86.5%的患者仅在第二波中接受地塞米松治疗。与第二波(4(2-9)天相比,第一波的LOS更长(中位数(IQR): 5(2-11)天,p=0.013)。第二波住院率(11.2%)也低于第一波(23.4%,p<0.001)。在第二波中,14.3%给予地塞米松治疗的患者在30天内死亡,而未给予治疗的患者为25% (p值=0.088)。结论在现实环境中,在第一波和第二波大流行早期,死亡率有所改善,医院LOS缩短,ICU住院率降低。两波治疗策略的主要区别在于住院患者的药物治疗批准。地塞米松降低了30天死亡率,虽然没有达到统计学意义,可能是由于本研究的回顾性和小样本量。我们的发现证实了地塞米松治疗有益的临床试验数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
P190 The impact of drug therapies on COVID-19 mortality in a UK tertiary centre
Introduction and ObjectivesThe availability of treatment options for Covid-19 is rapidly expanding. Whilst the efficacy data is well-established from clinical trials, real-life efficacy of drug therapies remains lacking. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between first and second wave of Covid-19 and determine real-world effectiveness of dexamethasone on 30-day mortality.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study. Clinical data and information regarding 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission of hospitalised Covid-19 patients during early first wave (10.03.2020 to 13.04.2020) and second wave (01.12.2020 to 09.02.2021) were collected. Treatment was limited to second wave and included either dexamethasone only or both remdesivir and dexamethasone. The effectiveness of dexamethasone only on 30-day mortality was measured.ResultsOf 373 patients (64.3% male) during the first wave, 24.9% died within 30 days. The 30-day mortality rate was lower during the second wave (61/324, 18.8%, p-value= 0.064). Patients were younger (mean [SD], 60.0 [16.5] years) and had higher body mass index (mean [SD], 30.3 [11.0] kg/m2) during the second wave than the first wave (68.7 [14.8] years and 28.2 [7.70] kg/m2). In the first wave, no patients received specific drug therapy for Covid-19. However, 86.5% of patients received dexamethasone only during the second wave. The LOS for the first wave was longer (median (IQR): 5 (2–11) days) compared to the second wave (4 (2–9) days, p=0.013). ICU admission during the second wave (11.2%) was also lower than the first wave (23.4%, p<0.001). In second wave, 14.3% of patients who were given dexamethasone died within 30 days compared to 25% who had no treatment (p-value=0.088).ConclusionsIn the real-world setting, there was an improvement in mortality, shortened hospital LOS and lower ICU admission rate between early first and second waves of the pandemic. The major difference in treatment strategy between the two waves was the approval of drug therapies in hospitalised patients. Dexamethasone reduced the 30-day mortality, although it did not reach statistical significance, likely due to the retrospective nature and small sample size of this study. Our findings corroborate clinical trial data on the benefit of dexamethasone therapy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信