No abstract

Introduction Increased mortality has been demonstrated in older adults with COVID-19, but the effect of frailty has been unclear. Methods This multi-centre cohort study involved patients aged 18 years and older hospitalised with COVID-19, using routinely collected data. We used Cox regression analysis to assess the impact of age, frailty, and delirium on the risk of inpatient mortality, adjusting for sex, illness severity, inflammation, and co-morbidities. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to assess the impact of age, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and delirium on risk of increased care requirements on discharge, adjusting for the same variables. Results Data from 5,711 patients from 55 hospitals in 12 countries were included (median age 74, IQR 54–83; 55.2% male). The risk of death increased independently with increasing age (>80 vs 18–49: HR 3.57, CI 2.54–5.02), frailty (CFS 8 vs 1–3: HR 3.03, CI 2.29–4.00) inflammation, renal disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but not delirium. Age, frailty (CFS 7 vs 1–3: OR 7.00, CI 5.27–9.32), delirium, dementia, and mental health diagnoses were all associated with increased risk of higher care needs on discharge. The likelihood of adverse outcomes increased across all grades of CFS from 4 to 9. Conclusions Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Risk of increased care needs was also increased in survivors of COVID-19 with frailty or older age.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Researchers around the world are working at record speed to find the best ways to treat and prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of hospitalized mild to moderate COVID‐19 infected patients. This was a randomized open‐label controlled study that included 164 patients with COVID‐19. Patients were randomized into two groups where Group 1 (Ivermectin group) included patients who received ivermectin 12 mg once daily for 3 days with standard care and Group 2 (control group) included patients who received standard protocol of treatment alone for 14 days. The main outcomes were mortality, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed up for 1 month. Overall, 82 individuals were randomized to receive ivermectin plus standard of care and 82 to receive standard of care alone. Patients in the ivermectin group had a shorter length of hospital stay (8.82 ± 4.94 days) than the control group (10.97 ± 5.28 days), but this was not statistically significant ( p = 0.085). Three patients (3.7%) in each group required mechanical ventilation ( p = 1.00). The death rate was three patients in the ivermectin group (3.7%) versus four patients (4.9%) in the control group without any significant difference between the two groups ( p = 1.00). Although there was no statistically significant difference in any endpoints by ivermectin doses (12 mg/day for 3 days); there was an observed trend to reducing hospital stay in the ivermectin‐treated group.

Although de-novo HCC lesions significantly developed later than recurrent lesions in DAAs-treated patients, their response rates were significantly better. No differences were detected between both groups in their response to DAAs and their tumoral characteristics.