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.

ObjectivesTo review the clinical outcomes of combined diet and physical activity interventions for populations at high risk of type 2 diabetes.DesignOverview of systematic reviews (search dates April–December 2015).SettingAny level of care; no geographical restriction.ParticipantsAdults at high risk of diabetes (as per measures of glycaemia, risk assessment or presence of risk factors).InterventionsCombined diet and physical activity interventions including ≥2 interactions with a healthcare professional, and ≥12 months follow-up.Outcome measuresPrimary: glycaemia, diabetes incidence. Secondary: behaviour change, measures of adiposity, vascular disease and mortality.Results19 recent reviews were identified for inclusion; 5 with AMSTAR scores <8. Most considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and RCTs were the major data source in the remainder. Five trials were included in most reviews. Almost all analyses reported that interventions were associated with net reductions in diabetes incidence, measures of glycaemia and adiposity, at follow-up durations of up to 23 years (typically <6). Small effect sizes and potentially transient effect were reported in some studies, and some reviewers noted that durability of intervention impact was potentially sensitive to duration of intervention and adherence to behaviour change. Behaviour change, vascular disease and mortality outcome data were infrequently reported, and evidence of the impact of intervention on these outcomes was minimal. Evidence for age effect was mixed, and sex and ethnicity effect were little considered.ConclusionsRelatively long-duration lifestyle interventions can limit or delay progression to diabetes under trial conditions. However, outcomes from more time-limited interventions, and those applied in routine clinical settings, appear more variable, in keeping with the findings of recent pragmatic trials. There is little evidence of intervention impact on vascular outcomes or mortality end points in any context. ‘Real-world’ implementation of lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention may be expected to lead to modest outcomes.

BackgroundThere is currently conflicting evidence surrounding the effects of obesity on postoperative outcomes. Previous studies have found obesity to be associated with adverse events, but others have found no association. The aim of this study was to determine whether increasing body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for development of major postoperative complications.MethodsThis was a multicentre prospective cohort study across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal surgery over a 4‐month interval (October–December 2014) were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the 30‐day major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo grade III–V). BMI was grouped according to the World Health Organization classification. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to adjust for patient, operative and hospital‐level effects, creating odds ratios (ORs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).ResultsOf 7965 patients, 2545 (32·0 per cent) were of normal weight, 2673 (33·6 per cent) were overweight and 2747 (34·5 per cent) were obese. Overall, 4925 (61·8 per cent) underwent elective and 3038 (38·1 per cent) emergency operations. The 30‐day major complication rate was 11·4 per cent (908 of 7965). In adjusted models, a significant interaction was found between BMI and diagnosis, with an association seen between BMI and major complications for patients with malignancy (overweight: OR 1·59, 95 per cent c.i. 1·12 to 2·29, P = 0·008; obese: OR 1·91, 1·31 to 2·83, P = 0·002; compared with normal weight) but not benign disease (overweight: OR 0·89, 0·71 to 1·12, P = 0·329; obese: OR 0·84, 0·66 to 1·06, P = 0·147).ConclusionOverweight and obese patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal malignancy are at increased risk of major postoperative complications compared with those of normal weight.

This real-world analysis of opportunistic testing in patients with PCDs reports a 67% seropositive response rate after the first dose, 3 rising to 89% after the second dose despite extended dosing in our present cohort. Response rates and median titres remained lower than in healthy adults. 1,5 Nearly two-thirds of those seronegative after the first dose Correspondence e22

Background: Patient selection for critical care admission must balance patient safety with optimal resource allocation. This study aimed to determine the relationship between critical care admission, and postoperative mortality after abdominal surgery. Methods: This prespecified secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study included consecutive patients enrolled in the DISCOVER study from UK and Republic of Ireland undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery between October and December 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore associations between critical care admission (planned and unplanned) and mortality, and intercentre variation in critical care admission after emergency laparotomy. Results: Of 4529 patients included, 37.8% (n¼1713) underwent planned critical care admissions from theatre. Some 3.1% (n¼86/2816) admitted to ward-level care subsequently underwent unplanned critical care admission. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.9% (n¼133/4519), and the risk-adjusted association between 30-day mortality and critical care admission was higher in unplanned [odds ratio (OR): 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.51e19.97) than planned admissions (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.43e3.85). Some 26.7% of patients (n¼1210/4529) underwent emergency laparotomies. After adjustment, 49.3% (95% CI: 46.8e51.9%, P<0.001) were predicted to have planned critical care admissions, with 7% (n¼10/145) of centres outside the 95% CI. Conclusions: After risk adjustment, no 30-day survival benefit was identified for either planned or unplanned postoperative admissions to critical care within this cohort. This likely represents appropriate admission of the highest-risk patients. Planned admissions in selected, intermediate-risk patients may present a strategy to mitigate the risk of unplanned admission. Substantial inter-centre variation exists in planned critical care admissions after emergency laparotomies.

Background Plasma cell disorders (PCD) are at risk of inadequate immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines due to recognised humoral and cellular immune dysfunction which is multi-factorial and related to host and disease factors. With an estimated risk of 33% mortality from contracting COVID-19 in this population, protection with an anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is critical. Initial extension to vaccination intervals in the United Kingdom to 12 weeks in December 2020 led to concerns that PCD patients would be left vulnerable for an extended period. Methods A clinical audit was performed on measured serological responses in PCD patients after first and second doses of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx-1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Antibody levels were measured using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2S assay (Roche) for quantitative detection of IgG Abs, specific for the SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein. Positive cut-off of 0.80 U/mL defined serological response. Testing was performed at (or closest to) 4 and 8-weeks post-dose. Baseline nucleocapsid Ab results were available from previous screening in a subset of patients. All patients on CIT underwent 4-weekly swabs. Clinical information was retrieved from medical records. Results 188 PCD patients (155 multiple myeloma, 18 amyloid, 10 SMM/MGUS, other 5 PCD), median age 64 (range 32-84), had serological assessment after both vaccine doses. Fourteen with previous COVID-19 infection were excluded. Of 174 patients, 112 were tested after first dose. 88% (153) were on chemo-immunotherapy treatment (CIT). Seropositive rate after first dose was 63% (71/112); of those with available negative baseline antibody test, 62% (31/50) seroconverted. After second dose, 89% (154/174) were seropositive; of those with negative baseline antibody, 90% (61/68) seroconverted. Expectedly, paired median titres after second dose were significantly higher than post first dose (n=112, 3.245 U/mL (IQR 0.4-25.55) vs 518 U/mL (IQR 29.40-2187) p&lt;0.0001) (Figure 1A). Of 41 patients seronegative after first dose, 25 (61%) seroconverted after second, though with lower titres than those only requiring one dose (Figure 1B). Active CIT, disease response less than PR, &gt;=4 lines therapy, light-chain disease, male gender and not responding to first dose were significant factors for not responding to two vaccine doses. We explored &lt;400 U/mL as sub-optimal response (in keeping with upcoming booster study eligibility, OCTAVE-DUO(1), also encompassing the lower quartile of reported healthy controls(2)), which included 43% (75/174) patients. Age 70 years, male gender, &gt;=4 lines of treatment were independent predictors of less-than-optimal response (anti-CD38 CIT of borderline significance). Importantly, vaccine dosing intervals classified as =&lt;42 vs &gt;42 days (Figure 1C) or 28 +/- 14 days vs 84 +/- 14 days (excluding n=66 in neither) (Figure 1D) did not show difference in both definitions of response, neither did vaccine type. Fourteen with previous COVID-19 infection responded to one vaccine dose, median titres 2121 U/mL (IQR 23.48-2500)) rising to median 2500 U/mL (IQR 2500-2500) after second dose (Figure 1E), significantly higher than those without previous infection. Conclusion Serological response to COVID-19 vaccine is lower in PCD patients than reported healthy controls at 63% after first dose, rising to 89% after second dose, despite extended dosing intervals. PCD patients should be prioritised for shorter intervals, as we show that patients seronegative after first dose, respond after second dose. Further work in PCD is needed to understand how Ab levels correlate to neutralisation capability, cellular responses, protection from infection and how long seroconversion lasts to better define correlates of protection. A booster vaccination or prophylactic passive antibody strategy may be required for those identified at risk, shown not to have responded to two vaccine doses or to have less-than-optimal response. Results from these trials will be eagerly awaited. References: 1. University of Birmingham. About the OCTAVE Trial 2021 [Available from: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/crctu/trials/octave/patients-and-public/about-octave.aspx. Accessed 1 st August 2021. 2. Avivi I, Balaban R, Shragai T, Sheffer G, Morales M, Aharon A, et al. Humoral response rate and predictors of response to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID19 vaccine in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2021. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wechalekar: Amgen: Research Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy; Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Popat: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen and BMS: Other: travel expenses. Rabin: BMS / Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support for meetings; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support for meetings; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support for meetings. Yong: BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding.

No abstract

No abstract