Introduction Symptoms may persist after the initial phases of COVID-19 infection, a phenomenon termed long COVID. Current knowledge on long COVID has been mostly derived from test-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Data are required on the burden and predictors of long COVID in a broader patient group, which includes both tested and untested COVID-19 patients in primary care. Methods This is an observational study using data from Platform C19, a quality improvement program-derived research database linking primary care electronic health record data (EHR) with patient-reported questionnaire information. Participating general practices invited consenting patients aged 18–85 to complete an online questionnaire since 7th August 2020. COVID-19 self-diagnosis, clinician-diagnosis, testing, and the presence and duration of symptoms were assessed via the questionnaire. Patients were considered present with long COVID if they reported symptoms lasting ≥4 weeks. EHR and questionnaire data up till 22nd January 2021 were extracted for analysis. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted comparing demographics, clinical characteristics, and presence of symptoms between patients with long COVID and patients with shorter symptom duration. Results Long COVID was present in 310/3151 (9.8%) patients with self-diagnosed, clinician-diagnosed, or test-confirmed COVID-19. Only 106/310 (34.2%) long COVID patients had test-confirmed COVID-19. Risk predictors of long COVID were age ≥40 years (adjusted Odds Ratio [AdjOR]=1.49 [1.05–2.17]), female sex (adjOR=1.37 [1.02–1.85]), frailty (adjOR=2.39 [1.29–4.27]), visit to A&E (adjOR=4.28 [2.31–7.78]), and hospital admission for COVID-19 symptoms (adjOR=3.22 [1.77–5.79]). Aches and pain (adjOR=1.70 [1.21–2.39]), appetite loss (adjOR=3.15 [1.78–5.92]), confusion and disorientation (adjOR=2.17 [1.57–2.99]), diarrhea (adjOR=1.4 [1.03–1.89]), and persistent dry cough (adjOR=2.77 [1.94–3.98]) were symptom features statistically more common in long COVID. Conclusion This study reports the factors and symptom features predicting long COVID in a broad primary care population, including both test-confirmed and the previously missed group of COVID-19 patients.
BackgroundThousands of people in the UK have required end-of-life care in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Primary healthcare teams (general practice and community nursing services) have provided the majority of this care, alongside specialist colleagues. There is a need to learn from this experience in order to inform future service delivery and planning.AimTo understand the views of general practitioners and community nurses providing end-of-life care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.Design & settingA web-based, UK-wide questionnaire survey circulated via professional general practice and community nursing networks during September and October 2020.MethodResponses were analysed using descriptive statistics and an inductive thematic analysis.ResultsValid responses were received from 559 individuals (387 community nurses, 156 General Practitioners (GPs) and 16 unspecified role), from all regions of the UK. The majority reported increased involvement in providing community end-of-life care. Contrasting and potentially conflicting roles emerged between GPs and community nurses. There was increased use of remote consultations, particularly by GPs. Community nurses took greater responsibility in most aspects of end-of-life care practice, particularly face-to-face care, but reported feeling isolated. For some GPs and community nurses, there has been considerable emotional distress.ConclusionPrimary healthcare services are playing a critical role in meeting increased need for end-of-life care in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have adapted rapidly, but the significant emotional impact, especially for community nurses, needs addressing alongside rebuilding trusting and supportive team dynamics.
Summary:Eleven adult patients with nocturnal asthma, and gastro-oesophageal reflux documented by endoscopy or ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring completed a double-blind cross-over study (4 week treatment, one week run-in and cross-over periods) comparing the effects of omeprazole 20 mg daily and placebo on asthma control assessed by symptoms, peak expiratory flow rate and bronchodilator usage. Omeprazole treatment did not improve asthma symptoms during the day or night, or peak expiratory flow rate readings. There was no difference in bronchodilator inhaler usage during omeprazole therapy.Treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux with omeprazole in patients with nocturnal asthma and gastro-oesphageal reflux does not improve asthma symptoms or peak expiratory flow rate. This suggests that gastro-oesophageal reflux does not exacerbate bronchoconstriction in nocturnal asthma.
MMT delivered in a primary care clinic setting is effective in reducing convictions and cautions and incarceration over an extended period. Continuous treatment is associated with the greatest reductions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.