| 1. |
- Wulf Hanson, Sarah, et al.
(författare)
-
A global systematic analysis of the occurrence, severity, and recovery pattern of long COVID in 2020 and 2021
- 2022
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Importance: While much of the attention on the COVID-19 pandemic was directed at the daily counts of cases and those with serious disease overwhelming health services, increasingly, reports have appeared of people who experience debilitating symptoms after the initial infection. This is popularly known as long COVID.Objective: To estimate by country and territory of the number of patients affected by long COVID in 2020 and 2021, the severity of their symptoms and expected pattern of recovery.Design: We jointly analyzed ten ongoing cohort studies in ten countries for the occurrence of three major symptom clusters of long COVID among representative COVID cases. The defining symptoms of the three clusters (fatigue, cognitive problems, and shortness of breath) are explicitly mentioned in the WHO clinical case definition. For incidence of long COVID, we adopted the minimum duration after infection of three months from the WHO case definition. We pooled data from the contributing studies, two large medical record databases in the United States, and findings from 44 published studies using a Bayesian meta-regression tool. We separately estimated occurrence and pattern of recovery in patients with milder acute infections and those hospitalized. We estimated the incidence and prevalence of long COVID globally and by country in 2020 and 2021 as well as the severity-weighted prevalence using disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease study.Results: Analyses are based on detailed information for 1906 community infections and 10526 hospitalized patients from the ten collaborating cohorts, three of which included children. We added published data on 37262 community infections and 9540 hospitalized patients as well as ICD-coded medical record data concerning 1.3 million infections. Globally, in 2020 and 2021, 144.7 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 54.8-312.9) people suffered from any of the three symptom clusters of long COVID. This corresponds to 3.69% (1.38-7.96) of all infections. The fatigue, respiratory, and cognitive clusters occurred in 51.0% (16.9-92.4), 60.4% (18.9-89.1), and 35.4% (9.4-75.1) of long COVID cases, respectively. Those with milder acute COVID-19 cases had a quicker estimated recovery (median duration 3.99 months [IQR 3.84-4.20]) than those admitted for the acute infection (median duration 8.84 months [IQR 8.10-9.78]). At twelve months, 15.1% (10.3-21.1) continued to experience long COVID symptoms.Conclusions and relevance: The occurrence of debilitating ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 is common. Knowing how many people are affected, and for how long, is important to plan for rehabilitative services and support to return to social activities, places of learning, and the workplace when symptoms start to wane.Key Points: Question: What are the extent and nature of the most common long COVID symptoms by country in 2020 and 2021?Findings: Globally, 144.7 million people experienced one or more of three symptom clusters (fatigue; cognitive problems; and ongoing respiratory problems) of long COVID three months after infection, in 2020 and 2021. Most cases arose from milder infections. At 12 months after infection, 15.1% of these cases had not yet recovered.Meaning: The substantial number of people with long COVID are in need of rehabilitative care and support to transition back into the workplace or education when symptoms start to wane.
|
|
| 2. |
- Wulf Hanson, Sarah, et al.
(författare)
-
Estimated Global Proportions of Individuals With Persistent Fatigue, Cognitive, and Respiratory Symptom Clusters Following Symptomatic COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 328:16, s. 1604-1615
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: Some individuals experience persistent symptoms after initial symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (often referred to as Long COVID).OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of males and females with COVID-19, younger or older than 20 years of age, who had Long COVID symptoms in 2020 and 2021 and their Long COVID symptom duration.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Bayesian meta-regression and pooling of 54 studies and 2 medical record databases with data for 1.2 million individuals (from 22 countries) who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 54 studies, 44 were published and 10 were collaborating cohorts (conducted in Austria, the Faroe Islands, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US). The participant data were derived from the 44 published studies (10 501 hospitalized individuals and 42 891 nonhospitalized individuals), the 10 collaborating cohort studies (10 526 and 1906), and the 2 US electronic medical record databases (250 928 and 846 046). Data collection spanned March 2020 to January 2022.EXPOSURES: Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of individuals with at least 1 of the 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and 2021, estimated separately for hospitalized and nonhospitalized individuals aged 20 years or older by sex and for both sexes of nonhospitalized individuals younger than 20 years of age.RESULTS: A total of 1.2 million individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were included (mean age, 4-66 years; males, 26%-88%). In the modeled estimates, 6.2% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 2.4%-13.3%) of individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced at least 1 of the 3 Long COVID symptom clusters in 2020 and 2021, including 3.2% (95% UI, 0.6%-10.0%) for persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings, 3.7% (95% UI, 0.9%-9.6%) for ongoing respiratory problems, and 2.2% (95% UI, 0.3%-7.6%) for cognitive problems after adjusting for health status before COVID-19, comprising an estimated 51.0% (95% UI, 16.9%-92.4%), 60.4% (95% UI, 18.9%-89.1%), and 35.4% (95% UI, 9.4%-75.1%), respectively, of Long COVID cases. The Long COVID symptom clusters were more common in women aged 20 years or older (10.6% [95% UI, 4.3%-22.2%]) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection than in men aged 20 years or older (5.4% [95% UI, 2.2%-11.7%]). Both sexes younger than 20 years of age were estimated to be affected in 2.8% (95% UI, 0.9%-7.0%) of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. The estimated mean Long COVID symptom cluster duration was 9.0 months (95% UI, 7.0-12.0 months) among hospitalized individuals and 4.0 months (95% UI, 3.6-4.6 months) among nonhospitalized individuals. Among individuals with Long COVID symptoms 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, an estimated 15.1% (95% UI, 10.3%-21.1%) continued to experience symptoms at 12 months.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study presents modeled estimates of the proportion of individuals with at least 1 of 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
|
|
| 3. |
- van Essen, Thomas A, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI) : an observational cohort study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: eClinicalMedicine. - : Elsevier. - 2589-5370. ; 63
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Limited evidence existed on the comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) versus craniotomy for evacuation of traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) until the recently published randomised clinical trial RESCUE-ASDH. In this study, that ran concurrently, we aimed to determine current practice patterns and compare outcomes of primary DC versus craniotomy.METHODS: We conducted an analysis of centre treatment preference within the prospective, multicentre, observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (known as CENTER-TBI) and NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry (known as Net-QuRe) studies, which enrolled patients throughout Europe and Israel (2014-2020). We included patients with an ASDH who underwent acute neurosurgical evacuation. Patients with severe pre-existing neurological disorders were excluded. In an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference, measured by the case-mix adjusted proportion DC per centre. The primary outcome was functional outcome rated by the 6-months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR), adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582).FINDINGS: Between December 19, 2014 and December 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI of whom 336 (7%) underwent acute surgery for ASDH evacuation; 91 (27%) underwent DC and 245 (63%) craniotomy. The proportion primary DC within total acute surgery cases ranged from 6 to 67% with an interquartile range (IQR) of 12-26% among 46 centres; the odds of receiving a DC for prognostically similar patients in one centre versus another randomly selected centre were trebled (adjusted median odds ratio 2.7, p < 0.0001). Higher centre preference for DC over craniotomy was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio (OR) per 14% [IQR increase] more DC in a centre = 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1], n = 200). Primary DC was associated with more follow-on surgeries and complications [secondary cranial surgery 27% vs. 18%; shunts 11 vs. 5%]; and similar odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR per 14% IQR more primary DC 1.3 [95% CI (1.0-3.4), n = 200]).INTERPRETATION: We found substantial practice variation in the employment of DC over craniotomy for ASDH. This variation in treatment strategy did not result in different functional outcome. These findings suggest that primary DC should be restricted to salvageable patients in whom immediate replacement of the bone flap is not possible due to intraoperative brain swelling.FUNDING: Hersenstichting Nederland for the Dutch NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry and the European Union Seventh Framework Program.
|
|
| 4. |
- Blennow, Kaj, 1958, et al.
(författare)
-
Traumatic brain injuries.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Nature reviews. Disease primers. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2056-676X. ; 2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are clinically grouped by severity: mild, moderate and severe. Mild TBI (the least severe form) is synonymous with concussion and is typically caused by blunt non-penetrating head trauma. The trauma causes stretching and tearing of axons, which leads to diffuse axonal injury - the best-studied pathogenetic mechanism of this disorder. However, mild TBI is defined on clinical grounds and no well-validated imaging or fluid biomarkers to determine the presence of neuronal damage in patients with mild TBI is available. Most patients with mild TBI will recover quickly, but others report persistent symptoms, called post-concussive syndrome, the underlying pathophysiology of which is largely unknown. Repeated concussive and subconcussive head injuries have been linked to the neurodegenerative condition chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), which has been reported post-mortem in contact sports athletes and soldiers exposed to blasts. Insights from severe injuries and CTE plausibly shed light on the underlying cellular and molecular processes involved in mild TBI. MRI techniques and blood tests for axonal proteins to identify and grade axonal injury, in addition to PET for tau pathology, show promise as tools to explore CTE pathophysiology in longitudinal clinical studies, and might be developed into diagnostic tools for CTE. Given that CTE is attributed to repeated head trauma, prevention might be possible through rule changes by sports organizations and legislators.
|
|
| 5. |
- Salinas, Joel, et al.
(författare)
-
An International Standard Set of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures After Stroke.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Stroke: a journal of cerebral circulation. - 1524-4628. ; 47:1, s. 180-186
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Value-based health care aims to bring together patients and health systems to maximize the ratio of quality over cost. To enable assessment of healthcare value in stroke management, an international standard set of patient-centered stroke outcome measures was defined for use in a variety of healthcare settings.
|
|
| 6. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(författare)
-
Rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury : A survey in 70 European neurotrauma centres participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - 1650-1977 .- 1651-2081. ; 49:5, s. 395-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To describe variation in structural and process characteristics of acute in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care for patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe.DESIGN: Survey study, of neurotrauma centres.METHODS: A 14-item survey about in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care was sent to 71 neurotrauma centres participating in a European multicentre study (CENTER-TBI). The questionnaire was developed based on literature and expert opinion and was pilot-tested before sending out to the centres.RESULTS: Seventy (99%) centres in 20 countries completed the survey. The included centres were predominately academic level I trauma centres. Among the 70 centres, a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team can be consulted at 41% (n = 29) of the intensive care units and 49% (n = 34) of the wards. Only 13 (19%) centres used rehabilitation guidelines in patients with traumatic brain injury. Age was reported as a major determinant of referral decisions in 32 (46%) centres, with younger patients usually referred to specialized rehabilitation centres, and patients ≥ 65 years also referred to nursing homes or local hospitals.CONCLUSION: Substantial variation exists in structural and process characteristics of in-hospital acute rehabilitation and referral to post-acute rehabilitation facilities among neurotrauma centres across Europe.
|
|
| 7. |
- van Essen, Thomas A., et al.
(författare)
-
Surgery versus conservative treatment for traumatic acute subdural haematoma : a prospective, multicentre, observational, comparative effectiveness study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet Neurology. - : Elsevier. - 1474-4422 .- 1474-4465. ; 21:7, s. 620-631
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Despite being well established, acute surgery in traumatic acute subdural haematoma is based on low-grade evidence. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of a strategy preferring acute surgical evacuation with one preferring initial conservative treatment in acute subdural haematoma.METHODS: We did a prospective, observational, comparative effectiveness study using data from participants enrolled in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) cohort. We included patients with no pre-existing severe neurological disorders who presented with acute subdural haematoma within 24 h of traumatic brain injury. Using an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference for acute subdural haematoma (acute surgical evacuation or initial conservative treatment), measured by the case-mix-adjusted percentage of acute surgery per centre. The primary endpoint was functional outcome at 6 months as rated with the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, which was estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR) and adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median OR (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582).FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2014 and Dec 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI, of whom 1407 (31%) presented with acute subdural haematoma and were included in our study. Acute surgical evacuation was done in 336 (24%) patients, by craniotomy in 245 (73%) of those patients and by decompressive craniectomy in 91 (27%). Delayed decompressive craniectomy or craniotomy after initial conservative treatment (n=982) occurred in 107 (11%) patients. The percentage of patients who underwent acute surgery ranged from 5·6% to 51·5% (IQR 12·3-35·9) between centres, with a two-times higher probability of receiving acute surgery for an identical patient in one centre versus another centre at random (adjusted MOR for acute surgery 1·8; p<0·0001]). Centre preference for acute surgery over initial conservative treatment was not associated with improvements in functional outcome (common OR per 23·6% [IQR increase] more acute surgery in a centre 0·92, 95% CI 0·77-1·09).INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that treatment for patients with acute subdural haematoma with similar characteristics differed depending on the treating centre, because of variation in the preferred approach. A treatment strategy preferring an aggressive approach of acute surgical evacuation over initial conservative treatment was not associated with better functional outcome. Therefore, in a patient with acute subdural haematoma for whom a neurosurgeon sees no clear superiority for acute surgery over conservative treatment, initial conservative treatment might be considered.FUNDING: The Hersenstichting Nederland (also known as the Dutch Brain Foundation), the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme, the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany), OneMind (USA), Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA), and NeuroTrauma Sciences (USA).
|
|
