Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Rightly ambitious, but can the NHS deliver?

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/364/bmj.l84.full.pdf

The NHS long term plan

This paper brings together evidence from various data sources and the most recent studies to describe what we know so far about the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on inequalities across several key domains of life, including employment and ability to earn, family life and health We show how these new fissures interact with existing inequalities along various key dimensions, including socio-economic status, education, age, gender, ethnicity and geography We find that the deep underlying inequalities and policy challenges that we already had are crucial in understanding the complex impacts of the pandemic itself and our response to it, and that the crisis does in itself have the potential to exacerbate some of these pre-existing inequalities fairly directly Moreover, it seems likely that the current crisis will leave legacies that will impact inequalities in the long term These possibilities are not all disequalising, but many are

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1475-5890.12232

COVID-19 and Inequalities.

BACKGROUND In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. METHODS We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3‐hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad‐spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3‐hour bundle and risk‐adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. RESULTS Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3‐hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3‐hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3‐hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS More rapid completion of a 3‐hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.)

Supplement to: Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis.

Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission

The coronavirus pandemic has had huge impacts on the National Health Service (NHS). Patients suffering from the illness have placed unprecedented demands on acute care, particularly on Intensive Care Units (ICUs). This has led to an effort to dramatically increase the resources available to NHS hospitals in treating these patients, involving re-organisation of hospital facilities, redeployment of existing staff and a drive to bring in recently retired and newly graduated staff to fight the pandemic. These increases in demand and changes to supply have had large knock-on effects on the care provided to the wider population. This paper discusses likely implications for healthcare delivery in the short and medium term of the responses to the coronavirus pandemic, focusing primarily on the implications for non-coronavirus patients. Patterns of past care suggest those most likely to be affected by these disruptions will be older individuals and those living in more deprived areas, potentially exacerbating pre-existing health inequalities. Effects are likely to persist into the longer-run, with particular challenges around recruitment and ongoing staff shortages. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Wider Impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on the NHS.

Chief Medical Officer annual report 2018: better health within reach

/pdf/the-geography-of-the-covid-19-crisis-in-england-bbfm5a70b3.pdf

The geography of the COVID-19 crisis in England

<h2>Summary</h2><h3>Background</h3> Dementia incidence declined in many high-income countries in the 2000s, but evidence on the post-2010 trend is scarce. We aimed to analyse the temporal trend in England and Wales between 2002 and 2019, considering bias and non-linearity. <h3>Methods</h3> Population-based panel data representing adults aged 50 years and older from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were linked to the mortality register across wave 1 (2002–03) to wave 9 (2018–19) (90 073 person observations). Standard criteria based on cognitive and functional impairment were used to ascertain incident dementia. Crude incidence rates were determined in seven overlapping initially dementia-free subcohorts each followed up for 4 years (ie, 2002–06, 2004–08, 2006–10, 2008–12, 2010–14, 2012–16, and 2014–18). We examined the temporal trend of dementia incidence according to age, sex, and educational attainment. We estimated the trend of dementia incidence adjusted by age and sex with Cox proportional hazards and multistate models. Restricted cubic splines allowed for potential non-linearity in the time trend. A Markov model was used to project future dementia burden considering the estimated incidence trend. <h3>Findings</h3> Incidence rate standardised by age and sex declined from 2002 to 2010 (from 10·7 to 8·6 per 1000 person-years), then increased from 2010 to 2019 (from 8·6 to 11·3 per 1000 person-years). Adjusting for age and sex, and accounting for missing dementia cases due to death, estimated dementia incidence declined by 28·8% from 2002 to 2008 (incidence rate ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·58–0·88), and increased by 25·2% from 2008 to 2016 (1·25, 1·03–1·54). The group with lower educational attainment had a smaller decline in dementia incidence from 2002 to 2008 and a greater increase after 2008. If the upward incidence trend continued, there would be 1·7 million (1·62–1·75) dementia cases in England and Wales by 2040, 70% more than previously forecast. <h3>Interpretation</h3> Dementia incidence might no longer be declining in England and Wales. If the upward trend since 2008 continues, along with population ageing, the burden on health and social care will be large. <h3>Funding</h3> UK Economic and Social Research Council. 

Dementia incidence trend in England and Wales, 2002-19, and projection for dementia burden to 2040: analysis of data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

Securing the future: funding health and social care to the 2030s - summary

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

George Stoye

Author Tools

Chat about Author