TY - JOUR T1 - Changes in UK hospital mortality in the first wave of COVID-19: the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol prospective multicentre observational cohort study JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.12.19.20248559 SP - 2020.12.19.20248559 AU - Annemarie B Docherty AU - Rachel H Mulholland AU - Nazir I Lone AU - Christopher P Cheyne AU - Daniela De Angelis AU - Karla Diaz-Ordaz AU - Cara Donoghue AU - Thomas M Drake AU - Jake Dunning AU - Sebastian Funk AU - Marta García-Fiñana AU - Michelle Girvan AU - Hayley E Hardwick AU - Janet Harrison AU - Antonia Ho AU - David M Hughes AU - Ruth H Keogh AU - Peter D Kirwan AU - Gary Leeming AU - Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam AU - Riinu Pius AU - Clark D Russell AU - Rebecca Spencer AU - Brian DM Tom AU - Lance Turtle AU - Peter JM Openshaw AU - J Kenneth Baillie AU - Ewen M Harrison AU - Malcolm G Semple AU - for ISARIC4C investigators Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/22/2020.12.19.20248559.abstract N2 - Background Mortality rates of UK patients hospitalised with COVID-19 appeared to fall during the first wave. We quantify potential drivers of this change and identify groups of patients who remain at high risk of dying in hospital.Methods The International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK recruited a prospective cohort admitted to 247 acute UK hospitals with COVID-19 in the first wave (March to August 2020). Outcome was hospital mortality within 28 days of admission. We performed a three-way decomposition mediation analysis using natural effects models to explore associations between week of admission and hospital mortality adjusting for confounders (demographics, comorbidity, illness severity) and quantifying potential mediators (respiratory support and steroids).Findings Unadjusted hospital mortality fell from 32.3% (95%CI 31.8, 32.7) in March/April to 16.4% (95%CI 15.0, 17.8) in June/July 2020. Reductions were seen in all ages, ethnicities, both sexes, and in comorbid and non-comorbid patients. After adjustment, there was a 19% reduction in the odds of mortality per 4 week period (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.79, 0.83). 15.2% of this reduction was explained by greater disease severity and comorbidity earlier in the epidemic. The use of respiratory support changed with greater use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). 22.2% (OR 0.94, 95%CI 0.94, 0.96) of the reduction in mortality was mediated by changes in respiratory support.Interpretation The fall in hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients during the first wave in the UK was partly accounted for by changes in case mix and illness severity. A significant reduction was associated with differences in respiratory support and critical care use, which may partly reflect improved clinical decision making. The remaining improvement in mortality is not explained by these factors, and may relate to community behaviour on inoculum dose and hospital capacity strain.Funding NIHR & MRCEvidence before this study Risk factors for mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 have been established. However there is little literature regarding how mortality is changing over time, and potential explanations for why this might be. Understanding changes in mortality rates over time will help policy makers identify evolving risk, strategies to manage this and broader decisions about public health interventions.Added value of this study Mortality in hospitalised patients at the beginning of the first wave was extremely high. Patients who were admitted to hospital in March and early April were significantly more unwell at presentation than patients who were admitted in later months. Mortality fell in all ages, ethnic groups, both sexes and in patients with and without comorbidity, over and above contributions from falling illness severity. After adjustment for these variables, a fifth of the fall in mortality was explained by changes in the use of respiratory support and steroid treatment, along with associated changes in clinical decision-making relating to supportive interventions. However, mortality was persistently high in patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation, and in those patients who received non-invasive ventilation outside of critical care.Implications of all the available evidence The observed reduction in hospital mortality was greater than expected based on the changes seen in both case mix and illness severity. Some of this fall can be explained by changes in respiratory care, including clinical learning. In addition, introduction of community policies including wearing of masks, social distancing, shielding of vulnerable patients and the UK lockdown potentially resulted in people being exposed to less virus.The decrease in mortality varied depending on the level of respiratory support received. Patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation have persistently high mortality rates, albeit with a changing case-mix, and further research should target this group.Severe COVID-19 disease has primarily affected older people in the UK. Many of these people, but not all have significant frailty. It is essential to ensure that patients and their families remain at the centre of decision-making, and we continue with an individualised approach to their treatment and care.Competing Interest StatementABD reports grants from Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), during the conduct of the study, grants from Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work; LT is funded by a grant from Wellcome Trust; JSNVT reports salary support from DHSC, England, during the conduct of the study, and is seconded to DHSC, England; PJMO reports personal fees from consultancies and from European Respiratory Society, grants from MRC, MRC Global Challenge Research Fund, EU, NIHR BRC, MRC/GSK, Wellcome Trust, NIHR (Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Respiratory Infection), and is NIHR senior investigator outside the submitted work; his role as President of the British Society for Immunology was unpaid but travel and accommodation at some meetings was provided by the Society; JKB reports grants from MRC UK; MGS reports grants from DHSC NIHR UK, grants from MRC UK, grants from HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool, during the conduct of the study, other from Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA, outside the submitted work. RHM is funded by BREATHE The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004). BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK.Funding StatementThis work is supported by grants from: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [award CO-CIN-01], the Medical Research Council [grant MC_PC_19059] and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford [award 200907], NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE [award 200927], Wellcome Trust and Department for International Development [215091/Z/18/Z], and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135], and Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (Grant Reference: C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London [IS-BRC-1215-20013], EU Platform foR European Preparedness Against (Re-) emerging Epidemics (PREPARE) [FP7 project 602525] and NIHR Clinical Research Network for providing infrastructure support for this research. PJMO is supported by a NIHR Senior Investigator Award [award 201385]. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England (DHSC). ABD Wellcome Trust (216606/Z/19/Z); SF Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z); KDO Wellcome Trust - Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship (218554/Z/19/Z), RHK UKRI (MR/S017968/1), DDA MRC (MCUU 00002/11), BDMT MRC (MC_UU_00002/2), LT Wellcome Trust (205228/Z/16/Z). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the DHSC, DID, NIHR, MRC, Wellcome Trust or PHE.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for data collection and analysis by ISARIC4C was given by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (reference 13/SC/0149), and by the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SS/0028). The ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study was registered at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66726260 and designated an Urgent Public Health Research Study by NIHR.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support #DataSavesLives. The CO-CIN data was collated by ISARIC4C Investigators. ISARIC4C welcomes applications for data and material access through our Independent Data and Material Access Committee (https://isaric4c.net). https://isaric4c.net ER -