Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36719907›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2023

Outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalised immunocompromised patients: An analysis of the WHO ISARIC CCP-UK prospective cohort study.

Lance Turtle, Mathew Thorpe, Thomas M Drake, Maaike Swets, Carlo Palmieri, Clark D Russell, Antonia Ho, Stephen Aston, Daniel G Wootton, Alex Richter and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
20.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Lance TurtleNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0778-1693
Mathew ThorpeCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1911-9581
Thomas M DrakeCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Maaike SwetsDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0901-9560
Carlo PalmieriDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Clark D RussellUniversity of Edinburgh Centre for Inflammation Research, Queen's Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Antonia HoMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Stephen AstonLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0701-8364
Daniel G WoottonNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Alex RichterInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Science, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Thushan I de SilvaDepartment of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-9212
Hayley E HardwickNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Gary LeemingDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Andy LawThe Roslin Institute, Easter Bush campus, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Peter J M OpenshawNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7220-2555
Ewen M HarrisonCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
ISARIC4C investigators
J Kenneth BaillieThe Roslin Institute, Easter Bush campus, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5258-793X
Malcolm G SempleNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9700-0418
Annemarie B DochertyCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8277-420X
University of Liverpool · GBRoslin Institute · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBImperial College London · GBLeiden University · NLMRC University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Department of Health 200927Medical Research Council MC_PC_19025Medical Research Council MC_PC_19026Medical Research Council MC_PC_19059Medical Research Council MC_PC_20058Medical Research Council MR/V028979/1Wellcome Trust 205228/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 215091/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunocompromised patients may be at higher risk of mortality if hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with immunocompetent patients. However, previous studies have been contradictory. We aimed to determine whether immunocompromised patients were at greater risk of in-hospital death and how this risk changed over the pandemic. METHODS AND

findingsWe included patients > = 19 years with symptomatic community-acquired COVID-19 recruited to the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK prospective cohort study. We defined immunocompromise as immunosuppressant medication preadmission, cancer treatment, organ transplant, HIV, or congenital immunodeficiency. We used logistic regression to compare the risk of death in both groups, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, vaccination, and comorbidities. We used Bayesian logistic regression to explore mortality over time. Between 17 January 2020 and 28 February 2022, we recruited 156,552 eligible patients, of whom 21,954 (14%) were immunocompromised. In total, 29% (n = 6,499) of immunocompromised and 21% (n = 28,608) of immunocompetent patients died in hospital. The odds of in-hospital mortality were elevated for immunocompromised patients (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI [1.39, 1.50], p < 0.001). Not all immunocompromising conditions had the same risk, for example, patients on active cancer treatment were less likely to have their care escalated to intensive care (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI [0.7, 0.85], p < 0.001) or ventilation (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.56, 0.76], p < 0.001). However, cancer patients were more likely to die (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI [1.87, 2.15], p < 0.001). Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidities, and vaccination status. As the pandemic progressed, in-hospital mortality reduced more slowly for immunocompromised patients than for immunocompetent patients. This was particularly evident with increasing age: the probability of the reduction in hospital mortality being less for immunocompromised patients aged 50 to 69 years was 88% for men and 83% for women, and for those >80 years was 99% for men and 98% for women. The study is limited by a lack of detailed drug data prior to admission, including steroid doses, meaning that we may have incorrectly categorised some immunocompromised patients as immunocompetent.

conclusionsImmunocompromised patients remain at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Targeted measures such as additional vaccine doses, monoclonal antibodies, and nonpharmaceutical preventive interventions should be continually encouraged for this patient group.

trial registrationISRCTN 66726260.

Indexed as

COVID-19AgedBayes TheoremFemaleHospital MortalityHumansImmunocompromised HostMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2United KingdomWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID36719907
PMCPMC9928075
OpenAlexW4318672214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.