Socioeconomic inequalities of Long COVID: findings from a population-based survey in the United Kingdom (preprint)

Objective To estimate the risk of Long COVID by socioeconomic deprivation and to further examine the socioeconomic inequalities in Long COVID by sex and occupational groups. Design We analysed data from the COVID-19 Infection Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics between 26/04/2020 and 31/01/2022. This is the largest and nationally representative survey of COVID-19 in the UK and provides uniquely rich, contemporaneous, and longitudinal data on occupation, health status, COVID-19 exposure, and Long COVID symptoms. Setting Community-based longitudinal survey of COVID-19 in the UK. Participants We included 201,799 participants in our analysis who were aged between 16 and 64 years and had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main outcome measures We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the risk of Long COVID at least 4 weeks after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection by deciles of index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and adjusted for a range of demographic and spatiotemporal factors. We further examined the modifying effects of socioeconomic deprivation by sex and occupational groups. Results A total of 19,315 (9.6%) participants reported having Long COVID symptoms. Compared to the least deprived IMD decile, participants in the most deprived decile had a higher adjusted risk of Long COVID (11.4% vs 8.2%; adjusted OR: 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33, 1.57). There were particularly significantly higher inequalities (most vs least deprived decile) of Long COVID in healthcare and patient facing roles (aOR: 1.76; 1.27, 2.44), and in the education sector (aOR: 1.62; 1.26, 2.08). The inequality of Long COVID was higher in females (aOR: 1.54; 1.38, 1.71) than males (OR: 1.32; 1.15, 1.51). Conclusions Participants living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas had a higher risk of Long COVID. The inequality gap was wider in females and certain public facing occupations (e.g., healthcare and education). These findings will help inform public health policies and interventions in adopting a social justice and health inequality lens.

Mortality in COVID-19 amongst women on Hormone Replacement Therapy or Combined Oral Contraception: A cohort study (preprint)

ObjectiveTo investigate the association between Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) or Combined Oral Contraception (COCP) use, and the likelihood of death in women with COVID-19. DesignA cohort study Setting465 general practices in England within the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. Population1,863,478 women aged over 18 years MethodsWe identified a cohort of women with COVID-19 from the computerised medical records of the RCGP RSC database. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to quantify the association between HRT or COCP use, and all-cause mortality among women with COVID-19 in unadjusted and adjusted models. ResultsThere were 5451 COVID-19 cases within the cohort. HRT was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of all-cause mortality in COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0.22, 95%{square}CI 0.05 to 0.94). There were no reported events for all-cause mortality in women prescribed COCPs. This prevented further examination of the impact of COCP. ConclusionsWomen on HRT with COVID-19 had a lower likelihood of death. Further work is needed in larger cohorts to examine the association of COCP in COVID-19. Our findings support the current hypothesis that oestrogens may contribute a protective effect against COVID-19 severity. FundingThis study was funded by a School for Primary Care National Institute for Health Research grant (SPCR2014-10043).

Influenza, Shingles and Pneumococcal Vaccine Uptake, Offer and Refusal in Adult Populations at High-Risk for COVID-19: A UK Population-Based Cohort Study (preprint)

Background: As COVID-19 vaccination programs are being rolled out globally, we studied the ethnic, deprivation, household size and comorbidity ‘patterning’ of existing vaccination programs in populations at high-risk for COVID-19, to inform risk-stratified vaccination strategies and mitigate health inequalities. Methods: A population-level cohort study of UK adults aged 65 years or older, using a large primary care database. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess uptake of influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccination across ethnic groups, deprivation quintile, household size, and comorbidities, computing odds ratios (OR) adjusted for age, sex, demographics, body mass index and smoking. Offers and refusals of each vaccination type were analysed in those not receiving them. Findings: The cohort comprised 2,054,463 patients from 1,318 general practices. 1,452,014 (70.7%) patients received influenza vaccine, 1,391,228 (67.7%) received pneumococcal vaccine, and 690,783 (53.4%) received shingles vaccine. Compared to Whites, influenza vaccination uptake was lower in Pakistani (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.82; 99% confidence interval: 0.74-0.90), Black Caribbean (OR 0.46; 0.43-0.48), Black African (OR 0.63; 0.58-0.68), Chinese (OR 0.70; 0.64-0.76) and ‘Other ethnic group’ (OR 0.65; 0.63-0.69). The Black Caribbean group had higher vaccination refusal than the White group for influenza vaccination (OR 1.17; 1.05-1.30). Vaccination uptake was lower among the more deprived and those living in household sizes above 3 or more persons, with some significant interactions between ethnicity and comorbidities. Uptake of all three vaccines was higher in those with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and learning disability, whilst lower in those with dementia. Interpretation: Whilst uptake and refusal of influenza, shingles and pneumococcal vaccination are patterned by ethnicity, deprivation, household size and comorbidities, vaccination offer is mostly patterned by comorbidities. This information can inform national policies to ensure equitable implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programs to avoid exacerbating health inequalities.Funding Statement: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (Grant Ref: MR/V027778/1).Declaration of Interests: PST reports previous consultation with AstraZeneca and Duke-NUS outside the submitted work. KK is a Member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), Member of Independent SAGE, Director of the University of Leicester Centre for Black Minority Health and Trustee of the south Asian Health Foundation. JHC is a member of several SAGE committees and chair of the risk stratification subgroup of the NERVTAG. She is unpaid director of QResearch and founder and former medical director of ClinRisk Ltd (outside the submitted work). MP, AKC, HDM, DS, TAR, FZ, BRS, SJG, CC, CG have no interests to declare.

Drug treatments affecting ACE2 in COVID-19 infection: a systematic review protocol (preprint)

Abstract Background: The SARS-CoV-2 virus causing COVID-19 binds human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors in human tissues. ACE2 expression may be associated with COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. Routinely prescribed drugs which up- or down-regulate ACE2 expression are therefore of critical research interest as agents which might promote or reduce risk of COVID-19 infection in a susceptible population. Aim: To review evidence on routinely prescribed drug treatments in the UK that could up- or down-regulate ACE2 and potentially affect COVID-19 infection. Design and setting: Systematic review of studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to April 1st 2020. Method: A systematic review will be conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria will be: i) assess effect of drug exposure on ACE2 level; ii) drug is included in British National Formulary (BNF) and therefore available to prescribe in UK; iii) a control, placebo or sham group is included as comparator. Exclusion criteria will be: i) ACE2 measurement in utero; ii) ACE2 measurement in children under 18 years; iii) drug not in BNF; iv) review article. Quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for human studies, and the SYRCLE risk of bias tool for animal studies. Results: Data will be reported in summary tables and narrative synthesis. Conclusion: This systematic review will identify drug therapies which may increase or decrease ACE2 expression. This might identify medications increasing risk of COVID-19 transmission, or as targets for intervention in mitigating transmission.

Currently prescribed drugs in the UK that could up or downregulate ACE2 in COVID-19 disease: A systematic review (preprint)

Objective: To review evidence on routinely prescribed drugs in the UK that could up or downregulate Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) and potentially affect COVID-19 disease Design: Systematic review Data source: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Study selection: Any design with animal or human models examining a currently prescribed UK drug compared to a control, placebo or sham group, and reporting an effect on ACE2 level, activity or gene expression. Data extraction and synthesis: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and OpenGrey from inception to 1st April 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using the SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies and Cochrane risk of bias tool for human studies. Results: We screened 3,360 titles and included 112 studies with 21 different drug classes identified as influencing ACE2 activity. Ten studies were in humans and 102 were in animal models None examined ACE2 in human lungs. The most frequently examined drugs were Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) (n= 55) and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme- Inhibitors (ACE-I) (n= 22). More studies reported upregulation than downregulation with ACE-I (n=22), ARBs (n=55), insulin (n=8), thiazolidinedione (n=7) aldosterone agonists (n=3), statins (n=5), oestrogens (n=5) calcium channel-blockers (n=3) GLP-1 agonists (n=2) and NSAIDs (n=2). Conclusions: There is an abundance of academic literature and media reports on the potential of drugs that could attenuate or exacerbate COVID-19 disease. This is leading to trials of repurposed drugs and uncertainty amongst patients and clinicians concerning continuation or cessation of prescribed medications. Our review indicates that the impact of currently prescribed drugs on ACE2 has been poorly studied in-vivo, particularly in human lungs where the SARS-CoV-2 virus appears to enact its pathogenic effects. We found no convincing evidence to justify starting or stopping currently prescribed drugs to influence outcomes of COVID-19 disease.