Chronic pain and COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality: a UK Biobank cohort study.

ABSTRACT: The risk of COVID-19 in those with chronic pain is unknown. We investigated whether self-reported chronic pain was associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation or mortality. UK Biobank recruited 502,624 participants aged 37 to 73 years between 2006 and 2010. Baseline exposure data, including chronic pain (>3 months, in at least 1 of 7 prespecified body sites) and chronic widespread pain (>3 months, all over body), were linked to COVID-19 hospitalisations or mortality. Univariable or multivariable Poisson regression analyses were performed on the association between chronic pain and COVID-19 hospitalisation and Cox regression analyses of the associations with COVID-19 mortality. Multivariable analyses adjusted incrementally for sociodemographic confounders, then lifestyle risk factors, and finally long-term condition count. Of 441,403 UK Biobank participants with complete data, 3180 (0.7%) were hospitalised for COVID-19 and 1040 (0.2%) died from COVID-19. Chronic pain was associated with hospital admission for COVID-19 even after adjustment for all covariates (incidence rate ratio 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.24; P < 0.001), as was chronic widespread pain (incidence rate ratio 1.33; 95% CI 1.06-1.66; P = 0.012). There was clear evidence of a dose-response relationship with number of pain sites (fully adjusted global P-value < 0.001). After adjustment for all covariates, there was no association between chronic pain (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.89-1.15; P = 0.834) but attenuated association with chronic widespread pain (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04-2.16, P-value = 0.032) and COVID-19 mortality. Chronic pain is associated with higher risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19, but the association with mortality is unclear. Future research is required to investigate these findings further and determine whether pain is associated with long COVID.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The Race-Free EGFR Equation, The Kidney Failure Risk Equation and Referrals to Specialist Renal Clinics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The new race-free estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was developed in 2021. Recently in the UK in keeping with similar initiatives elsewhere, the kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) to predict the risk of kidney failure has been incorporated into clinical guidelines. Referral from primary care to a specialist renal clinic is recommended if eGFR falls to < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and/or if the 5-year KFRE is greater than 5%. We investigate the impact of using the race-free eGFR equation and KFRE on CKD diagnosis in primary care and potential referrals to the renal clinic. METHOD Primary care records for 79% of the population of Wales (UK) are held in the electronic health records repository Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL). We studied serum creatinine values and urine albumin-creatinine ratios (uACRs) from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020. We calculated eGFR values using three equations: MDRD, CKD-EPI 2009 and (race-free) CKD-EPI 2021. Using the different equations, we compared the numbers of patients with incident eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and incident eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (i.e. their eGFR fell from above to below these values for more than 3 months). For each year from 2013 to 2020, we identified the patients with prevalent eGFR 30–60 mL/min/1.73 m2 those with annual uACR testing and those who met referral criteria by A) eGFR decline and B) KFRE without eGFR decline. RESULTS There were 121 471 patients with prevalent CKD between 2013 and 2020. eGFR values were lowest using the MDRD equation (median 47.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 IQI 39.7–51.9) and highest with the CKD-EPI 2021 equation (median 50.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 IQI 41.6–55.3). Changing between these two equations would have led to a 17.6% reduction in incident eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and a 7.5% reduction in incident eGFR < 30 between 2013 and 2020 (Figure 1). The rate of annual uACR testing fell from 46.3% in 2013 to 25.3% in 2019 (Figure 2). eGFR and uACR testing were reduced further in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients without diabetes and older patients were the least likely to have had uACR testing at any time: for example, amongst those aged 60–70 years, 90.0% of those with diabetes had uACR testing at any time compared to 42.7% of those without diabetes;amongst those aged over 80 years, 79.1% of those with diabetes were tested compared to 32.7% of those without diabetes. In 2019 (the last year before the COVID-19 pandemic), 787/61 721 (1.3%) patients with CKD stage 3 met referral criteria by eGFR decline and an additional 587 (1.0%) by KFRE without eGFR decline. CONCLUSION Using the race-free eGFR equation will reduce diagnoses of incident eGFR < 30 warranting referral to specialist renal clinics. KFRE can be used to identify a significant number of patients at heightened risk of kidney failure, and these numbers may be higher if more uACR testing was performed. Annual uACR testing rates are low, especially in those without diabetes and in older adults. eGFR and uACR testing were markedly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 as most routine disease monitoring stopped. Expanding uACR testing in primary care (particularly in those without diabetes and in older adults) and using KFRE may improve the identification of individuals at risk of progressive kidney disease, but this is challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic.FIGURE 1: Incident CKD 2013–2020.FIGURE 1: CKD stage 3 monitoring and potential renal clinic referrals by year.

The association between a lifestyle score, socioeconomic status, and COVID-19 outcomes within the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) impacts disadvantaged groups most. Lifestyle factors are also associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. To inform COVID-19 policy and interventions, we explored effect modification of socioeconomic-status (SES) on associations between lifestyle and COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using data from UK-Biobank, a large prospective cohort of 502,536 participants aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010, we assigned participants a lifestyle score comprising nine factors. Poisson regression models with penalised splines were used to analyse associations between lifestyle score, deprivation (Townsend), and COVID-19 mortality and severe COVID-19. Associations between each exposure and outcome were examined independently before participants were dichotomised by deprivation to examine exposures jointly. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic/health factors. RESULTS: Of 343,850 participants (mean age > 60 years) with complete data, 707 (0.21%) died from COVID-19 and 2506 (0.76%) had severe COVID-19. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between lifestyle score and COVID-19 mortality but limited evidence for nonlinearity between lifestyle score and severe COVID-19 and between deprivation and COVID-19 outcomes. Compared with low deprivation, participants in the high deprivation group had higher risk of COVID-19 outcomes across the lifestyle score. There was evidence for an additive interaction between lifestyle score and deprivation. Compared with participants with the healthiest lifestyle score in the low deprivation group, COVID-19 mortality risk ratios (95% CIs) for those with less healthy scores in low versus high deprivation groups were 5.09 (1.39-25.20) and 9.60 (4.70-21.44), respectively. Equivalent figures for severe COVID-19 were 5.17 (2.46-12.01) and 6.02 (4.72-7.71). Alternative SES measures produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Unhealthy lifestyles are associated with higher risk of adverse COVID-19, but risks are highest in the most disadvantaged, suggesting an additive influence between SES and lifestyle. COVID-19 policy and interventions should consider both lifestyle and SES. The greatest public health benefit from lifestyle focussed COVID-19 policy and interventions is likely to be seen when greatest support for healthy living is provided to the most disadvantaged groups.

Development of an algorithm to classify primary care electronic health records of alcohol consumption: experience using data linkage from UK Biobank and primary care electronic health data sources.

OBJECTIVES: Develop a novel algorithm to categorise alcohol consumption using primary care electronic health records (EHRs) and asses its reliability by comparing this classification with self-reported alcohol consumption data obtained from the UK Biobank (UKB) cohort. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The UKB, a population-based cohort with participants aged between 40 and 69 years recruited across the UK between 2006 and 2010. PARTICIPANTS: UKB participants from Scotland with linked primary care data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Create a rule-based multiclass algorithm to classify alcohol consumption reported by Scottish UKB participants and compare it with their classification using data present in primary care EHRs based on Read Codes. We evaluated agreement metrics (simple agreement and kappa statistic). RESULTS: Among the Scottish UKB participants, 18 838 (69%) had at least one Read Code related to alcohol consumption and were used in the classification. The agreement of alcohol consumption categories between UKB and primary care data, including assessments within 5 years was 59.6%, and kappa was 0.23 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.24). Differences in classification between the two sources were statistically significant (p<0.001); More individuals were classified as 'sensible drinkers' and in lower alcohol consumption levels in primary care records compared with the UKB. Agreement improved slightly when using only numerical values (k=0.29; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.31) and decreased when using qualitative descriptors only (k=0.18;95% CI 0.16 to 0.20). CONCLUSION: Our algorithm classifies alcohol consumption recorded in Primary Care EHRs into discrete meaningful categories. These results suggest that alcohol consumption may be underestimated in primary care EHRs. Using numerical values (alcohol units) may improve classification when compared with qualitative descriptors.

Ethnic and socioeconomic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: prospective cohort study using UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Understanding of the role of ethnicity and socioeconomic position in the risk of developing SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited. We investigated this in the UK Biobank study. METHODS: The UK Biobank study recruited 40-70-year-olds in 2006-2010 from the general population, collecting information about self-defined ethnicity and socioeconomic variables (including area-level socioeconomic deprivation and educational attainment). SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England were linked to baseline UK Biobank data. Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to assess risk ratios (RRs) between the exposures and dichotomous variables for being tested, having a positive test and testing positive in hospital. We also investigated whether ethnicity and socioeconomic position were associated with having a positive test amongst those tested. We adjusted for covariates including age, sex, social variables (including healthcare work and household size), behavioural risk factors and baseline health. RESULTS: Amongst 392,116 participants in England, 2658 had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 948 tested positive (726 in hospital) between 16 March and 3 May 2020. Black and south Asian groups were more likely to test positive (RR 3.35 (95% CI 2.48-4.53) and RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.75-3.36) respectively), with Pakistani ethnicity at highest risk within the south Asian group (RR 3.24 (95% CI 1.73-6.07)). These ethnic groups were more likely to be hospital cases compared to the white British. Adjustment for baseline health and behavioural risk factors led to little change, with only modest attenuation when accounting for socioeconomic variables. Socioeconomic deprivation and having no qualifications were consistently associated with a higher risk of confirmed infection (RR 2.19 for most deprived quartile vs least (95% CI 1.80-2.66) and RR 2.00 for no qualifications vs degree (95% CI 1.66-2.42)). CONCLUSIONS: Some minority ethnic groups have a higher risk of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK Biobank study, which was not accounted for by differences in socioeconomic conditions, baseline self-reported health or behavioural risk factors. An urgent response to addressing these elevated risks is required.

Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations.

Many western countries used shielding (extended self-isolation) of people presumed to be at high-risk from COVID-19 to protect them and reduce healthcare demand. To investigate the effectiveness of this strategy, we linked family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records and compared COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded individuals in the West of Scotland. Of the 1.3 million population, 27,747 (2.03%) were advised to shield, and 353,085 (26.85%) were classified a priori as moderate risk. COVID-19 testing was more common in the shielded (7.01%) and moderate risk (2.03%) groups, than low risk (0.73%). Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44-9.59), case-fatality (RR 5.62, 95% CI 4.47-7.07) and population mortality (RR 57.56, 95% 44.06-75.19). The moderate-risk had intermediate confirmed infections (RR 4.11, 95% CI 3.82-4.42) and population mortality (RR 25.41, 95% CI 20.36-31.71) but, due to their higher prevalence, made the largest contribution to deaths (PAF 75.30%). Age ≥ 70 years accounted for 49.55% of deaths. In conclusion, in spite of the shielding strategy, high risk individuals were at increased risk of death. Furthermore, to be effective as a population strategy, shielding criteria would have needed to be widely expanded to include other criteria, such as the elderly.

Correction: Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and COVID-19 infection within the UK Biobank cohort.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238091.].

Family history of diabetes and risk of SARS-COV-2 in UK Biobank: A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine risk of being SARS-CoV-2 positive and severe infection (associated with hospitalization/mortality) in those with family history of diabetes. METHODS: We used UK Biobank, an observational cohort recruited between 2006 and 2010. We compared the risk of being SARS-CoV-2 positive and severe infection for those with family history of diabetes (mother/father/sibling) against those without. RESULTS: Of 401,268 participants in total, 13,331 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 2282 had severe infection by end of January 2021. In unadjusted models, participants with ≥2 family members with diabetes were more likely to be SARS-CoV-2 positive (risk ratio-RR 1.35; 95% confidence interval-CI 1.24-1.47) and severe infection (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04-1.59), compared to those without. The excess risk of being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 was attenuated but significant after adjusting for demographics, lifestyle factors, multimorbidity and presence of cardiometabolic conditions. The excess risk for severe infection was no longer significant after adjusting for demographics, lifestyle factors, multimorbidity and presence of cardiometabolic conditions, and was absent when excluding incident diabetes. CONCLUSION: The totality of the results suggests that good lifestyle and not developing incident diabetes may lessen risks of severe infections in people with a strong family of diabetes.

Occupation and risk of severe COVID-19: prospective cohort study of 120 075 UK Biobank participants.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate severe COVID-19 risk by occupational group. METHODS: Baseline UK Biobank data (2006-10) for England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England (16 March to 26 July 2020). Included participants were employed or self-employed at baseline, alive and aged <65 years in 2020. Poisson regression models were adjusted sequentially for baseline demographic, socioeconomic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors to assess risk ratios (RRs) for testing positive in hospital or death due to COVID-19 by three occupational classification schemes (including Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 2000). RESULTS: Of 120 075 participants, 271 had severe COVID-19. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.43, 95% CI 5.52 to 10.00), social and education workers (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.82) and other essential workers (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.45) had a higher risk of severe COVID-19. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.70, 95% CI 4.87 to 15.55), social care (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.14) and transport workers (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.00) had the highest risk within the broader groups. Compared with white non-essential workers, non-white non-essential workers had a higher risk (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.62) and non-white essential workers had the highest risk (RR 8.34, 95% CI 5.17 to 13.47). Using SOC 2000 major groups, associate professional and technical occupations, personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had a higher risk, compared with managers and senior officials. CONCLUSIONS: Essential workers have a higher risk of severe COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for national and organisational policies and practices that protect and support workers with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19.

COVID-19 Surveillance in a Primary Care Sentinel Network: In-Pandemic Development of an Application Ontology.

BACKGROUND: Creating an ontology for COVID-19 surveillance should help ensure transparency and consistency. Ontologies formalize conceptualizations at either the domain or application level. Application ontologies cross domains and are specified through testable use cases. Our use case was an extension of the role of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) to monitor the current pandemic and become an in-pandemic research platform. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an application ontology for COVID-19 that can be deployed across the various use-case domains of the RCGP RSC research and surveillance activities. METHODS: We described our domain-specific use case. The actor was the RCGP RSC sentinel network, the system was the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the outcomes were the spread and effect of mitigation measures. We used our established 3-step method to develop the ontology, separating ontological concept development from code mapping and data extract validation. We developed a coding system-independent COVID-19 case identification algorithm. As there were no gold-standard pandemic surveillance ontologies, we conducted a rapid Delphi consensus exercise through the International Medical Informatics Association Primary Health Care Informatics working group and extended networks. RESULTS: Our use-case domains included primary care, public health, virology, clinical research, and clinical informatics. Our ontology supported (1) case identification, microbiological sampling, and health outcomes at an individual practice and at the national level; (2) feedback through a dashboard; (3) a national observatory; (4) regular updates for Public Health England; and (5) transformation of a sentinel network into a trial platform. We have identified a total of 19,115 people with a definite COVID-19 status, 5226 probable cases, and 74,293 people with possible COVID-19, within the RCGP RSC network (N=5,370,225). CONCLUSIONS: The underpinning structure of our ontological approach has coped with multiple clinical coding challenges. At a time when there is uncertainty about international comparisons, clarity about the basis on which case definitions and outcomes are made from routine data is essential.

Comparison of two different frailty measurements and risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19: findings from UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been associated with worse prognosis following COVID-19 infection. While several studies have reported the association between frailty and COVID-19 mortality or length of hospital stay, there have been no community-based studies on the association between frailty and risk of severe infection. Considering that different definitions have been identified to assess frailty, this study aimed to compare the association between frailty and severe COVID-19 infection in UK Biobank using two frailty classifications: the frailty phenotype and the frailty index. METHODS: A total of 383,845 UK Biobank participants recruited 2006-2010 in England (211,310 [55.1%] women, baseline age 37-73 years) were included. COVID-19 test data were provided by Public Health England (available up to 28 June 2020). An adapted version of the frailty phenotype derived by Fried et al. was used to define frailty phenotype (robust, pre-frail, or frail). A previously validated frailty index was derived from 49 self-reported questionnaire items related to health, disease and disability, and mental wellbeing (robust, mild frailty, and moderate/severe frailty). Both classifications were derived from baseline data (2006-2010). Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyse the associations between both frailty classifications and severe COVID-19 infection (resulting in hospital admission or death), adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Of UK Biobank participants included, 802 were admitted to hospital with and/or died from COVID19 (323 deaths and 479 hospitalisations). After analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher risk of COVID-19 was observed for pre-frail (risk ratio (RR) 1.47 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71]) and frail (RR 2.66 [95% CI 2.04; 3.47]) individuals compared to those classified as robust using the frailty phenotype. Similar results were observed when the frailty index was used (RR mildly frail 1.46 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71] and RR moderate/severe frailty 2.43 [95% CI 1.91; 3.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection resulting in hospital admission or death, irrespective of how it was measured and independent of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Public health strategies need to consider the additional risk that COVID-19 poses in individuals with frailty, including which additional preventive measures might be required.

Is older age associated with COVID-19 mortality in the absence of other risk factors? General population cohort study of 470,034 participants.

INTRODUCTION: Older people have been reported to be at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality. This study explored the factors mediating this association and whether older age was associated with increased mortality risk in the absence of other risk factors. METHODS: In UK Biobank, a population cohort study, baseline data were linked to COVID-19 deaths. Poisson regression was used to study the association between current age and COVID-19 mortality. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 438 (0.09%) died of COVID-19. Current age was associated exponentially with COVID-19 mortality. Overall, participants aged ≥75 years were at 13-fold (95% CI 9.13-17.85) mortality risk compared with those <65 years. Low forced expiratory volume in 1 second, high systolic blood pressure, low handgrip strength, and multiple long-term conditions were significant mediators, and collectively explained 39.3% of their excess risk. The associations between these risk factors and COVID-19 mortality were stronger among older participants. Participants aged ≥75 without additional risk factors were at 4-fold risk (95% CI 1.57-9.96, P = 0.004) compared with all participants aged <65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Higher COVID-19 mortality among older adults was partially explained by other risk factors. 'Healthy' older adults were at much lower risk. Nonetheless, older age was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 mortality.

Recording COVID-19 consultations: review of symptoms, risk factors, and proposed SNOMED CT terms.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for epidemiological research in primary care to develop risk assessment processes for patients presenting with COVID-19, but lack of a standardised approach to data collection is a significant barrier to implementation. AIM: To collate a list of relevant symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19, and match these data items with corresponding SNOMED CT clinical terms to support the development and implementation of consultation templates. DESIGN & SETTING: Published and preprint literature for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines describing the symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and/or lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19 and its complications were reviewed. Corresponding clinical concepts from SNOMED CT, a widely used structured clinical vocabulary for electronic primary care health records, were identified. METHOD: Guidelines and published and unpublished reviews (N = 61) were utilised to collate a list of relevant data items for COVID-19 consultations. The NHS Digital SNOMED CT Browser was used to identify concept and descriptive identifiers. Key implementation challenges were conceptualised through a Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) lens. RESULTS: In total, 32 symptoms, eight demographic and lifestyle features, 25 health conditions, and 20 assessment items relevant to COVID-19 were identified, with proposed corresponding SNOMED CT concepts. These data items can be adapted into a consultation template for COVID-19. Key implementation challenges include: 1) engaging with key stakeholders to achieve 'buy in'; and 2) ensuring any template is usable within practice settings. CONCLUSION: Consultation templates for COVID-19 are needed to standardise data collection, facilitate research and learning, and potentially improve quality of care for COVID-19.

Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and COVID-19 infection within the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: It is now well recognised that the risk of severe COVID-19 increases with some long-term conditions (LTCs). However, prior research primarily focuses on individual LTCs and there is a lack of data on the influence of multimorbidity (≥2 LTCs) on the risk of COVID-19. Given the high prevalence of multimorbidity, more detailed understanding of the associations with multimorbidity and COVID-19 would improve risk stratification and help protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19. Here we examine the relationships between multimorbidity, polypharmacy (a proxy of multimorbidity), and COVID-19; and how these differ by sociodemographic, lifestyle, and physiological prognostic factors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We studied data from UK Biobank (428,199 participants; aged 37-73; recruited 2006-2010) on self-reported LTCs, medications, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and physiological measures which were linked to COVID-19 test data. Poisson regression models examined risk of COVID-19 by multimorbidity/polypharmacy and effect modification by COVID-19 prognostic factors (age/sex/ethnicity/socioeconomic status/smoking/physical activity/BMI/systolic blood pressure/renal function). 4,498 (1.05%) participants were tested; 1,324 (0.31%) tested positive for COVID-19. Compared with no LTCs, relative risk (RR) of COVID-19 in those with 1 LTC was no higher (RR 1.12 (CI 0.96-1.30)), whereas those with ≥2 LTCs had 48% higher risk; RR 1.48 (1.28-1.71). Compared with no cardiometabolic LTCs, having 1 and ≥2 cardiometabolic LTCs had a higher risk of COVID-19; RR 1.28 (1.12-1.46) and 1.77 (1.46-2.15), respectively. Polypharmacy was associated with a dose response higher risk of COVID-19. All prognostic factors were associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection in multimorbidity; being non-white, most socioeconomically deprived, BMI ≥40 kg/m2, and reduced renal function were associated with the highest risk of COVID-19 infection: RR 2.81 (2.09-3.78); 2.79 (2.00-3.90); 2.66 (1.88-3.76); 2.13 (1.46-3.12), respectively. No multiplicative interaction between multimorbidity and prognostic factors was identified. Important limitations include the low proportion of UK Biobank participants with COVID-19 test data (1.05%) and UK Biobank participants being more affluent, healthier and less ethnically diverse than the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing multimorbidity, especially cardiometabolic multimorbidity, and polypharmacy are associated with a higher risk of developing COVID-19. Those with multimorbidity and additional factors, such as non-white ethnicity, are at heightened risk of COVID-19.