Excess years of life lost to COVID-19 and other causes of death by sex, neighbourhood deprivation, and region in England and Wales during 2020: A registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Deaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL.

Consultation patterns and frequent attenders in UK primary care from 2000 to 2019: a retrospective cohort analysis of consultation events across 845 general practices.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the distribution of consultations at the practice level and examine whether increases are uniform or driven by people who consult more frequently. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: UK general practice data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database. PARTICIPANTS: 1 699 709 314 consultation events from 12 330 545 patients, in 845 general practices (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2019). METHODS: Consultation information was aggregated by financial year into: all consultations/all staff; all consultations/general practitioners (GPs); face-to-face consultations/all staff; face-to-face consultations/GPs. Patients with a number of consultations above the 90th centile, within each year, were classified as frequent attenders. Negative binomial regressions examined the association between available practice characteristics and consultation distribution. RESULTS: Among frequent attenders, all consultations by GPs increased from a median (25th and 75th centile) of 13 (10 and 16) to 21 (18 and 25) and all consultations by all staff increased from 27 (23-30) to 60 (51-69) over the study period. Approximately four out of ten consultations of any type concerned frequent attenders and the proportion of consultations attributed to them increased over time, particularly for face-to-face consultations with GPs, from a median of 38.0% (35.9%-40.3%) in 2000-2001 to 43.0% (40.6%-46.4%) in 2018-2019. Regression analyses indicated decreasing trends over time for face-to-face consultations and increasing trends for all consultation types, for both GPs and all staff. Frequent attenders consulted approximately five times more than the rest of the practice population, on average, with adjusted incidence rate ratios ranging between 4.992 (95% CI 4.917 to 5.068) for face-to-face consultations with all staff and 5.603 (95% CI 5.560 to 5.647) for all consultations with GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent attenders progressively contributed to increased workload in general practices across the UK from 2000 to 2019. Important knowledge gaps remain in terms of the demographic, social and health characteristics of frequent attenders and how UK general practices can be prepared to meet the needs of these patients.

Work-related and personal predictors of COVID-19 transmission: evidence from the UK and USA.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence of work-related and personal predictors of COVID-19 transmission. SETTING AND RESPONDENTS: Data are drawn from a population survey of individuals in the USA and UK conducted in June 2020. BACKGROUND METHODS: Regression models are estimated for 1467 individuals in which reported evidence of infection depends on work-related factors as well as a variety of personal controls. RESULTS: The following themes emerge from the analysis. First, a range of work-related factors are significant sources of variation in COVID-19 infection as indicated by self-reports of medical diagnosis or symptoms. This includes evidence about workplace types, consultation about safety and union membership. The partial effect of transport-related employment in regression models makes the chance of infection over three times more likely while in univariate analyses, transport-related work increases the risk of infection by over 40 times in the USA. Second, there is evidence that some home-related factors are significant predictors of infection, most notably the sharing of accommodation or a kitchen. Third, there is some evidence that behavioural factors and personal traits (including risk preference, extraversion and height) are also important. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes that predictors of transmission relate to work, transport, home and personal factors. Transport-related work settings are by far the greatest source of risk and so should be a focus of prevention policies. In addition, surveys of the sort developed in this paper are an important source of information on transmission pathways within the community.

Excess deaths from COVID-19 and other causes by region, neighbourhood deprivation level and place of death during the first 30 weeks of the pandemic in England and Wales: A retrospective registry study.

BACKGROUND: Excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with those expected from historical trends have been unequally distributed, both geographically and socioeconomically. Not all excess deaths have been directly related to COVID-19 infection. We investigated geographical and socioeconomic patterns in excess deaths for major groups of underlying causes during the pandemic. METHODS: Weekly mortality data from 27/12/2014 to 2/10/2020 for England and Wales were obtained from the Office of National Statistics. Negative binomial regressions were used to model death counts based on pre-pandemic trends for deaths caused directly by COVID-19 (and other respiratory causes) and those caused indirectly by it (cardiovascular disease or diabetes, cancers, and all other indirect causes) over the first 30 weeks of the pandemic (7/3/2020-2/10/2020). FINDINGS: There were 62,321 (95% CI: 58,849 to 65,793) excess deaths in England and Wales in the first 30 weeks of the pandemic. Of these, 46,221 (95% CI: 45,439 to 47,003) were attributable to respiratory causes, including COVID-19, and 16,100 (95% CI: 13,410 to 18,790) to other causes. Rates of all-cause excess mortality ranged from 78 per 100,000 in the South West of England and in Wales to 130 per 100,000 in the West Midlands; and from 93 per 100,000 in the most affluent fifth of areas to 124 per 100,000 in the most deprived. The most deprived areas had the highest rates of death attributable to COVID-19 and other indirect deaths, but there was no socioeconomic gradient for excess deaths from cardiovascular disease/diabetes and cancer. INTERPRETATION: During the first 30 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic there was significant geographic and socioeconomic variation in excess deaths for respiratory causes, but not for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Pandemic recovery plans, including vaccination programmes, should take account of individual characteristics including health, socioeconomic status and place of residence. FUNDING: None.

Indirect Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Activity and Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis in England.

[Figure: see text].

Mental health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: a latent class trajectory analysis using longitudinal UK data.

BACKGROUND: The mental health of the UK population declined at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Convenience sample surveys indicate that recovery began soon after. Using a probability sample, we tracked mental health during the pandemic to characterise mental health trajectories and identify predictors of deterioration. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of five waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (a large, national, probability-based survey that has been collecting data continuously since January, 2009) from late April to early October, 2020 and pre-pandemic data taken from 2018-19. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). We used latent class mixed models to identify discrete mental health trajectories and fixed-effects regression to identify predictors of change in mental health. FINDINGS: Mental health was assessed in 19 763 adults (≥16 years; 11 477 [58·1%] women and 8287 [41·9%] men; 3453 [17·5%] participants from minority ethnic groups). Mean population mental health deteriorated with the onset of the pandemic and did not begin improving until July, 2020. Latent class analysis identified five distinct mental health trajectories up to October 2020. Most individuals in the population had either consistently good (7437 [39·3%] participants) or consistently very good (7623 [37·5%] participants) mental health across the first 6 months of the pandemic. A recovering group (1727 [12·0%] participants) showed worsened mental health during the initial shock of the pandemic and then returned to around pre-pandemic levels of mental health by October, 2020. The two remaining groups were characterised by poor mental health throughout the observation period; for one group, (523 [4·1%] participants) there was an initial worsening in mental health that was sustained with highly elevated scores. The other group (1011 [7·0%] participants) had little initial acute deterioration in their mental health, but reported a steady and sustained decline in mental health over time. These last two groups were more likely to have pre-existing mental or physical ill-health, to live in deprived neighbourhoods, and be of Asian, Black or mixed ethnicity. Infection with SARS-CoV-2, local lockdown, and financial difficulties all predicted a subsequent deterioration in mental health. INTERPRETATION: Between April and October 2020, the mental health of most UK adults remained resilient or returned to pre-pandemic levels. Around one in nine individuals had deteriorating or consistently poor mental health. People living in areas affected by lockdown, struggling financially, with pre-existing conditions, or infection with SARS-CoV-2 might benefit most from early intervention. FUNDING: None.

Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism events (VTE). This study performed a systematic review in PubMed/EMBASE of studies reporting the prevalence of VTE in patients with COVID-19 who were totally screened/assessed for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or for pulmonary embolism (PE). Among 47 candidate studies (n = 6459; 33 in Europe), 17 studies (n = 3973; weighted age 63.0 years, males 60%, intensive care unit (ICU) 16%) reported the prevalence of PE with a pooled estimate of 32% (95% CI: 25, 40%), and 32 studies (n = 2552; weighted age 62.6 years, males 57%, ICU 49%) reported the prevalence of DVT with a pooled estimate of 27% (95% CI: 21, 34%). A total of 36 studies reported the use of at least prophylactic antithrombotic treatment in the majority of their patients. Meta-regression analysis showed that the prevalence of VTE was higher across studies with a higher percentage of ICU patients and higher study population mean D-dimer values, and lower in studies with mixed dosing of anticoagulation in ⩾ 50% of the population compared to studies with standard prophylactic dosing of anticoagulation in < 50% of the population. The pooled odds ratio for death in patients with COVID-19 and VTE versus those without VTE (17 studies, n = 2882) was 2.1 (95% CI: 1.2, 3.6). Hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 are at high VTE risk despite prophylactic anticoagulation. Further research should investigate the individualized VTE risk of patients with COVID-19 and the optimal preventive antithrombotic therapy. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42020185543.

Excess mortality for care home residents during the first 23 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To estimate excess mortality for care home residents during the COVID-19 pandemic in England, exploring associations with care home characteristics. METHODS: Daily number of deaths in all residential and nursing homes in England notified to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) from 1 January 2017 to 7 August 2020. Care home-level data linked with CQC care home register to identify home characteristics: client type (over 65s/children and adults), ownership status (for-profit/not-for-profit; branded/independent) and size (small/medium/large). Excess deaths computed as the difference between observed and predicted deaths using local authority fixed-effect Poisson regressions on pre-pandemic data. Fixed-effect logistic regressions were used to model odds of experiencing COVID-19 suspected/confirmed deaths. RESULTS: Up to 7 August 2020, there were 29,542 (95% CI 25,176 to 33,908) excess deaths in all care homes. Excess deaths represented 6.5% (95% CI 5.5 to 7.4%) of all care home beds, higher in nursing (8.4%) than residential (4.6%) homes. 64.7% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.0%) of the excess deaths were confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Almost all excess deaths were recorded in the quarter (27.4%) of homes with any COVID-19 fatalities. The odds of experiencing COVID-19 attributable deaths were higher in homes providing nursing services (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.0), to older people and/or with dementia (OR 5.5, 95% CI 4.4 to 6.8), amongst larger (vs. small) homes (OR 13.3, 95% CI 11.5 to 15.4) and belonging to a large provider/brand (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.3). There was no significant association with for-profit status of providers. CONCLUSIONS: To limit excess mortality, policy should be targeted at care homes to minimise the risk of ingress of disease and limit subsequent transmission. Our findings provide specific characteristic targets for further research on mechanisms and policy priority.

Place and Underlying Cause of Death During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study of 3.5 Million Deaths in England and Wales, 2014 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the place and cause of death during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to assess its impact on excess mortality. METHODS: This national death registry included all adult (aged ≥18 years) deaths in England and Wales between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020. Daily deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared against the expected daily deaths, estimated with use of the Farrington surveillance algorithm for daily historical data between 2014 and 2020 by place and cause of death. RESULTS: Between March 2 and June 30, 2020, there was an excess mortality of 57,860 (a proportional increase of 35%) compared with the expected deaths, of which 50,603 (87%) were COVID-19 related. At home, only 14% (2267) of the 16,190 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, with 5963 deaths due to cancer and 2485 deaths due to cardiac disease, few of which involved COVID-19. In care homes or hospices, 61% (15,623) of the 25,611 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, 5539 of which were due to respiratory disease, and most of these (4315 deaths) involved COVID-19. In the hospital, there were 16,174 fewer deaths than expected that did not involve COVID-19, with 4088 fewer deaths due to cancer and 1398 fewer deaths due to cardiac disease than expected. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a large excess of deaths in care homes that were poorly characterized and likely to be the result of undiagnosed COVID-19. There was a smaller but important and ongoing excess in deaths at home, particularly from cancer and cardiac disease, suggesting public avoidance of hospital care for non-COVID-19 conditions.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on the Incidence and Management of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction in England.

Background Studies have reported significant reduction in acute myocardial infarction-related hospitalizations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, whether these trends are associated with increased incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in this population is unknown. Methods and Results Acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations with OHCA during the COVID-19 period (February 1-May 14, 2020) from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project and British Cardiovascular Intervention Society data sets were analyzed. Temporal trends were assessed using Poisson models with equivalent pre-COVID-19 period (February 1-May 14, 2019) as reference. Acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations during COVID-19 period were reduced by >50% (n=20 310 versus n=9325). OHCA was more prevalent during the COVID-19 period compared with the pre-COVID-19 period (5.6% versus 3.6%), with a 56% increase in the incidence of OHCA (incidence rate ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.39-1.74). Patients experiencing OHCA during COVID-19 period were likely to be older, likely to be women, likely to be of Asian ethnicity, and more likely to present with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. The overall rates of invasive coronary angiography (58.4% versus 71.6%; P<0.001) were significantly lower among the OHCA group during COVID-19 period with increased time to reperfusion (mean, 2.1 versus 1.1 hours; P=0.05) in those with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. The adjusted in-hospital mortality probability increased from 27.7% in February 2020 to 35.8% in May 2020 in the COVID-19 group (P<.001). Conclusions In this national cohort of hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction, we observed a significant increase in incidence of OHCA during COVID-19 period paralleled with reduced access to guideline-recommended care and increased in-hospital mortality.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in England: Insights From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society PCI Database Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in England by analyzing procedural numbers, changes in the clinical presentation, and characteristics of patients and their clinical outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI in England between January 2017 and April 2020 in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database. RESULTS: Forty-four hospitals reported PCI procedures for 126 491 patients. There were ≈700 procedures performed each week before the lockdown. After the March 23, 2020 lockdown (11th/12th week in 2020), there was a 49% fall in the number of PCI procedures after the 12th week in 2020. The decrease was greatest in PCI procedures performed for stable angina (66%), followed by non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (45%), and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (33%). Patients after the lockdown were younger (64.5 versus 65.5 years, P<0.001) and less likely to have diabetes (20.4% versus 24.6%, P<0.001), hypertension (52.0% versus 56.8%, P=0.001), previous myocardial infarction (23.5% versus 26.7%, P=0.008), previous PCI (24.3% versus 28.3%, P=0.001), or previous coronary artery bypass graft (4.6% versus 7.2%, P<0.001) compared with before the lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown in England has resulted in a significant decline in PCI procedures. Fewer patients underwent PCI for stable angina. This enabled greater capacity for urgent and emergency cases, and a reduced length of stay was seen for such patients. Significant changes in the characteristics of patients towards a lower risk phenotype were observed, particularly for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, reflecting a more conservative approach to this cohort.

Excess mortality in England and Wales during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic result directly from infection and exacerbation of other diseases and indirectly from deferment of care for other conditions, and are socially and geographically patterned. We quantified excess mortality in regions of England and Wales during the pandemic, for all causes and for non-COVID-19-associated deaths. METHODS: Weekly mortality data for 1 January 2010 to 1 May 2020 for England and Wales were obtained from the Office of National Statistics. Mean-dispersion negative binomial regressions were used to model death counts based on pre-pandemic trends and exponentiated linear predictions were subtracted from: (i) all-cause deaths and (ii) all-cause deaths minus COVID-19 related deaths for the pandemic period (week starting 7 March, to week ending 8 May). FINDINGS: Between 7 March and 8 May 2020, there were 47 243 (95% CI: 46 671 to 47 815) excess deaths in England and Wales, of which 9948 (95% CI: 9376 to 10 520) were not associated with COVID-19. Overall excess mortality rates varied from 49 per 100 000 (95% CI: 49 to 50) in the South West to 102 per 100 000 (95% CI: 102 to 103) in London. Non-COVID-19 associated excess mortality rates ranged from -1 per 100 000 (95% CI: -1 to 0) in Wales (ie, mortality rates were no higher than expected) to 26 per 100 000 (95% CI: 25 to 26) in the West Midlands. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had markedly different impacts on the regions of England and Wales, both for deaths directly attributable to COVID-19 infection and for deaths resulting from the national public health response.

Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population.

BACKGROUND: The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health is of increasing global concern. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a national, longitudinal cohort study, households that took part in Waves 8 or 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) panel, including all members aged 16 or older in April, 2020, were invited to complete the COVID-19 web survey on April 23-30, 2020. Participants who were unable to make an informed decision as a result of incapacity, or who had unknown postal addresses or addresses abroad were excluded. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were done to examine temporal trends. Fixed-effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared with preceding trends. FINDINGS: Waves 6-9 of the UKHLS had 53 351 participants. Eligible participants for the COVID-19 web survey were from households that took part in Waves 8 or 9, and 17 452 (41·2%) of 42 330 eligible people participated in the web survey. Population prevalence of clinically significant levels of mental distress rose from 18·9% (95% CI 17·8-20·0) in 2018-19 to 27·3% (26·3-28·2) in April, 2020, one month into UK lockdown. Mean GHQ-12 score also increased over this time, from 11·5 (95% CI 11·3-11·6) in 2018-19, to 12·6 (12·5-12·8) in April, 2020. This was 0·48 (95% CI 0·07-0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for previous upward trends between 2014 and 2018. Comparing GHQ-12 scores within individuals, adjusting for time trends and significant predictors of change, increases were greatest in 18-24-year-olds (2·69 points, 95% CI 1·89-3·48), 25-34-year-olds (1·57, 0·96-2·18), women (0·92, 0·50-1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79-2·12). People employed before the pandemic also averaged a notable increase in GHQ-12 score (0·63, 95% CI 0·20-1·06). INTERPRETATION: By late April, 2020, mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-COVID-19 trends. Policies emphasising the needs of women, young people, and those with preschool aged children are likely to play an important part in preventing future mental illness. FUNDING: None.

Sex Differences in Mortality Rates and Underlying Conditions for COVID-19 Deaths in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVE: To address the issue of limited national data on the prevalence and distribution of underlying conditions among COVID-19 deaths between sexes and across age groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All adult (≥18 years) deaths recorded in England and Wales (March 1, 2020, to May 12, 2020) were analyzed retrospectively. We compared the prevalence of underlying health conditions between COVID and non-COVID-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic and the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) of COVID-19 compared with other primary causes of death, stratified by sex and age group. RESULTS: Of 144,279 adult deaths recorded during the study period, 36,438 (25.3%) were confirmed COVID deaths. Women represented 43.2% (n=15,731) of COVID deaths compared with 51.9% (n=55,980) in non-COVID deaths. Overall, COVID deaths were younger than non-COVID deaths (82 vs 83 years). ASMR of COVID-19 was higher than all other common primary causes of death, across age groups and sexes, except for cancers in women between the ages of 30 and 79 years. A linear relationship was observed between ASMR and age among COVID-19 deaths, with persistently higher rates in men than women across all age groups. The most prevalent reported conditions were hypertension, dementia, chronic lung disease, and diabetes, and these were higher among COVID deaths. Pre-existing ischemic heart disease was similar in COVID (11.4%) and non-COVID (12%) deaths. CONCLUSION: In a nationwide analysis, COVID-19 infection was associated with higher age-standardized mortality than other primary causes of death, except cancer in women of select age groups. COVID-19 mortality was persistently higher in men and increased with advanced age.