ABSTRACT
Background: Over 2 million people in the UK self-reported long COVID (symptoms continuing >12 weeks after the first COVID-19 infection) as of December 2022. Long COVID can lead to significant patient burden; however, the economic impact of managing long COVID in primary care is unknown. Objectives: To assess incremental costs of primary care consultations associated with post-Covid-19 condition or long COVID, to estimate associated national costs for the United Kingdom population, and to assess risk factors associated with increased costs. Design: A retrospective cohort study using a propensity score matching approach with an incremental cost method to estimate primary care consultation costs associated with long COVID. Setting: UK-based primary care general practitioner (GP), nurse and physiotherapist consultation data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum primary care database from 31st January 2020 to 15th April 2021. Participants: 472,173 non-hospitalised adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were 1:1 propensity score matched to a pool of eligible patients with the same index date, the same number of prior consultations, and similar background characteristics, but without a record of COVID-19. Patients diagnosed with Long COVID (3,871) and those with World Health Organisation (WHO) defined symptoms of long COVID (30,174) formed two subgroups within the cohort with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Costs were calculated using a bottom-up costing approach with consultation cost per working hour in the British pound sterling (GBP) obtained from the Personal Social Services Research Unit, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021. The average incremental cost in comparison to patients with no record of COVID-19 was produced for each patient group, considering only consultation costs at least 12 weeks from the SARS-CoV-2 infection date or matched date for the comparator group (from 15th April 2020 to 15th April 2021). A sensitivity analysis was undertaken which restricted the study population to only those who had at least 24 weeks of follow-up. National costs were estimated by extrapolating incremental costs to the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 in the UK Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey. The impacts of risk factors on the cost of consultations beyond 12 weeks from SARS-CoV-2 infection were assessed using an econometric ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model, where coefficients were interpreted as the percentage change in cost due to a unit increase in the specific factor. Results The incremental cost of primary care consultations potentially associated with long COVID was 2.44 GBP per patient with COVID-19 per year. This increased to 5.72 GBP in the sensitivity analysis. Extrapolating this to the UK population produced a cost estimate of 23,382,452 GBP (90% credible interval: 21,378,567 GBP to 25,526,052 GBP) or 54,814,601 GBP (90% credible interval: 50,116,967 GBP to 59,839,762 GBP) in the sensitivity analysis. Among patients with COVID-19 infection, a long COVID diagnosis and longer-term reporting of symptoms were associated with a 43% and 44% increase in primary care consultation costs respectively, compared to patients without long COVID symptoms. Older age (49% relative increase in costs in those aged 80 years or older compared to those aged 18 to 29 years), female sex (4% relative increase in costs compared to males), obesity (4% relative increase in costs compared to those of normal weight), comorbidities and the number of prior consultations were all associated with an increase in the cost of primary care consultations. By contrast, those from black ethnic groups had a 6% reduced relative cost compared to those from white ethnic groups. Conclusions: The costs of primary care consultations associated with long COVID in non-hospitalised adults are substantial. Costs are significantly higher among those diagnosed with long COVID, those with long COVID symptoms, older adults, females, and those with obesity and comorbidities.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , ObesityABSTRACT
From the context of organ donation, COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is important as there is an ethical dilemma in utilizing versus discarding organs from potential donors succumbing to VITT. This consensus statement is an attempt by the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (NOTTO) apex technical committees, India, to formulate the guidelines for deceased organ donation and transplantation in relation to VITT to help in appropriate decision-making. VITT is a rare entity, but a meticulous approach should be taken by the organ procurement organization's (OPO) team in screening such cases. All such cases must be strictly notified to the national authorities (NOTTO) as a resource for data collection and ensuring compliance with protocols in the management of adverse events following immunization. Organs from any patient who developed thrombotic events up to 4 weeks after adenoviral vector-based vaccination should be considered to be linked to VITT and investigated appropriately. The viability of the organs must be thoroughly checked by the OPO, and the final decision in relation to organ use should be decided by the expert committee of the OPO team consisting of a virologist, a hematologist, and a treating team. Considering the organ shortage, in case of suspected/confirmed VITT, both clinicians and patients should consider the riskbenefit equation based on limited experience. An appropriate written informed consent of potential recipients and family members should be obtained before the transplantation of organs from suspected or proven VITT donors.
ABSTRACT
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) infection is frequently associated with a wide range of persistent symptoms, now referred to as post-COVID-19 condition, or Long COVID. The objectives of this study were to assess which symptoms are associated with confirmed SARS CoV-2 beyond 12 weeks post-infection in non-hospitalised individuals, and the risk factors associated with developing persistent symptoms. We undertook a retrospective matched cohort study between 31st January 2020 and 15th April 2021 using data from a large database of UK-based primary care electronic health records, Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum. We selected 486,149 adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 infection that had not been hospitalised within 28 days of the diagnosis (infected cohort). We propensity score matched them to 1,944,580 patients without a coded record of either confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (uninfected cohort). Outcomes were the presence of 115 separate symptoms at ≥12 weeks post-infection, and Long COVID, defined as having at least one of the symptoms included in the World Health Organisation case definition. Separate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for individual symptoms and Long Covid. 62 symptoms were significantly associated with prior exposure to SARS CoV-2 after 12 weeks. The largest adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were for anosmia (aHR 6.49, 95% CI 5.02 to 8.39), hair loss (3.99, 3.63 to 4.39), sneezing (2.77, 1.40 to 5.50), difficulties with ejaculation (2.63, 1.61 to 4.28), reduced libido (2.36, 1.61 to 3.47), shortness of breath at rest (2.20, 1.57 to 3.08), fatigue (1.92, 1.81 to 2.03), pleuritic chest pain (1.86, 1.41 to 2.46), hoarse voice (1.78, 1.44 to 2.20), and fever (1.75, 1.54 to 1.98). Among the infected cohort, risk factors for Long COVID included younger age (aHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.81, for those aged ≥70 years compared to those aged 18 to 30 years), female sex (1.52, 1.48 to 1.56), belonging to an ethnic minority group (1.14 [1.07 to 1.22] for mixed race, 1.21 [1.10 to 1.34] for black ethnic groups, and 1.06 [1.03 to 1.10] for other ethnic minority groups, compared to white ethnic groups), socioeconomic deprivation (1.11 [1.07 to 1.16] for the most compared to the least socioeconomically deprived quintile), smoking (1.12, 1.08 to 1.15), obesity (1.10, 1.07 to 1.14), and a wide range of comorbidities such as COPD. SARS CoV-2 in non-hospitalised individuals is associated with a plethora of symptoms being reported at ≥12 weeks post-infection, with a higher risk associated with younger age, female sex, ethnic minority groups, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, obesity, and several comorbidities.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Introduction Individuals with COVID-19 frequently experience symptoms and impaired quality of life beyond 4-12 weeks, commonly referred to as Long COVID. Whether Long COVID is one or several distinct syndromes is unknown. Establishing the evidence base for appropriate therapies is needed. We aim to evaluate the symptom burden and underlying pathophysiology of Long COVID syndromes in non-hospitalised individuals and evaluate potential therapies. Methods and analysis A cohort of 4000 non-hospitalised individuals with a past COVID-19 diagnosis and 1000 matched controls will be selected from anonymised primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and invited by their general practitioners to participate on a digital platform (Atom5TM). Individuals will report symptoms, quality of life, work capability, and patient reported outcome measures. Data will be collected monthly for one year. Statistical clustering methods will be used to identify distinct Long COVID symptom clusters. Individuals from the four most prevalent clusters and two control groups will be invited to participate in the BioWear sub-study which will further phenotype Long COVID symptom clusters by measurement of immunological parameters and actigraphy. We will review existing evidence on interventions for post-viral syndromes and Long COVID to map and prioritise interventions for each newly characterised Long COVID syndrome. Recommendations will be made using the cumulated evidence in an expert consensus workshop. A virtual supportive intervention will be coproduced with patients and health service providers for future evaluation. Individuals with lived experience of Long COVID will be involved throughout this programme through a patient and public involvement group. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Solihull Research Ethics Committee, West Midlands (21/WM/0203). The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (1567490). Research findings will be presented at international conferences, in peer-reviewed journals, to Long COVID patient support groups and to policymakers.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Existing UK prognostic models for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care; and externally validate the existing 4C score. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) January-August 2020 were included. Candidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging, laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection. External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset. Findings: 1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95%CI 0.761-0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95%CI 0.754-0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95%CI 0.883-0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95%CI 0.795-0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.754 (95%CI 0.721-0.786). Interpretation: The novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and outperformed the existing 4C score. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patient’s probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated. Funding: Medical Research Council UK Research and Innovation.Declaration of Interests: NJA, ES, KN, MP, AD, CS, TT and YT report a grant from UKRI MRC during the conduct of the study. ES reports grants from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Wellcome Trust, MRC, Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK), British Lung Foundation, and Alpha 1 Foundation outside the submitted work. KN reports grants from MRC and HDR-UK outside the submitted work. DP reports grants from NIHR, MRC, and Chernakovsky Foundation outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval was provided by the East Midlands – Derby REC (reference: 20/EM/0158) for the PIONEER Research Database.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hamartoma Syndrome, Multiple , Alzheimer DiseaseABSTRACT
Introduction: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors have been postulated to influence susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study investigated whether there is an association between their prescription and the incidence of COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Methods: We conducted a propensity-score matched cohort study comparing the incidence of COVID-19 among patients with hypertension prescribed ACE inhibitors or ARBs to those treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in a large UK-based primary care database (The Health Improvement Network). We estimated crude incidence rates for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 in each drug exposure group. We used Cox proportional hazards models to produce adjusted hazard ratios for COVID-19. We assessed all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome. Results: The incidence rate of COVID-19 among users of ACE inhibitors and CCBs was 9.3 per 1000 person-years (83 of 18,895 users [0.44%]) and 9.5 per 1000 person-years (85 of 18,895 [0.45%]), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). The incidence rate among users of ARBs was 15.8 per 1000 person-years (79 out of 10,623 users [0.74%]). The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.38 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.95). There were no significant associations between use of RAS inhibitors and all-cause mortality. Conclusion: Use of ACE inhibitors was not associated with the risk of COVID-19 whereas use of ARBs was associated with a statistically non-significant increase compared to the use of CCBs. However, no significant associations were observed between prescription of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and all-cause mortality.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , HypertensionABSTRACT
Introduction A significant proportion of patients with Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) have hypertension and are treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, namely angiotensin-converting enzyme I inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) or angiotensin II type-1 receptor blockers (ARBs). These medications have been postulated to influence susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The objective of this study was to assess a possible association between prescription of RAS inhibitors and the incidence of COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Methods We conducted a propensity-score matched cohort study to assess the incidence of COVID-19 among patients with hypertension who were prescribed ACE inhibitors or ARBs compared to patients treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in a large UK-based primary care database (The Health Improvement Network). We estimated crude incidence rates for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 among those prescribed ACE inhibitors, ARBs and CCBs. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to produce adjusted hazard ratios for COVID-19 comparing patients prescribed ACE inhibitors or ARBs to those prescribed CCBs. We further assessed all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome and a composite of accidents, trauma or fractures as a negative control outcome to assess for residual confounding. Results In the propensity score matched analysis, 83 of 18,895 users (0.44%) of ACE inhibitors developed COVID-19 over 8,923 person-years, an incidence rate of 9.3 per 1000 person-years. 85 of 18,895 (0.45%) users of CCBs developed COVID-19 over 8,932 person-years, an incidence rate of 9.5 per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratio for suspected/confirmed COVID-19 for users of ACE inhibitors compared to CCBs was 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). 79 out of 10,623 users (0.74%) of ARBs developed COVID-19 over 5010 person-years, an incidence rate of 15.8 per 1000 person-years, compared to 11.6 per 1000 person-years among users of CCBs. The adjusted hazard ratio for suspected/confirmed COVID-19 for users of ARBs compared to CCBs was 1.38 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.95). There were no significant associations between use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and all-cause mortality, compared to use of CCBs. We found no evidence of significant residual confounding with the negative control analysis. Conclusion Current use of ACE inhibitors was not associated with the risk of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 whereas use of ARBs was associated with a statistically non-significant 38% relative increase in risk compared to use of CCBs. However, no significant associations were observed between prescription of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and all-cause mortality during the peak of the pandemic.