Using national electronic health records for pandemic preparedness: validation of a parsimonious model for predicting excess deaths among those with COVID-19-a data-driven retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To use national, pre- and post-pandemic electronic health records (EHR) to develop and validate a scenario-based model incorporating baseline mortality risk, infection rate (IR) and relative risk (RR) of death for prediction of excess deaths. DESIGN: An EHR-based, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Linked EHR in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD); and linked EHR and COVID-19 data in England provided in NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment (TRE). PARTICIPANTS: In the development (CPRD) and validation (TRE) cohorts, we included 3.8 million and 35.1 million individuals aged ≥30 years, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One-year all-cause excess deaths related to COVID-19 from March 2020 to March 2021. RESULTS: From 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021, there were 127,020 observed excess deaths. Observed RR was 4.34% (95% CI, 4.31-4.38) and IR was 6.27% (95% CI, 6.26-6.28). In the validation cohort, predicted one-year excess deaths were 100,338 compared with the observed 127,020 deaths with a ratio of predicted to observed excess deaths of 0.79. CONCLUSIONS: We show that a simple, parsimonious model incorporating baseline mortality risk, one-year IR and RR of the pandemic can be used for scenario-based prediction of excess deaths in the early stages of a pandemic. Our analyses show that EHR could inform pandemic planning and surveillance, despite limited use in emergency preparedness to date. Although infection dynamics are important in the prediction of mortality, future models should take greater account of underlying conditions.

Depression, anxiety, substance misuse and self-harm in children and young people with rare chronic liver disease.

The burden of mental illness in young people with chronic liver disease is not known. In this population cohort study in England, we identified 358 individuals (aged ≤25 years) diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis or liver disease related to cystic fibrosis and 1541 propensity-score-matched controls. By the first year of follow-up, the cumulative burden of psychiatric events in participants with liver disease was high compared with controls: anxiety disorder (6.87 per 100 individuals [95% CI 4.00-9.73] v. 2.22 [95% CI 1.37-3.07]), depression (5.10 [95% CI 2.83-7.37] v. 0.86 [95% CI 0.53-1.19]), substance misuse (10.61 [95% CI 9.50-11.73] v. 1.23 [95% CI 0.71-1.75]) and self-harm (3.09 [95% CI 1.12-5.05] v. 0.20 [95% CI 0.07-0.33]). Participants with liver disease had a 2-fold increase (OR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.45-2.58), a 2.5-fold increase (OR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.91-3.50) and 4.4-fold increase (OR = 4.44; 95% CI 3.46-5.71) in the risk of anxiety, depression and substance misuse, respectively. These findings highlight the need for effective intervention in psychiatric disorders in young people with rare liver disease.

COVID-19 trajectories among 57 million adults in England: a cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Updatable estimates of COVID-19 onset, progression, and trajectories underpin pandemic mitigation efforts. To identify and characterise disease trajectories, we aimed to define and validate ten COVID-19 phenotypes from nationwide linked electronic health records (EHR) using an extensible framework. METHODS: In this cohort study, we used eight linked National Health Service (NHS) datasets for people in England alive on Jan 23, 2020. Data on COVID-19 testing, vaccination, primary and secondary care records, and death registrations were collected until Nov 30, 2021. We defined ten COVID-19 phenotypes reflecting clinically relevant stages of disease severity and encompassing five categories: positive SARS-CoV-2 test, primary care diagnosis, hospital admission, ventilation modality (four phenotypes), and death (three phenotypes). We constructed patient trajectories illustrating transition frequency and duration between phenotypes. Analyses were stratified by pandemic waves and vaccination status. FINDINGS: Among 57 032 174 individuals included in the cohort, 13 990 423 COVID-19 events were identified in 7 244 925 individuals, equating to an infection rate of 12·7% during the study period. Of 7 244 925 individuals, 460 737 (6·4%) were admitted to hospital and 158 020 (2·2%) died. Of 460 737 individuals who were admitted to hospital, 48 847 (10·6%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 69 090 (15·0%) received non-invasive ventilation, and 25 928 (5·6%) received invasive ventilation. Among 384 135 patients who were admitted to hospital but did not require ventilation, mortality was higher in wave 1 (23 485 [30·4%] of 77 202 patients) than wave 2 (44 220 [23·1%] of 191 528 patients), but remained unchanged for patients admitted to the ICU. Mortality was highest among patients who received ventilatory support outside of the ICU in wave 1 (2569 [50·7%] of 5063 patients). 15 486 (9·8%) of 158 020 COVID-19-related deaths occurred within 28 days of the first COVID-19 event without a COVID-19 diagnoses on the death certificate. 10 884 (6·9%) of 158 020 deaths were identified exclusively from mortality data with no previous COVID-19 phenotype recorded. We observed longer patient trajectories in wave 2 than wave 1. INTERPRETATION: Our analyses illustrate the wide spectrum of disease trajectories as shown by differences in incidence, survival, and clinical pathways. We have provided a modular analytical framework that can be used to monitor the impact of the pandemic and generate evidence of clinical and policy relevance using multiple EHR sources. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, led by Health Data Research UK.

'What is the risk to me from COVID-19?': Public involvement in providing mortality risk information for people with 'high-risk' conditions for COVID-19 (OurRisk.CoV).

Patients and public have sought mortality risk information throughout the pandemic, but their needs may not be served by current risk prediction tools. Our mixed methods study involved: (1) systematic review of published risk tools for prognosis, (2) provision and patient testing of new mortality risk estimates for people with high-risk conditions and (3) iterative patient and public involvement and engagement with qualitative analysis. Only one of 53 (2%) previously published risk tools involved patients or the public, while 11/53 (21%) had publicly accessible portals, but all for use by clinicians and researchers.Among people with a wide range of underlying conditions, there has been sustained interest and engagement in accessible and tailored, pre- and postpandemic mortality information. Informed by patient feedback, we provide such information in 'five clicks' (https://covid19-phenomics.org/OurRiskCoV.html), as context for decision making and discussions with health professionals and family members. Further development requires curation and regular updating of NHS data and wider patient and public engagement.

Excess deaths in people with cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) increase mortality risk from coronavirus infection (COVID-19). There are also concerns that the pandemic has affected supply and demand of acute cardiovascular care. We estimated excess mortality in specific CVDs, both 'direct', through infection, and 'indirect', through changes in healthcare. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used (i) national mortality data for England and Wales to investigate trends in non-COVID-19 and CVD excess deaths; (ii) routine data from hospitals in England (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), and China (n = 5) to assess indirect pandemic effects on referral, diagnosis, and treatment services for CVD; and (iii) population-based electronic health records from 3 862 012 individuals in England to investigate pre- and post-COVID-19 mortality for people with incident and prevalent CVD. We incorporated pre-COVID-19 risk (by age, sex, and comorbidities), estimated population COVID-19 prevalence, and estimated relative risk (RR) of mortality in those with CVD and COVID-19 compared with CVD and non-infected (RR: 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0).Mortality data suggest indirect effects on CVD will be delayed rather than contemporaneous (peak RR 1.14). CVD service activity decreased by 60-100% compared with pre-pandemic levels in eight hospitals across China, Italy, and England. In China, activity remained below pre-COVID-19 levels for 2-3 months even after easing lockdown and is still reduced in Italy and England. For total CVD (incident and prevalent), at 10% COVID-19 prevalence, we estimated direct impact of 31 205 and 62 410 excess deaths in England (RR 1.5 and 2.0, respectively), and indirect effect of 49 932 to 99 865 deaths. CONCLUSION: Supply and demand for CVD services have dramatically reduced across countries with potential for substantial, but avoidable, excess mortality during and after the pandemic.

Estimated impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer services and excess 1-year mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity: near real-time data on cancer care, cancer deaths and a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care services and overall (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer. METHODS: We employed near real-time weekly data on cancer care to determine the adverse effect of the pandemic on cancer services. We also used these data, together with national death registrations until June 2020 to model deaths, in excess of background (pre-COVID-19) mortality, in people with cancer. Background mortality risks for 24 cancers with and without COVID-19-relevant comorbidities were obtained from population-based primary care cohort (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) on 3 862 012 adults in England. RESULTS: Declines in urgent referrals (median=-70.4%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=-41.5%) to a nadir (lowest point) in the pandemic were observed. By 31 May, these declines have only partially recovered; urgent referrals (median=-44.5%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=-31.2%). There were short-term excess death registrations for cancer (without COVID-19), with peak relative risk (RR) of 1.17 at week ending on 3 April. The peak RR for all-cause deaths was 2.1 from week ending on 17 April. Based on these findings and recent literature, we modelled 40% and 80% of cancer patients being affected by the pandemic in the long-term. At 40% affected, we estimated 1-year total (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer as between 7165 and 17 910, using RRs of 1.2 and 1.5, respectively, where 78% of excess deaths occured in patients with ≥1 comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Dramatic reductions were detected in the demand for, and supply of, cancer services which have not fully recovered with lockdown easing. These may contribute, over a 1-year time horizon, to substantial excess mortality among people with cancer and multimorbidity. It is urgent to understand how the recovery of general practitioner, oncology and other hospital services might best mitigate these long-term excess mortality risks.

Clinical academic research in the time of Corona: A simulation study in England and a call for action.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to model the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on the clinical academic response in England, and to provide recommendations for COVID-related research. DESIGN: A stochastic model to determine clinical academic capacity in England, incorporating the following key factors which affect the ability to conduct research in the COVID-19 climate: (i) infection growth rate and population infection rate (from UK COVID-19 statistics and WHO); (ii) strain on the healthcare system (from published model); and (iii) availability of clinical academic staff with appropriate skillsets affected by frontline clinical activity and sickness (from UK statistics). SETTING: Clinical academics in primary and secondary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: Equivalent of 3200 full-time clinical academics in England. INTERVENTIONS: Four policy approaches to COVID-19 with differing population infection rates: "Italy model" (6%), "mitigation" (10%), "relaxed mitigation" (40%) and "do-nothing" (80%) scenarios. Low and high strain on the health system (no clinical academics able to do research at 10% and 5% infection rate, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of full-time clinical academics available to conduct clinical research during the pandemic in England. RESULTS: In the "Italy model", "mitigation", "relaxed mitigation" and "do-nothing" scenarios, from 5 March 2020 the duration (days) and peak infection rates (%) are 95(2.4%), 115(2.5%), 240(5.3%) and 240(16.7%) respectively. Near complete attrition of academia (87% reduction, <400 clinical academics) occurs 35 days after pandemic start for 11, 34, 62, 76 days respectively-with no clinical academics at all for 37 days in the "do-nothing" scenario. Restoration of normal academic workforce (80% of normal capacity) takes 11, 12, 30 and 26 weeks respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic COVID-19 crushes the science needed at system level. National policies mitigate, but the academic community needs to adapt. We highlight six key strategies: radical prioritisation (eg 3-4 research ideas per institution), deep resourcing, non-standard leadership (repurposing of key non-frontline teams), rationalisation (profoundly simple approaches), careful site selection (eg protected sites with large academic backup) and complete suspension of academic competition with collaborative approaches.