ABSTRACT
Prior evidence has suggested the multisystem symptomatic manifestations of post-acute COVID-19 condition (PCC). Here we conducted a network cluster analysis of 24 WHO proposed symptoms to identify potential latent subclasses of PCC. Individuals with a positive test of or diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 after 09/2020 and with at least one symptom within ≥ 90 to 365 days following infection were included. Sub-analyses were conducted among people with ≥ 3 different symptoms. Summary characteristics were provided for each cluster. All analyses were conducted separately in 9 databases from 7 countries, including data from primary care, hospitals, national health claims and national health registries, allowing to validate clusters across the different healthcare settings. 787,078 persons with PCC were included. Single-symptom clusters were common across all databases, particularly for joint pain, anxiety, depression and allergy. Complex clusters included anxiety-depression and abdominal-gastrointestinal symptoms. Substantial heterogeneity within and between PCC clusters was seen across healthcare settings. Current definitions of PCC should be critically reviewed to reflect this variety in clinical presentation.
Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders , Signs and Symptoms, Digestive , Depressive Disorder , Arthralgia , Drug Hypersensitivity , COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic affected cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment pathways. This study examined the impact of the pandemic on incidence and trends of endocrine treatments in patients with breast or prostate cancer; and endocrine treatment-related side-effects. MethodsPopulation-based cohort study using UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database. There were 13,701 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients and 12,221 prostate cancer patients with [≥]1-year data availability since diagnosis between January 2017-June 2022. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated across multiple time periods before and after lockdown to examine the impact of changing social restrictions on endocrine treatments and treatment-related outcomes, including osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions. ResultsIn patients with breast cancer, aromatase inhibitor prescriptions increased during lockdown compared to pre-pandemic (IRR: 1.22 [95% Confidence Interval: 1.11-1.34]), followed by a decrease post-first lockdown (IRR: 0.79 [95%CI: 0.69-0.89]). In patients with prostate cancer, first-generation antiandrogen prescriptions increased compared to pre-pandemic (IRR: 1.23 [95% CI: 1.08-1.4]). For breast cancer patients on aromatase inhibitors, diagnoses of osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions were reduced across all lockdown periods compared to pre-pandemic (IRR range: 0.31-0.62). ConclusionDuring the first two years of the pandemic, newly diagnosed breast and prostate cancer patients were prescribed more endocrine treatments compared to pre-pandemic, due to restrictions on hospital procedures replacing surgeries with bridging therapies. But breast cancer patients had fewer diagnoses of osteopenia and osteoporosis, and bisphosphonate prescriptions. These patients should be followed up in the coming years for signs of bone thinning. Evidence of poorer management of treatment-related side-effects will allow us to determine whether there is a need to better allocate resources to patients at high risk for bone-related complications.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background The link between ethnicity and healthcare inequity, and the urgency for better data is well-recognised. This study describes ethnicity data in nation-wide electronic health records in England, UK. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using de-identified person-level records for the England population available in the National Health Service (NHS) Digital trusted research environment. Primary care records (GDPPR) were linked to hospital and national mortality records. We assessed completeness, consistency, and granularity of ethnicity records using all available SNOMED-CT concepts for ethnicity and NHS ethnicity categories. Findings From 61.8 million individuals registered with a primary care practice in England, 51.5 (83.3%) had at least one ethnicity record in GDPPR, increasing to 93·9% when linked with hospital records. Approximately 12·0% had at least two conflicting ethnicity codes in primary care records. Women were more likely to have ethnicity recorded than men. Ethnicity was missing most frequently in individuals from 18 to 39 years old and in the southern regions of England. Individuals with an ethnicity record had more comorbidities recorded than those without. Of 489 SNOMED-CT ethnicity concepts available, 255 were used in primary care records. Discrepancies between SNOMED-CT and NHS ethnicity categories were observed, specifically within “Other-” ethnicity groups. Interpretation More than 250 ethnicity sub-groups may be found in health records for the English population, although commonly categorised into “White”, “Black”, “Asian”, “Mixed”, and “Other”. One in ten individuals do not have ethnicity information recorded in primary care or hospital records. SNOMED-CT codes represent more diversity in ethnicity groups than the NHS ethnicity classification. Improved recording of self-reported ethnicity at first point-of-care and consistency in ethnicity classification across healthcare settings can potentially improve the accuracy of ethnicity in research and ultimately care for all ethnicities. Funding British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre led by Health Data Research UK. Research in context Evidence before this study Ethnicity has been highlighted as a significant factor in the disproportionate impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Better knowledge of ethnicity data recorded in real clinical practice is required to improve health research and ultimately healthcare. We searched PubMed from database inception to 14 th July 2022 for publications using the search terms “ethnicity” and “electronic health records” or “EHR,” without language restrictions. 228 publications in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 304 publications between 2020 and 2022 were identified. However, none of these publications used or reported any of over 400 available SNOMED-CT concepts for ethnicity to account for more granularity and diversity than captured by traditional high-level classification limited to 5 to 9 ethnicity groups. Added value of this study We provide a comprehensive study of the largest collection of ethnicity records from a national-level electronic health records trusted research environment, exploring completeness, consistency, and granularity. This work can serve as a data resource profile of ethnicity from routinely-collected EHR in England. Implications of all the available evidence To achieve equity in healthcare, we need to understand the differences between individuals, as well as the influence of ethnicity both on health status and on health interventions, including variation in the behaviour of tests and therapies. Thus, there is a need for measurements, thresholds, and risk estimates to be tailored to different ethnic groups. This study presents the different medical concepts describing ethnicity in routinely collected data that are readily available to researchers and highlights key elements for improving their accuracy in research. We aim to encourage researchers to use more granular ethnicity than the than typical approaches which aggregate ethnicity into a limited number of categories, failing to reflect the diversity of underlying populations. Accurate ethnicity data will lead to a better understanding of individual diversity, which will help to address disparities and influence policy recommendations that can translate into better, fairer health for all.