Risk prediction of covid-19 related death and hospital admission in adults after covid-19 vaccination: national prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To derive and validate risk prediction algorithms to estimate the risk of covid-19 related mortality and hospital admission in UK adults after one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination. DESIGN: Prospective, population based cohort study using the QResearch database linked to data on covid-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 results, hospital admissions, systemic anticancer treatment, radiotherapy, and the national death and cancer registries. SETTINGS: Adults aged 19-100 years with one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was covid-19 related death. Secondary outcome was covid-19 related hospital admission. Outcomes were assessed from 14 days after each vaccination dose. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort of general practices. RESULTS: Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. Of 2031 covid-19 deaths and 1929 covid-19 hospital admissions, 81 deaths (4.0%) and 71 admissions (3.7%) occurred 14 days or more after the second vaccine dose. The risk algorithms included age, sex, ethnic origin, deprivation, body mass index, a range of comorbidities, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. Incidence of covid-19 mortality increased with age and deprivation, male sex, and Indian and Pakistani ethnic origin. Cause specific hazard ratios were highest for patients with Down's syndrome (12.7-fold increase), kidney transplantation (8.1-fold), sickle cell disease (7.7-fold), care home residency (4.1-fold), chemotherapy (4.3-fold), HIV/AIDS (3.3-fold), liver cirrhosis (3.0-fold), neurological conditions (2.6-fold), recent bone marrow transplantation or a solid organ transplantation ever (2.5-fold), dementia (2.2-fold), and Parkinson's disease (2.2-fold). Other conditions with increased risk (ranging from 1.2-fold to 2.0-fold increases) included chronic kidney disease, blood cancer, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, thromboembolism, peripheral vascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. A similar pattern of associations was seen for covid-19 related hospital admissions. No evidence indicated that associations differed after the second dose, although absolute risks were reduced. The risk algorithm explained 74.1% (95% confidence interval 71.1% to 77.0%) of the variation in time to covid-19 death in the validation cohort. Discrimination was high, with a D statistic of 3.46 (95% confidence interval 3.19 to 3.73) and C statistic of 92.5. Performance was similar after each vaccine dose. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted covid-19 mortality risk, sensitivity for identifying covid-19 deaths within 70 days was 78.7%. CONCLUSION: This population based risk algorithm performed well showing high levels of discrimination for identifying those patients at highest risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission after vaccination.

An external validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of mortality from COVID-19 in adults: a national validation cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: Public policy measures and clinical risk assessments relevant to COVID-19 need to be aided by risk prediction models that are rigorously developed and validated. We aimed to externally validate a risk prediction algorithm (QCovid) to estimate mortality outcomes from COVID-19 in adults in England. METHODS: We did a population-based cohort study using the UK Office for National Statistics Public Health Linked Data Asset, a cohort of individuals aged 19-100 years, based on the 2011 census and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, the General Practice Extraction Service data for pandemic planning and research, and radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy records. The primary outcome was time to COVID-19 death, defined as confirmed or suspected COVID-19 death as per death certification. Two periods were used: (1) Jan 24 to April 30, 2020, and (2) May 1 to July 28, 2020. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithms using measures of discrimination and calibration. Using predicted 90-day risk of COVID-19 death, we calculated r2 values, Brier scores, and measures of discrimination and calibration with corresponding 95% CIs over the two time periods. FINDINGS: We included 34 897 648 adults aged 19-100 years resident in England. 26 985 (0·08%) COVID-19 deaths occurred during the first period and 13 177 (0·04%) during the second. The algorithms had good discrimination and calibration in both periods. In the first period, they explained 77·1% (95% CI 76·9-77·4) of the variation in time to death in men and 76·3% (76·0-76·6) in women. The D statistic was 3·761 (3·732-3·789) for men and 3·671 (3·640-3·702) for women and Harrell's C was 0·935 (0·933-0·937) for men and 0·945 (0·943-0·947) for women. Similar results were obtained for the second time period. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths in the first period was 65·94% for men and 71·67% for women. INTERPRETATION: The QCovid population-based risk algorithm performed well, showing high levels of discrimination for COVID-19 deaths in men and women for both time periods. QCovid has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves and, therefore, has potential use in guiding national policy. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID) for risk of hospital admission and mortality from coronavirus 19 in adults: national derivation and validation cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a risk prediction algorithm to estimate hospital admission and mortality outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in adults. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: QResearch database, comprising 1205 general practices in England with linkage to covid-19 test results, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. 6.08 million adults aged 19-100 years were included in the derivation dataset and 2.17 million in the validation dataset. The derivation and first validation cohort period was 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. The second temporal validation cohort covered the period 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to death from covid-19, defined as death due to confirmed or suspected covid-19 as per the death certification or death occurring in a person with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the period 24 January to 30 April 2020. The secondary outcome was time to hospital admission with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance, including measures of discrimination and calibration, was evaluated in each validation time period. RESULTS: 4384 deaths from covid-19 occurred in the derivation cohort during follow-up and 1722 in the first validation cohort period and 621 in the second validation cohort period. The final risk algorithms included age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, and a range of comorbidities. The algorithm had good calibration in the first validation cohort. For deaths from covid-19 in men, it explained 73.1% (95% confidence interval 71.9% to 74.3%) of the variation in time to death (R2); the D statistic was 3.37 (95% confidence interval 3.27 to 3.47), and Harrell's C was 0.928 (0.919 to 0.938). Similar results were obtained for women, for both outcomes, and in both time periods. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths within 97 days was 75.7%. People in the top 20% of predicted risk of death accounted for 94% of all deaths from covid-19. CONCLUSION: The QCOVID population based risk algorithm performed well, showing very high levels of discrimination for deaths and hospital admissions due to covid-19. The absolute risks presented, however, will change over time in line with the prevailing SARS-C0V-2 infection rate and the extent of social distancing measures in place, so they should be interpreted with caution. The model can be recalibrated for different time periods, however, and has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): What Do We Know About Children? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Few pediatric cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported and we know little about the epidemiology in children, although more is known about other coronaviruses. We aimed to understand the infection rate, clinical presentation, clinical outcomes, and transmission dynamics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in order to inform clinical and public health measures. METHODS: We undertook a rapid systematic review and narrative synthesis of all literature relating to SARS-CoV-2 in pediatric populations. The search terms also included SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. We searched 3 databases and the COVID-19 resource centers of 11 major journals and publishers. English abstracts of Chinese-language papers were included. Data were extracted and narrative syntheses conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies relating to COVID-19 were included in the review. Children appear to be less affected by COVID-19 than adults by observed rate of cases in large epidemiological studies. Limited data on attack rate indicate that children are just as susceptible to infection. Data on clinical outcomes are scarce but include several reports of asymptomatic infection and a milder course of disease in young children, although radiological abnormalities are noted. Severe cases are not reported in detail and there are few data relating to transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Children appear to have a low observed case rate of COVID-19 but may have rates similar to adults of infection with SARS-CoV-2. This discrepancy may be because children are asymptomatic or too mildly infected to draw medical attention and be tested and counted in observed cases of COVID-19.