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.

'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.

Estimating excess 1-year mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic according to underlying conditions and age: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The medical, societal, and economic impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has unknown effects on overall population mortality. Previous models of population mortality are based on death over days among infected people, nearly all of whom thus far have underlying conditions. Models have not incorporated information on high-risk conditions or their longer-term baseline (pre-COVID-19) mortality. We estimated the excess number of deaths over 1 year under different COVID-19 incidence scenarios based on varying levels of transmission suppression and differing mortality impacts based on different relative risks for the disease. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we used linked primary and secondary care electronic health records from England (Health Data Research UK-CALIBER). We report prevalence of underlying conditions defined by Public Health England guidelines (from March 16, 2020) in individuals aged 30 years or older registered with a practice between 1997 and 2017, using validated, openly available phenotypes for each condition. We estimated 1-year mortality in each condition, developing simple models (and a tool for calculation) of excess COVID-19-related deaths, assuming relative impact (as relative risks [RRs]) of the COVID-19 pandemic (compared with background mortality) of 1·5, 2·0, and 3·0 at differing infection rate scenarios, including full suppression (0·001%), partial suppression (1%), mitigation (10%), and do nothing (80%). We also developed an online, public, prototype risk calculator for excess death estimation. FINDINGS: We included 3 862 012 individuals (1 957 935 [50·7%] women and 1 904 077 [49·3%] men). We estimated that more than 20% of the study population are in the high-risk category, of whom 13·7% were older than 70 years and 6·3% were aged 70 years or younger with at least one underlying condition. 1-year mortality in the high-risk population was estimated to be 4·46% (95% CI 4·41-4·51). Age and underlying conditions combined to influence background risk, varying markedly across conditions. In a full suppression scenario in the UK population, we estimated that there would be two excess deaths (vs baseline deaths) with an RR of 1·5, four with an RR of 2·0, and seven with an RR of 3·0. In a mitigation scenario, we estimated 18 374 excess deaths with an RR of 1·5, 36 749 with an RR of 2·0, and 73 498 with an RR of 3·0. In a do nothing scenario, we estimated 146 996 excess deaths with an RR of 1·5, 293 991 with an RR of 2·0, and 587 982 with an RR of 3·0. INTERPRETATION: We provide policy makers, researchers, and the public a simple model and an online tool for understanding excess mortality over 1 year from the COVID-19 pandemic, based on age, sex, and underlying condition-specific estimates. These results signal the need for sustained stringent suppression measures as well as sustained efforts to target those at highest risk because of underlying conditions with a range of preventive interventions. Countries should assess the overall (direct and indirect) effects of the pandemic on excess mortality. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, Health Data Research UK.