Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups in England are at increased risk of death from COVID-19: indirect standardisation of NHS mortality data.

Background: International and UK data suggest that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are at increased risk of infection and death from COVID-19. We aimed to explore the risk of death in minority ethnic groups in England using data reported by NHS England. Methods: We used NHS data on patients with a positive COVID-19 test who died in hospitals in England published on 28th April, with deaths by ethnicity available from 1st March 2020 up to 5pm on 21 April 2020. We undertook indirect standardisation of these data (using the whole population of England as the reference) to produce ethnic specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) adjusted for age and geographical region. Results: The largest total number of deaths in minority ethnic groups were Indian (492 deaths) and Black Caribbean (460 deaths) groups. Adjusting for region we found a lower risk of death for White Irish (SMR 0.52; 95%CIs 0.45-0.60) and White British ethnic groups (0.88; 95%CIs 0.86-0.0.89), but increased risk of death for Black African (3.24; 95%CIs 2.90-3.62), Black Caribbean (2.21; 95%CIs 2.02-2.41), Pakistani (3.29; 95%CIs 2.96-3.64), Bangladeshi (2.41; 95%CIs 1.98-2.91) and Indian (1.70; 95%CIs 1.56-1.85) minority ethnic groups. Conclusion: Our analysis adds to the evidence that BAME people are at increased risk of death from COVID-19 even after adjusting for geographical region, but was limited by the lack of data on deaths outside of NHS settings and ethnicity denominator data being based on the 2011 census. Despite these limitations, we believe there is an urgent need to take action to reduce the risk of death for BAME groups and better understand why some ethnic groups experience greater risk. Actions that are likely to reduce these inequities include ensuring adequate income protection, reducing occupational risks, reducing barriers in accessing healthcare and providing culturally and linguistically appropriate public health communications.

Bendamustine in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase II trial.

Treatment of patients with resistant/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) is an unmet need. In this phase II study, we evaluated the role of bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone combination in this setting. Between February 2020 and December 2021, 28 patients were recruited. Patients received bendamustine 120 mg/m2 day 1, pomalidomide 3 mg days 1-21, and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 11, 22, regimen given for a maximum of six cycles. The median (range) age of the patients was 54 (30-76) years and 15 (53.6%) were males. Patients had received a median (range) of three (two-six) prior lines and 85.7% were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. The primary end-point was the overall response rate (ORR) defined as ≥partial response after at least three cycles. Secondary objectives were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression and overall survival (OS). An intent-to-treat analysis was done. An ORR of 57.6% was achieved. Patients with extramedullary myeloma had a better response rate. At a median follow-up of 8.6 months, the median PFS and OS were 6.2 and 9.7 months respectively. Toxicity was manageable; mainly haematological (neutropenia, 46.4%; anaemia, 42.8%; and thrombocytopenia, 7.1%). Bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone could be a novel combination for the heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory myeloma population.

Migrants' primary care utilisation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: An interrupted time series analysis.

Background: How international migrants access and use primary care in England is poorly understood. We aimed to compare primary care consultation rates between international migrants and non-migrants in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2015-2020). Methods: Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, we identified migrants using country-of-birth, visa-status or other codes indicating international migration. We linked CPRD to Office for National Statistics deprivation data and ran a controlled interrupted time series (ITS) using negative binomial regression to compare rates before and during the pandemic. Findings: In 262,644 individuals, pre-pandemic consultation rates per person-year were 4.35 (4.34-4.36) for migrants and 4.60 (4.59-4.60) for non-migrants (RR:0.94 [0.92-0.96]). Between 29 March and 26 December 2020, rates reduced to 3.54 (3.52-3.57) for migrants and 4.2 (4.17-4.23) for non-migrants (RR:0.84 [0.8-0.88]). The first year of the pandemic was associated with a widening of the gap in consultation rates between migrants and non-migrants to 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) times the ratio before the pandemic. This widening in ratios was greater for children, individuals whose first language was not English, and individuals of White British, White non-British and Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicities. It was also greater in the case of telephone consultations, particularly in London. Interpretation: Migrants were less likely to use primary care than non-migrants before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic exacerbated this difference. As GP practices retain remote and hybrid models of service delivery, they must improve services and ensure primary care is accessible and responsive to migrants' healthcare needs. Funding: This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC 19070 and MR/V028375/1) and a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206602).