An Online Survey of the Perceptions of Clinical and Non-Clinical Professionals on Healthcare for Non-Communicable Diseases and COVID-19 Measures During the Pandemic in Malaysia.

Objectives: This study assesses the opinions of health professionals in Malaysia on the disruption of non-communicable disease (NCD) services during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 to January 2022. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with 191 non-clinical public health workers and clinical health service workers in Malaysia from November 2021 to January 2022. Participants were recruited by the Malaysian Ministry of Health using major networks including key experts and practitioners. Secondary respondents were subsequently enrolled through snowballing. Results: The most notable issues raised by the survey participants relate to NCD service disruption, the redirection of NCD care resources, and NCD care being overburdened post-pandemic. Respondents also reported accounts of resilience and prompt reaction from the healthcare system, as well as calls for innovation. Conclusion: Most respondents perceived that the challenges arising from COVID-19 were mostly managed well by the healthcare system, which was able to provide the necessary services to NCD patients during this health emergency. However, the study identifies gaps in the health system response and preparedness capacity, and highlights solutions for strengthening NCD services.

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls.

Background: The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods: We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings: We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), male (1.54, 1.16-2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06-3.13 and 4.19, 2.14-8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09-2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00-1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00-1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation: Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding: PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.

Exploring key-stakeholder perceptions on non-communicable disease care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya.

Introduction: over one third of total Disability-Adjusted-Life-Years lost in Kenya are due to non-communicable diseases (NCD). In response, the Government declared significant commitment towards improving NCD care. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the burden on the already overstretched health systems in Kenya. The aims of this study are to assess whether health care providers perceived NCD care to be optimal during the pandemic and explore how to improve responses to future emergencies. Methods: this cross-sectional online survey included healthcare personnel with non-clinical roles (public health workers and policy-makers) and those delivering health care (doctors and nurses). Respondents were recruited between May and September 2021 by random sampling, completed by snowball sampling. Results: among 236 participants (42% in clinical, 58% in non-clinical roles) there was an overall consensus between respondents on NCD care being disrupted and compromised during the pandemic in Kenya. Detracted supplies, funding, and technical resources affected the continuity of NCDs' response, despite government efforts. Respondents agreed that the enhanced personnel capacity and competencies to manage COVID-19 patients were positive, but noted a lack of guidance for redirecting care for chronic diseases, and advocated for digital innovation as a solution. Conclusion: this paper explores the perceptions of key stakeholders involved in the management of NCDs in Kenya to improve planning for future emergency responses. Gaps were identified in health system response and preparedness capacity during the pandemic including the perceived need to strengthen NCD services, with solutions offered to guide resilience efforts to protect the health system from disruption.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19.

Background: Persistence of respiratory symptoms, particularly breathlessness, after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods: PHOSP-COVID is a multicentre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0-10. We defined post-COVID-19 breathlessness as an increase in score of ≥1 compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Results: We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median 5 months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness were socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14-2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35), female sex (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00) and admission duration (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02). Black ethnicity (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89) and older age groups (adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance statistic 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.69) and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.21). Conclusions: Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Prevalence of physical frailty, including risk factors, up to 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre, longitudinal cohort study.

Background: The scale of COVID-19 and its well documented long-term sequelae support a need to understand long-term outcomes including frailty. Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited adults who had survived hospitalisation with clinically diagnosed COVID-19 across 35 sites in the UK (PHOSP-COVID). The burden of frailty was objectively measured using Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FFP). The primary outcome was the prevalence of each FFP group-robust (no FFP criteria), pre-frail (one or two FFP criteria) and frail (three or more FFP criteria)-at 5 months and 1 year after discharge from hospital. For inclusion in the primary analysis, participants required complete outcome data for three of the five FFP criteria. Longitudinal changes across frailty domains are reported at 5 months and 1 year post-hospitalisation, along with risk factors for frailty status. Patient-perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were retrospectively rated for pre-COVID-19 and prospectively rated at the 5 month and 1 year visits. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN10980107. Findings: Between March 5, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 2419 participants were enrolled with FFP data. Mean age was 57.9 (SD 12.6) years, 933 (38.6%) were female, and 429 (17.7%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation. 1785 had measures at both timepoints, of which 240 (13.4%), 1138 (63.8%) and 407 (22.8%) were frail, pre-frail and robust, respectively, at 5 months compared with 123 (6.9%), 1046 (58.6%) and 616 (34.5%) at 1 year. Factors associated with pre-frailty or frailty were invasive mechanical ventilation, older age, female sex, and greater social deprivation. Frail participants had a larger reduction in HRQoL compared with before their COVID-19 illness and were less likely to describe themselves as recovered. Interpretation: Physical frailty and pre-frailty are common following hospitalisation with COVID-19. Improvement in frailty was seen between 5 and 12 months although two-thirds of the population remained pre-frail or frail. This suggests comprehensive assessment and interventions targeting pre-frailty and frailty beyond the initial illness are required. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Relationship between asthma and severe COVID-19: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether children and adults with poorly controlled or more severe asthma have greater risk of hospitalisation and/or death from COVID-19. METHODS: We used individual-level data from the Office for National Statistics Public Health Data Asset, based on the 2011 census in England, and the General Practice Extraction Service data for pandemic planning and research linked to death registration records and Hospital Episode Statistics admission data. Adults were followed from 1 January 2020 to 30 September 2021 for hospitalisation or death from COVID-19. For children, only hospitalisation was included. RESULTS: Our cohort comprised 35 202 533 adults and 2 996 503 children aged 12-17 years. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, pre-existing health conditions and vaccine status, the risk of death involving COVID-19 for adults with asthma prescribed low dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was not significantly different from those without asthma. Adults with asthma prescribed medium and high dosage ICS had an elevated risk of COVID-19 death; HRs 1.18 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.23) and 1.36 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.44), respectively. A similar pattern was observed for COVID-19 hospitalisation; fully adjusted HRs 1.53 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.56) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.56) for adults with asthma prescribed medium and high-dosage ICS, respectively. Risk of hospitalisation was greater for children with asthma prescribed one (2.58 (95% CI 1.82 to 3.66)) or two or more (3.80 (95% CI 2.41 to 5.95)) courses of oral corticosteroids in the year prior to the pandemic. DISCUSSION: People with mild and/or well-controlled asthma are neither at significantly increased risk of hospitalisation with nor more likely to die from COVID-19 than adults without asthma.

The effect of COVID rehabilitation for ongoing symptoms Post HOSPitalisation with COVID-19 (PHOSP-R): protocol for a randomised parallel group controlled trial on behalf of the PHOSP consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Many adults hospitalised with COVID-19 have persistent symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and brain fog that limit day-to-day activities. These symptoms can last over 2 years. Whilst there is limited controlled studies on interventions that can support those with ongoing symptoms, there has been some promise in rehabilitation interventions in improving function and symptoms either using face-to-face or digital methods, but evidence remains limited and these studies often lack a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a nested single-blind, parallel group, randomised control trial with embedded qualitative evaluation comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care and conducted within the PHOSP-COVID study. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on exercise capacity, quality of life and symptoms such as breathlessness and fatigue. The primary outcome is the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test following the eight week intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include measures of function, strength and subjective assessment of symptoms. Blood inflammatory markers and muscle biopsies are an exploratory outcome. The interventions last eight weeks and combine symptom-titrated exercise therapy, symptom management and education delivered either in a face-to-face setting or through a digital platform ( www.yourcovidrecovery.nhs.uk ). The proposed sample size is 159 participants, and data will be intention-to-treat analyses comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was gained as part of the PHOSP-COVID study by Yorkshire and the Humber Leeds West Research NHS Ethics Committee, and the study was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN trial registry (ISRCTN13293865). Results will be disseminated to stakeholders, including patients and members of the public, and published in appropriate journals. Strengths and limitations of this study • This protocol utilises two interventions to support those with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 • This is a two-centre parallel-group randomised controlled trial • The protocol has been supported by patient and public involvement groups who identified treatments of symptoms and activity limitation as a top priority.

COVID-19 booster vaccination uptake and infection breakthrough amongst health care workers in Wales: A national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: From September 2021, Health Care Workers (HCWs) in Wales began receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccination. This is the first dose beyond the primary vaccination schedule. Given the emergence of new variants, vaccine waning vaccine, and increasing vaccination hesitancy, there is a need to understand booster vaccine uptake and subsequent breakthrough in this high-risk population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, national-scale, observational cohort study of HCWs in Wales using anonymised, linked data from the SAIL Databank. We analysed uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccinations from September 2021 to February 2022, with comparisons against uptake of the initial primary vaccination schedule. We also analysed booster breakthrough, in the form of PCR-confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection, comparing to the second primary dose. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate associations for vaccination uptake and breakthrough regarding staff roles, socio-demographics, household composition, and other factors. RESULTS: We derived a cohort of 73,030 HCWs living in Wales (78% female, 60% 18-49 years old). Uptake was quickest amongst HCWs aged 60 + years old (aHR 2.54, 95%CI 2.45-2.63), compared with those aged 18-29. Asian HCWs had quicker uptake (aHR 1.18, 95%CI 1.14-1.22), whilst Black HCWs had slower uptake (aHR 0.67, 95%CI 0.61-0.74), compared to white HCWs. HCWs residing in the least deprived areas were slightly quicker to have received a booster dose (aHR 1.12, 95%CI 1.09-1.16), compared with those in the most deprived areas. Strongest associations with breakthrough infections were found for those living with children (aHR 1.52, 95%CI 1.41-1.63), compared to two-adult only households. HCWs aged 60 + years old were less likely to get breakthrough infections, compared to those aged 18-29 (aHR 0.42, 95%CI 0.38-0.47). CONCLUSION: Vaccination uptake was consistently lower among black HCWs, as well as those from deprived areas. Whilst breakthrough infections were highest in households with children.

SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. METHODS: In this follow up study, plasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FINDINGS: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. INTERPRETATION: The decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. FUNDING: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19

Background Persistence of respiratory symptoms—particularly breathlessness—after acute COVID-19 infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0–10. We defined post-COVID breathlessness as an increase in score of 1 or more compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID breathlessness. Results We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median five months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness were socio-economic deprivation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.67;95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (1.58;1.06–2.35), female sex (1.56;1.21–2.00) and admission duration (1.01;1.00–1.02). Black ethnicity (0.56;0.35–0.89) and older age groups (0.31;0.14–0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID breathlessness. Post-COVID breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance-statistic 0.66;0.63–0.69), and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00;0.80–1.21). Conclusions Post-COVID breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Respiratory diseases in survivors of adult cancer compared with the general population: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is concern that survivors of adult cancers may be at increased risk of respiratory infections and of exacerbations of pre-existing respiratory conditions. Considering the high prevalence of respiratory disease in the general population, increased respiratory disease risk in survivors of adult cancers could translate into an important impact on morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and assess the quality of all studies comparing respiratory outcomes between adult cancer survivors and individuals with no history of cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic literature review will be conducted using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane. We will include cohort or case-control studies that provide a comparative estimate of the risk of a respiratory disease of interest in survivors of adult cancer against a comparator cohort of cancer-free individuals. No geographic, time or language restrictions will be applied. We will assess the risk of bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology checklists. Results will be summarised by type of respiratory outcome, cancer type and cancer survivorship definition. If sufficient numbers of homogeneous studies are found, summary measures of association will be calculated using random effects meta-analysis models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable to our study. The results will be used to identify evidence gaps and priorities for future research to understand respiratory morbidity in survivors of adult cancers and identify possible mitigation strategies. Results from this review will be disseminated to clinical audiences and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study has been registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022311557).

Determinants of Shielding Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations With Well-being Among National Health Service Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to "shield" (to not leave home for any reason). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy. METHODS: Patients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised. RESULTS: The study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded. CONCLUSIONS: Future health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.

Prevalence, risk factors and treatments for post-COVID-19 breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Persistent breathlessness >28 days after acute COVID-19 infection has been identified as a highly debilitating post-COVID symptom. However, the prevalence, risk factors, mechanisms and treatments for post-COVID breathlessness remain poorly understood. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for relevant studies published from 1 January 2020 to 1 November 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021285733) and included 119 eligible papers. Random-effects meta-analysis of 42 872 patients with COVID-19 reported in 102 papers found an overall prevalence of post-COVID breathlessness of 26% (95% CI 23-29) when measuring the presence/absence of the symptom, and 41% (95% CI 34-48) when using Medical Research Council (MRC)/modified MRC dyspnoea scale. The pooled prevalence decreased significantly from 1-6 months to 7-12 months post-infection. Post-COVID breathlessness was more common in those with severe/critical acute infection, those who were hospitalised and females, and was less likely to be reported by patients in Asia than those in Europe or North America. Multiple pathophysiological mechanisms have been proposed (including deconditioning, restrictive/obstructive airflow limitation, systemic inflammation, impaired mental health), but the body of evidence remains inconclusive. Seven cohort studies and one randomised controlled trial suggested rehabilitation exercises may reduce post-COVID breathlessness. There is an urgent need for mechanistic research and development of interventions for the prevention and treatment of post-COVID breathlessness.

Reporting of data on participant ethnicity and socioeconomic status in high-impact medical journals: a targeted literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of reporting of ethnicity (or 'race') and socioeconomic status (SES) indicators in high-impact journals. DESIGN: Targeted literature review. DATA SOURCES: The 10 highest ranked general medical journals using Google scholar h5 index. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were, human research, reporting participant level data. Exclusion criteria were non-research article, animal/other non-human participant/subject or no participant characteristics reported. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Working backwards from 19 April 2021 in each journal, two independent reviewers selected the 10 most recent articles meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria, to create a sample of 100 articles. Data on the frequency of reporting of ethnicity (or 'race') and SES indicators were extracted and presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 100 research articles included, 35 reported ethnicity and 13 SES. By contrast, 99 reported age, and 97 reported sex or gender. Among the articles not reporting ethnicity, only 3 (5%) highlighted this as a limitation, and only 6 (7%) where SES data were missing. Median number of articles reporting ethnicity per journal was 2.5/10 (range 0 to 9). Only two journals explicitly requested reporting of ethnicity (or race), and one requested SES. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of research published in high-impact medical journals does not include data on the ethnicity and SES of participants, and this omission is rarely acknowledged as a limitation. This situation persists despite the well-established importance of this issue and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations to include relevant demographic variables to ensure representative samples. Standardised explicit minimum standards are required.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on asthma exacerbations: Retrospective cohort study of over 500,000 patients in a national English primary care database.

Background: Several countries reported a substantial reduction in asthma exacerbations associated with COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions. However, it is not known if these early reported declines were short-term and if these have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels following easing of lockdown restrictions. Methods: We undertook a retrospective, cohort study of all asthma patients in a national primary care database of almost 10 million patients, Optimum Patient Care Database (OPCRD), identified from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015, using a previously validated algorithm. We subsequently followed the identified cohort of asthma patients from January 1, 2016, to October 3, 2021, and identified every asthma exacerbation episode with a validated algorithm. To quantify any pandemic-related change in exacerbations, we created a control time-series (mean of 2016-2019) and then compared the change in exacerbation rate in 2020-2021 over quarterly periods when compared with the control period (the pre-pandemic period). We undertook overall and stratified analyses by age group, sex, and English region. Findings: We identified 100,362 asthma patients (502,669 patient-years) from across England who experienced at least one exacerbation episode (298,390 exacerbation episodes during the entire follow-up). Except for the first quarter of 2020, the exacerbation rates were substantially lower (>25%) during all quarters in 2020-2021 when compared with the rates during 2016-2019 (39.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 34.6, 44.9) in quarter-2, 2020; 46.5% (95%CI: 36.7, 56.4) in quarter-3, 2020; 56.3% (95%CI: 48.7, 63.9) in quarter-4, 2020; 63.2% (95%CI: 53.9, 72.5) in quarter-1, 2021; 57.7% (95%CI: 52.9, 62.4) in quarter-2, 2021; 53.3% (95%CI: 43.8, 62.8) in quarter-3, 2021). Interpretation: There was a substantial and persistent reduction in asthma exacerbations across England over the first 18 months after the first lockdown. This is unlikely to be adequately explained by changes in health-seeking behaviour, pandemic-related healthcare service disruption, or any air-quality improvements. Funding: Asthma UK, Health Data Research UK (HDR UK), Medical Research Council (MRC), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Device-assessed sleep and physical activity in individuals recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals recovering from severe COVID-19 is increasing rapidly. However, little is known about physical behaviours that make up the 24-h cycle within these individuals. This study aimed to describe physical behaviours following hospital admission for COVID-19 at eight months post-discharge including associations with acute illness severity and ongoing symptoms. METHODS: One thousand seventy-seven patients with COVID-19 discharged from hospital between March and November 2020 were recruited. Using a 14-day wear protocol, wrist-worn accelerometers were sent to participants after a five-month follow-up assessment. Acute illness severity was assessed by the WHO clinical progression scale, and the severity of ongoing symptoms was assessed using four previously reported data-driven clinical recovery clusters. Two existing control populations of office workers and individuals with type 2 diabetes were comparators. RESULTS: Valid accelerometer data from 253 women and 462 men were included. Women engaged in a mean ± SD of 14.9 ± 14.7 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 12.1 ± 1.7 h/day spent inactive and 7.2 ± 1.1 h/day asleep. The values for men were 21.0 ± 22.3 and 12.6 ± 1.7 h /day and 6.9 ± 1.1 h/day, respectively. Over 60% of women and men did not have any days containing a 30-min bout of MVPA. Variability in sleep timing was approximately 2 h in men and women. More severe acute illness was associated with lower total activity and MVPA in recovery. The very severe recovery cluster was associated with fewer days/week containing continuous bouts of MVPA, longer total sleep time, and higher variability in sleep timing. Patients post-hospitalisation with COVID-19 had lower levels of physical activity, greater sleep variability, and lower sleep efficiency than a similarly aged cohort of office workers or those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Those recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19 have low levels of physical activity and disrupted patterns of sleep several months after discharge. Our comparative cohorts indicate that the long-term impact of COVID-19 on physical behaviours is significant.

A retrospective cohort study predicting and validating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with chronic kidney disease.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased risk of baseline mortality and severe COVID-19, but analyses across CKD stages, and comorbidities are lacking. In prevalent and incident CKD, we investigated comorbidities, baseline risk, COVID-19 incidence, and predicted versus observed one-year excess death. In a national dataset (NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment [NHSD TRE]) for England encompassing 56 million individuals), we conducted a retrospective cohort study (March 2020 to March 2021) for prevalence of comorbidities by incident and prevalent CKD, SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Baseline mortality risk, incidence and outcome of infection by comorbidities, controlling for age, sex and vaccination were assessed. Observed versus predicted one-year mortality at varying population infection rates and pandemic-related relative risks using our published model in pre-pandemic CKD cohorts (NHSD TRE and Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]) were compared. Among individuals with CKD (prevalent:1,934,585, incident:144,969), comorbidities were common (73.5% and 71.2% with one or more condition[s] in respective data sets, and 13.2% and 11.2% with three or more conditions, in prevalent and incident CKD), and associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly dialysis/transplantation (odds ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 2.04-2.13) and heart failure (1.73, 1.71-1.76), but not cancer (1.01, 1.01-1.04). One-year all-cause mortality varied by age, sex, multi-morbidity and CKD stage. Compared with 34,265 observed excess deaths, in the NHSD-TRE and CPRD databases respectively, we predicted 28,746 and 24,546 deaths (infection rates 10% and relative risks 3.0), and 23,754 and 20,283 deaths (observed infection rates 6.7% and relative risks 3.7). Thus, in this largest, national-level study, individuals with CKD have a high burden of comorbidities and multi-morbidity, and high risk of pre-pandemic and pandemic mortality. Hence, treatment of comorbidities, non-pharmaceutical measures, and vaccination are priorities for people with CKD and management of long-term conditions is important during and beyond the pandemic.

Deriving and validating a risk prediction model for long COVID-19: protocol for an observational cohort study using linked Scottish data.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is commonly experienced as an acute illness, yet some people continue to have symptoms that persist for weeks, or months (commonly referred to as 'long-COVID'). It remains unclear which patients are at highest risk of developing long-COVID. In this protocol, we describe plans to develop a prediction model to identify individuals at risk of developing long-COVID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use the national Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) platform, a population-level linked dataset of routine electronic healthcare data from 5.4 million individuals in Scotland. We will identify potential indicators for long-COVID by identifying patterns in primary care data linked to information from out-of-hours general practitioner encounters, accident and emergency visits, hospital admissions, outpatient visits, medication prescribing/dispensing and mortality. We will investigate the potential indicators of long-COVID by performing a matched analysis between those with a positive reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 infection and two control groups: (1) individuals with at least one negative RT-PCR test and never tested positive; (2) the general population (everyone who did not test positive) of Scotland. Cluster analysis will then be used to determine the final definition of the outcome measure for long-COVID. We will then derive, internally and externally validate a prediction model to identify the epidemiological risk factors associated with long-COVID. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The EAVE II study has obtained approvals from the Research Ethics Committee (reference: 12/SS/0201), and the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (reference: 1920-0279). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. Understanding the predictors for long-COVID and identifying the patient groups at greatest risk of persisting symptoms will inform future treatments and preventative strategies for long-COVID.

Variation in global COVID-19 symptoms by geography and by chronic disease: A global survey using the COVID-19 Symptom Mapper.

Background: COVID-19 is typically characterised by a triad of symptoms: cough, fever and loss of taste and smell, however, this varies globally. This study examines variations in COVID-19 symptom profiles based on underlying chronic disease and geographical location. Methods: Using a global online symptom survey of 78,299 responders in 190 countries between 09/04/2020 and 22/09/2020, we conducted an exploratory study to examine symptom profiles associated with a positive COVID-19 test result by country and underlying chronic disease (single, co- or multi-morbidities) using statistical and machine learning methods. Findings: From the results of 7980 COVID-19 tested positive responders, we find that symptom patterns differ by country. For example, India reported a lower proportion of headache (22.8% vs 47.8%, p<1e-13) and itchy eyes (7.3% vs. 16.5%, p=2e-8) than other countries. As with geographic location, we find people differed in their reported symptoms if they suffered from specific chronic diseases. For example, COVID-19 positive responders with asthma (25.3% vs. 13.7%, p=7e-6) were more likely to report shortness of breath compared to those with no underlying chronic disease. Interpretation: We have identified variation in COVID-19 symptom profiles depending on geographic location and underlying chronic disease. Failure to reflect this symptom variation in public health messaging may contribute to asymptomatic COVID-19 spread and put patients with chronic diseases at a greater risk of infection. Future work should focus on symptom profile variation in the emerging variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is crucial to speed up clinical diagnosis, predict prognostic outcomes and target treatment. Funding: We acknowledge funding to AAF by a UKRI Turing AI Fellowship and to CEC by a personal NIHR Career Development Fellowship (grant number NIHR-2016-090-015). JKQ has received grants from The Health Foundation, MRC, GSK, Bayer, BI, Asthma UK-British Lung Foundation, IQVIA, Chiesi AZ, and Insmed. This work is supported by BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health [MC_PC_19004]. BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Imperial College London is grateful for the support from the Northwest London NIHR Applied Research Collaboration. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.