Ethnic differences in the indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical monitoring and hospitalisations for non-COVID conditions in England: An observational cohort study using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England. Methods We conducted a cohort study using OpenSAFELY (2018-2022). We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, South Asian, Black, Other, Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (e.g., blood pressure measurements) before and after 23rd March 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after 23rd March 2020. Findings Of 14,930,356 adults in 2020 with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to White. There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in White ethnicity. Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian and Black ethnicity compared to White. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences. Interpretation Our study suggests ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes. Funding LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912).

Secondary Attack Rates in Primary and Secondary School Bubbles Following a Confirmed Case: Active, Prospective National Surveillance, November to December 2020, England (preprint)

Background: Following the full re-opening of schools in England and emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant, we investigated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in students and staff who were contacts of a confirmed case in a school bubble (school groupings with limited interactions), along with their household members. Methods: Primary and secondary school bubbles were recruited into sKIDsBUBBLE after being sent home to self-isolate following a confirmed case of COVID-19 in the bubble. Bubble participants and their household members were sent home-testing kits comprising nasal swabs for RT-PCR testing and whole genome sequencing, and oral fluid swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results: During November-December 2020, 14 bubbles were recruited from 7 schools, including 269 bubble contacts (248 students, 21 staff) and 823 household contacts (524 adults, 299 children). The secondary attack rate was 10.0% (6/60) in primary and 3.9% (4/102) in secondary school students, compared to 6.3% (1/16) and 0% (0/1) among staff, respectively. The incidence rate for household contacts of primary school students was 6.6% (12/183) and 3.7% (1/27) for household contacts of primary school staff. In secondary schools, this was 3.5% (11/317) and 0% (0/1), respectively. Household contacts were more likely to test positive if their bubble contact tested positive although there were new infections among household contacts of uninfected bubble contacts. Interpretation: Compared to other institutional settings, the overall risk of secondary infection in school bubbles and their household contacts was low. Our findings are important for developing evidence-based infection prevention guidelines for educational settings.

Implementation of COVID-19 Preventive Measures in Primary and Secondary Schools Following Reopening of Schools in Autumn 2020; A Cross-Sectional Study of Parents' and Teachers' Experiences in England (preprint)

Objective The main objective was to assess implementation of and ease of implementation of control measures in schools as reported by staff and parents. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Staff and parents/guardian participants in the 132 primary schools and 20 secondary schools participating in sKIDs and sKIDsPLUS surveillances. Main outcome measure Prevalence of control measures implemented in Autumn 2020, parental and staff perception of ease of implementation and acceptability of conducting school surveillance studies. Results In total, 56/152 (37%) schools participating in Public Health England's sKIDs study of COVID in schools accepted the invitation to participate in the survey. By 28 December 2020, 1,953 parent and 986 staff respondents had completed the online questionnaire. While more than half the parents were positive about their children returning to school, roughly a third reported being a little anxious. 90% and 82% of primary and secondary school parents were either completely or partly reassured by the preventive measures implemented in their schools. Among staff, 80% of primary staff and 87% of secondary school staff felt that they were at higher risk of COVID-19 because of their profession; only 52% of primary school staff and 38% of secondary school staff reportedly felt safe. According to the teaching staff, most preventive measures were well-implemented apart from requiring 2-metre distancing between staff. For students, maintaining the 2-metre distance was reported to be particularly difficult. By extension, secondary schools also struggled to maintain small groups at all times or ensuring that the same staff were assigned to each student group (a problem also commonly reported by parents). Conclusions Variable implementation of infection control measures was reported by staff and parents. Whilst the majority were not worried about returning to school, some parents and staff, were concerned about returning to school and the risks posed to children, staff and household members.

COVID-19 Collateral: Indirect Acute Effects of the Pandemic on Physical and Mental Health in the UK (preprint)

Background: Concerns have been raised that the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic may have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We asked what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic?Methods: Using electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (2017-2020), we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions (including: anxiety, depression, acute alcohol-related events, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbations, cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies). We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions (‘lockdown’) compared to the period prior to their introduction in March 2020.Findings: The overall population included 9,863,903 individuals on 1st January 2017. Primary care contacts for all conditions dropped dramatically after introduction of population-wide restrictions. By July 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. The largest reductions were for contacts for: diabetic emergencies (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.50), depression (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53), and self-harm (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58).Interpretation: There were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions with restrictions, with limited recovery by July 2020. It is likely that much of the deficit in care represents unmet need, with implications for subsequent morbidity and premature mortality. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people experiencing the conditions and healthcare provision. Maintaining access must be a key priority in future public health planning (including further restrictions).Funding: Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (SML), Health Data Research UK.Declaration of Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf). MM is a member of Independent SAGE, Dr. Warren-Gash reports grants from Wellcome Trust, during the conduct of the study, Liam Smeeth, is a non-executive director of the MHRA. All other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 22143 /RR/18495) and by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC Protocol Number: 20_089R2).

COVID-19 collateral: Indirect acute effects of the pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK (preprint)

Background: Concerns have been raised that the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic may have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We asked what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic? Methods: Using electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (2017-2020), we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions (including: anxiety, depression, acute alcohol-related events, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbations, cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies). We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions ('lockdown') compared to the period prior to their introduction in March 2020. Findings: The overall population included 9,863,903 individuals on 1st January 2017. Primary care contacts for all conditions dropped dramatically after introduction of population-wide restrictions. By July 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. The largest reductions were for contacts for: diabetic emergencies (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.50), depression (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53), and self-harm (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58). Interpretation: There were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions with restrictions, with limited recovery by July 2020. It is likely that much of the deficit in care represents unmet need, with implications for subsequent morbidity and premature mortality. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people experiencing the conditions and healthcare provision. Maintaining access must be a key priority in future public health planning (including further restrictions). Funding: Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (SML), Health Data Research UK.