Heightened COVID-19 Mortality in People With Severe Mental Illness Persists After Vaccination: A Cohort Study of Greater Manchester Residents.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Previous studies show that people with severe mental illness (SMI) are at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality, however limited evidence exists regarding risk postvaccination. We investigated COVID-19 mortality among people with schizophrenia and other SMIs before, during and after the UK vaccine roll-out. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Greater Manchester (GM) Care Record to access routinely collected health data linked with death records, we plotted COVID-19 mortality rates over time in GM residents with schizophrenia/psychosis, bipolar disorder (BD), and/or recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) from February 2020 to September 2021. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare mortality risk (risk ratios; RRs) between people with SMI (N = 193 435) and age-sex matched controls (N = 773 734), adjusted for sociodemographic factors, preexisting comorbidities, and vaccination status. STUDY RESULTS: Mortality risks were significantly higher among people with SMI compared with matched controls, particularly among people with schizophrenia/psychosis (RR 3.18, CI 2.94-3.44) and/or BD (RR 2.69, CI 2.16-3.34). In adjusted models, the relative risk of COVID-19 mortality decreased, though remained significantly higher than matched controls for people with schizophrenia (RR 1.61, CI 1.45-1.79) and BD (RR 1.92, CI 1.47-2.50), but not recurrent MDD (RR 1.08, CI 0.99-1.17). People with SMI continued to show higher mortality rate ratios relative to controls throughout 2021, during vaccination roll-out. CONCLUSIONS: People with SMI, notably schizophrenia and BD, were at greater risk of COVID-19 mortality compared to matched controls. Despite population vaccination efforts that have prioritized people with SMI, disparities still remain in COVID-19 mortality for people with SMI.

Mortality in People with Type 2 Diabetes Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Population Level Analysis of Potential Risk Factors.

INTRODUCTION: Research is ongoing to increase our understanding of how much a previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affects someone's risk of becoming seriously unwell following a COVID-19 infection. In this study we set out to determine the relative likelihood of death following COVID-19 infection in people with T2DM when compared to those without T2DM. This was conducted as an urban population study and based in the UK. METHODS: Analysis of electronic health record data was performed relating to people living in the Greater Manchester conurbation (population 2.82 million) who had a recorded diagnosis of T2DM and subsequent COVID-19 confirmed infection. Each individual with T2DM (n = 13,807) was matched with three COVID-19-infected non-diabetes controls (n = 39,583). Data were extracted from the Greater Manchester Care Record (GMCR) database for the period 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021. Social disadvantage was assessed through Townsend scores. Death rates were compared in people with T2DM to their respective non-diabetes controls; potential predictive factors influencing the relative likelihood of admission were ascertained using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: For individuals with T2DM, their mortality rate after a COVID-19 positive test was 7.7% vs 6.0% in matched controls; the relative risk (RR) of death was 1.28. From univariate analysis performed within the group of individuals with T2DM, the likelihood of death following a COVID-19 recorded infection was lower in people taking metformin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and hypertension were associated with increased mortality and had odds ratios of 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.96-0.97) and 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.68-2.20), respectively. Likelihood of death following a COVID-19 infection was also higher in those people with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or severe enduring mental illness but not with asthma, and in people taking aspirin/clopidogrel/insulin. Smoking in people with T2DM significantly increased mortality rate (odds ratio of 1.46; 95% confidence interval 1.29-1.65). In a combined analysis of patients with T2DM and controls, multiple regression modelling indicated that the factors independently relating to a higher likelihood of death (accounting for 26% of variance) were T2DM, age, male gender and social deprivation (higher Townsend score). CONCLUSION: Following confirmed infection with COVID-19 a number of factors are associated with mortality in individuals with T2DM. Prescription of metformin, SGLT2is or GLP-1 agonists and non-smoking status appeared to be associated with a reduced the risk of death for people with T2DM. Age, male sex and social disadvantage are associated with an increased risk of death.

The Risk Factors Potentially Influencing Hospital Admission in People with Diabetes, Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Population-Level Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Since early 2020 the whole world has been challenged by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the associated global pandemic (Covid-19). People with diabetes are particularly at high risk of becoming seriously unwell after contracting this virus. METHODS: This population-based study included people living in the Greater Manchester conurbation who had a recorded diagnosis of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and subsequent Covid-19 infection. Each individual with T1DM (n = 862) or T2DM (n = 13,225) was matched with three Covid-19-infected non-diabetes controls. RESULTS: For individuals with T1DM, hospital admission rate in the first 28 days after a positive Covid-19 test was 10% vs 4.7% in age/gender-matched controls [relative risk (RR) 2.1]. For individuals with T2DM, hospital admission rate after a positive Covid-19 test was 16.3% vs 11.6% in age/gender-matched controls (RR 1.4). The average Townsend score was higher in T2DM (1.8) vs matched controls (0.4), with a higher proportion of people with T2DM observed in the top two quintiles of greatest disadvantage (p < 0.001). For Covid-19-infected individuals with T1DM, factors influencing admission likelihood included age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, HbA1c, low HDL-cholesterol, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and being of African/mixed ethnicity. In Covid-19-infected individuals with T2DM, factors related to a higher admission rate included age, Townsend index, comorbidity with COPD/asthma and severe mental illness (SMI), lower eGFR. Metformin prescription lowered the likelihood. For multivariate analysis in combined individuals with T2DM/controls, factors relating to higher likelihood of admission were having T2DM/age/male gender/diagnosed COPD/diagnosed hypertension/social deprivation (higher Townsend index) and non-white ethnicity (all groups). CONCLUSION: In a UK population we have confirmed a significantly higher likelihood of admission in people with diabetes following Covid-19 infection. A number of factors mediate that increased likelihood of hospital admission. For T2DM, the majority of factors related to increased admission rate are common to the general population but more prevalent in T2DM. There was a protective effect of metformin in people with T2DM.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS: 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.