Association between household composition and severe COVID-19 outcomes in older people by ethnicity: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of age-based generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in Wave 1 (1 February 2020-31 August 2020) and 2 731 427 in Wave 2 (1 September 2020-31 January 2021). RESULTS: Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves [e.g. Wave 2, 67+ living with three other generations vs 67+-year-olds only: White hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 95% CI 1.38-1.87, South Asian HR 1.76 95% CI 1.48-2.10], with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in Wave 2. There was also an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in Wave 1 associated with living alone for White (HR 1.35 95% CI 1.30-1.41), South Asian (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.18-1.84) and Other (HR 1.72 95% CI 0.99-2.97) ethnicities, an effect that persisted for White older people in Wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both multigenerational living and living alone were associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings, whereas a substantial proportion of White older people live alone. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics.

Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 covid-19 vaccines in health and social care workers in England: cohort study using OpenSAFELY.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) covid-19 vaccines against infection and covid-19 disease in health and social care workers. DESIGN: Cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial, on behalf of NHS England. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was dominant. PARTICIPANTS: 317 341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a general practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable. INTERVENTIONS: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national covid-19 vaccine roll-out. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or covid-19 related attendance at an accident and emergency (A&E) department or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of receipt of the first vaccine dose. RESULTS: Over the duration of 118 771 person-years of follow-up there were 6962 positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, 282 covid-19 related A&E attendances, and 166 covid-19 related hospital admissions. The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks after vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 20 weeks after first-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 was 21.7 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 20.9 to 22.4) and with ChAdOx1 was 23.7 (21.8 to 25.6), representing a difference of 2.04 per 1000 people (0.04 to 4.04). The difference in the cumulative incidence per 1000 people of covid-19 related A&E attendance at 20 weeks was 0.06 per 1000 people (95% CI -0.31 to 0.43). For covid-19 related hospital admission, this difference was 0.11 per 1000 people (-0.22 to 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or covid-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply at 3-4 weeks after vaccination, and there were few covid-19 related hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine induced immunity and suggests strong protection against Alpha variant covid-19 disease for both vaccines in this relatively young and healthy population of healthcare workers.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and immune-modifying therapies: a nationwide cohort study in the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and on immune-modifying drugs might not be fully mediated by comorbidities and might vary by factors such as ethnicity. We aimed to assess the risk of severe COVID-19 in adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and in those on immune-modifying therapies. Methods: We did a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY (an analytics platform for electronic health records) and TPP (a software provider for general practitioners), analysing routinely collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death, and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We included people aged 18 years or older on March 1, 2020, who were registered with TPP practices with at least 12 months of primary care records before March, 2020. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders and mediators) to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) comparing the risk of COVID-19-related death, critical care admission or death, and hospital admission (from March 1 to Sept 30, 2020) in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with the general population, and in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on targeted immune-modifying drugs (eg, biologics) compared with those on standard systemic treatment (eg, methotrexate). Findings: We identified 17 672 065 adults; 1 163 438 adults (640 164 [55·0%] women and 523 274 [45·0%] men, and 827 457 [71·1%] of White ethnicity) had immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and 16 508 627 people (8 215 020 [49·8%] women and 8 293 607 [50·2%] men, and 10 614 096 [64·3%] of White ethnicity) were included as the general population. Of 1 163 438 adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, 19 119 (1·6%) received targeted immune-modifying therapy and 181 694 (15·6%) received standard systemic therapy. Compared with the general population, adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, and smoking status; HR 1·23, 95% CI 1·20-1·27) and further adjusting for mediators (body-mass index [BMI], cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and current glucocorticoid use; 1·15, 1·11-1·18). Adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases also had an increased risk of COVID-19-related critical care admission or death (confounder-adjusted HR 1·24, 95% CI 1·21-1·28; mediator-adjusted 1·16, 1·12-1·19) and hospital admission (confounder-adjusted 1·32, 1·29-1·35; mediator-adjusted 1·20, 1·17-1·23). In post-hoc analyses, the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases was higher in non-White ethnic groups than in White ethnic groups (as it was in the general population). We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults on targeted, compared with those on standard systemic, therapy after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, BMI, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [bowel, joint, and skin], cardiovascular disease, cancer [excluding non-melanoma skin cancer], stroke, and diabetes (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80-1·33), and after additionally adjusting for current glucocorticoid use (1·01, 0·78-1·30). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults prescribed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-12/IL­23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, or Janus kinase inhibitors compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19-related death (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·11-2·56), with some attenuation after excluding people with haematological malignancies or organ transplants (1·54, 0·95-2·49). Interpretation: COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions were higher in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune-modifying drugs for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Funding: UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, and Wellcome Trust.

Severity of Severe Acute Respiratory System Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Alpha Variant (B.1.1.7) in England.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild-type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and Office for National Statistics all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases with wild-type diagnosed from 16 November 2020 to 11 January 2021. RESULTS: Using data from 185 234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha = 93 153; wild-type = 92 081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-2.13; P < .0001) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (1.62; 1.48-1.78; P < .0001) compared with wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to the intensive care unit, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the CI included the null (aHR: 1.20; 95% CI: .74-1.95; P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalization and mortality than wild-type virus.

Association between warfarin and COVID-19-related outcomes compared with direct oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolism has been reported as a consequence of severe COVID-19. Although warfarin is a commonly used anticoagulant, it acts by antagonising vitamin K, which is low in patients with severe COVID-19. To date, the clinical evidence on the impact of regular use of warfarin on COVID-19-related thromboembolism is lacking. METHODS: On behalf of NHS England, we conducted a population-based cohort study investigating the association between warfarin and COVID-19 outcomes compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse primary care data and pseudonymously linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions and death records from England. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19-related outcomes comparing warfarin with DOACs in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. We also conducted negative control outcome analyses (being tested for SARS-CoV-2 and non-COVID-19 death) to assess the potential impact of confounding. RESULTS: A total of 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users were included. We observed a lower risk of all outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs [testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.68-0.79); COVID-19-related hospital admission, HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.68-0.83); COVID-19-related deaths, HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.83)]. A lower risk of negative control outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs was also observed [being tested for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.79-0.81); non-COVID-19 deaths, HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.83)]. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study shows no evidence of harmful effects of warfarin on severe COVID-19 disease.

Risks of covid-19 hospital admission and death for people with learning disability: population based cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between learning disability and risk of hospital admission and death from covid-19 in England among adults and children. DESIGN: Population based cohort study on behalf of NHS England using the OpenSAFELY platform. SETTING: Patient level data were obtained for more than 17 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics and hospital admission data from NHS Secondary Uses Service. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged 16-105 years) and children (<16 years) from two cohorts: wave 1 (registered with a TPP practice as of 1 March 2020 and followed until 31 August 2020); and wave 2 (registered 1 September 2020 and followed until 8 February 2021). The main exposure group consisted of people on a general practice learning disability register; a subgroup was defined as those having profound or severe learning disability. People with Down's syndrome and cerebral palsy were identified (whether or not they were on the learning disability register). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Covid-19 related hospital admission and covid-19 related death. Non-covid-19 deaths were also explored. RESULTS: For wave 1, 14 312 023 adults aged ≥16 years were included, and 90 307 (0.63%) were on the learning disability register. Among adults on the register, 538 (0.6%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission; there were 222 (0.25%) covid-19 related deaths and 602 (0.7%) non-covid deaths. Among adults not on the register, 29 781 (0.2%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission; there were 13 737 (0.1%) covid-19 related deaths and 69 837 (0.5%) non-covid deaths. Wave 1 hazard ratios for adults on the learning disability register (adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and geographical location) were 5.3 (95% confidence interval 4.9 to 5.8) for covid-19 related hospital admission and 8.2 (7.2 to 9.4) for covid-19 related death. Wave 2 produced similar estimates. Associations were stronger among those classified as having severe to profound learning disability, and among those in residential care. For both waves, Down's syndrome and cerebral palsy were associated with increased hazards for both events; Down's syndrome to a greater extent. Hazard ratios for non-covid deaths followed similar patterns with weaker associations. Similar patterns of increased relative risk were seen for children, but covid-19 related deaths and hospital admissions were rare, reflecting low event rates among children. CONCLUSIONS: People with learning disability have markedly increased risks of hospital admission and death from covid-19, over and above the risks observed for non-covid causes of death. Prompt access to covid-19 testing and healthcare is warranted for this vulnerable group, and prioritisation for covid-19 vaccination and other targeted preventive measures should be considered.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FINDINGS: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories. INTERPRETATION: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Association between living with children and outcomes from covid-19: OpenSAFELY cohort study of 12 million adults in England.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) differed between adults living with and without children during the first two waves of the UK pandemic. DESIGN: Population based cohort study, on behalf of NHS England. SETTING: Primary care data and pseudonymously linked hospital and intensive care admissions and death records from England, during wave 1 (1 February to 31 August 2020) and wave 2 (1 September to 18 December 2020). PARTICIPANTS: Two cohorts of adults (18 years and over) registered at a general practice on 1 February 2020 and 1 September 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted hazard ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection, covid-19 related admission to hospital or intensive care, or death from covid-19, by presence of children in the household. RESULTS: Among 9 334 392adults aged 65 years and under, during wave 1, living with children was not associated with materially increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, covid-19 related hospital or intensive care admission, or death from covid-19. In wave 2, among adults aged 65 years and under, living with children of any age was associated with an increased risk of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection (hazard ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.08) for living with children aged 0-11 years; 1.22 (1.20 to 1.24) for living with children aged 12-18 years) and covid-19 related hospital admission (1.18 (1.06 to 1.31) for living with children aged 0-11; 1.26 (1.12 to 1.40) for living with children aged 12-18). Living with children aged 0-11 was associated with reduced risk of death from both covid-19 and non-covid-19 causes in both waves; living with children of any age was also associated with lower risk of dying from non-covid-19 causes. For adults 65 years and under during wave 2, living with children aged 0-11 years was associated with an increased absolute risk of having SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded of 40-60 per 10 000 people, from 810 to between 850 and 870, and an increase in the number of hospital admissions of 1-5 per 10 000 people, from 160 to between 161 and 165. Living with children aged 12-18 years was associated with an increase of 160-190 per 10 000 in the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and an increase of 2-6 per 10 000 in the number of hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to wave 1, evidence existed of increased risk of reported SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19 outcomes among adults living with children during wave 2. However, this did not translate into a materially increased risk of covid-19 mortality, and absolute increases in risk were small.

UK prevalence of underlying conditions which increase the risk of severe COVID-19 disease: a point prevalence study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Characterising the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID-19 is vital for effective policy and planning. Older age, and underlying health conditions, are associated with higher risk of death from COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom. METHODS: We used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to estimate the point prevalence on 5 March 2019 of the at-risk population following national guidance. Prevalence for any risk condition and for each individual condition is given overall and stratified by age and region with binomial exact confidence intervals. We repeated the analysis on 5 March 2014 for full regional representation and to describe prevalence of underlying health conditions in pregnancy. We additionally described the population of cancer survivors, and assessed the value of linked secondary care records for ascertaining COVID-19 at-risk status. RESULTS: On 5 March 2019, 24.4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition, including 8.3% of school-aged children, 19.6% of working-aged adults, and 66.2% of individuals aged 70 years or more. 7.1% of the population had multimorbidity. The size of the at-risk population was stable over time comparing 2014 to 2019, despite increases in chronic liver disease and diabetes and decreases in chronic kidney disease and current asthma. Separately, 1.6% of the population had a new diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 y. CONCLUSIONS: The population at risk of severe COVID-19 (defined as either aged ≥70 years, or younger with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals. Our national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates in other countries. We provide age- and region- stratified prevalence for each condition to support effective modelling of public health interventions and planning of vaccine resource allocation. The high prevalence of health conditions among older age groups suggests that age-targeted vaccination strategies may efficiently target individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

Indirect acute effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK might 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 aimed to ascertain what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic. METHODS: Using de-identified electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (covering 13% of the UK population), between 2017 and 2020, we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions: anxiety, depression, self-harm (fatal and non-fatal), severe mental illness, eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, acute alcohol-related events, asthma exacerbation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, acute cardiovascular events (cerebrovascular accident, heart failure, myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attacks, unstable angina, and venous thromboembolism), and diabetic emergency. Primary care contacts included remote and face-to-face consultations, diagnoses from hospital discharge letters, and secondary care referrals, and conditions were identified through primary care records for diagnoses, symptoms, and prescribing. Our overall study population included individuals aged 11 years or older who had at least 1 year of registration with practices contributing to CPRD Aurum in the specified period, but denominator populations varied depending on the condition being analysed. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions (defined as March 29, 2020) compared with the period before their introduction (defined as Jan 1, 2017 to March 7, 2020), with data excluded for an adjustment-to-restrictions period (March 8-28). FINDINGS: The overall population included 9 863 903 individuals on Jan 1, 2017, and increased to 10 226 939 by Jan 1, 2020. Primary care contacts for almost all conditions dropped considerably after the introduction of population-wide restrictions. The largest reductions were observed for contacts for diabetic emergencies (odds ratio 0·35 [95% CI 0·25-0·50]), depression (0·53 [0·52-0·53]), and self-harm (0·56 [0·54-0·58]). In the interrupted time-series analysis, with the exception of acute alcohol-related events (0·98 [0·89-1·10]), there was evidence of a reduction in contacts for all conditions (anxiety 0·67 [0·66-0·67], eating disorders 0·62 [0·59-0·66], obsessive-compulsive disorder [0·69 [0·64-0·74]], self-harm 0·56 [0·54-0·58], severe mental illness 0·80 [0·78-0·83], stroke 0·59 [0·56-0·62], transient ischaemic attack 0·63 [0·58-0·67], heart failure 0·62 [0·60-0·64], myocardial infarction 0·72 [0·68-0·77], unstable angina 0·72 [0·60-0·87], venous thromboembolism 0·94 [0·90-0·99], and asthma exacerbation 0·88 [0·86-0·90]). By July, 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. INTERPRETATION: There were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions following the introduction of restrictions, with limited recovery by July, 2020. Further research is needed to ascertain whether these reductions reflect changes in disease frequency or missed opportunities for care. Maintaining health-care access should be a key priority in future public health planning, including further restrictions. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people with the conditions as well as health-care provision. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship, Health Data Research UK.

Effect of pre-exposure use of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 mortality: a population-based cohort study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into epithelial cells in vitro, but clinical studies found no evidence of reduced mortality when treating patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality, as opposed to treatment for the disease. METHODS: We did a prespecified observational, population-based cohort study using national primary care data and linked death registrations in the OpenSAFELY platform, which covers approximately 40% of the general population in England, UK. We included all adults aged 18 years and older registered with a general practice for 1 year or more on March 1, 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use before the COVID-19 outbreak in England (considered as March 1, 2020) compared with non-users of hydroxychloroquine and risk of COVID-19 mortality among people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus. Model adjustment was informed by a directed acyclic graph. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020, of 194 637 people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, 30 569 (15·7%) received two or more prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine. Between March 1 and July 13, 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0·23% (95% CI 0·18 to 0·29) among users and 0·22% (0·20 to 0·25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0·008% (-0·051 to 0·066). After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunosuppressive drugs, and geographical region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80 to 1·33). We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressive drugs. Quantitative bias analyses indicated that our observed associations were robust to missing information for additional biologic treatments for rheumatological disease. We observed similar associations with the negative control outcome of non-COVID-19 mortality. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence of a difference in COVID-19 mortality among people who received hydroxychloroquine for treatment of rheumatological disease before the COVID-19 outbreak in England. Therefore, completion of randomised trials investigating pre-exposure prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe outcomes from COVID-19 are warranted. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly affected mortality worldwide1. There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, and this requires new approaches for the timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England, we created OpenSAFELY-a secure health analytics platform that covers 40% of all patients in England and holds patient data within the existing data centre of a major vendor of primary care electronic health records. Here we used OpenSAFELY to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19-related deaths. COVID-19-related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.53-1.65)); greater age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared with people of white ethnicity, Black and South Asian people were at higher risk, even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48 (1.29-1.69) and 1.45 (1.32-1.58), respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical factors associated with COVID-19-related death in one of the largest cohort studies on this topic so far. More patient records are rapidly being added to OpenSAFELY, we will update and extend our results regularly.

Risk of COVID-19-related death among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma prescribed inhaled corticosteroids: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Early descriptions of patients admitted to hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic showed a lower prevalence of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than would be expected for an acute respiratory disease like COVID-19, leading to speculation that inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) might protect against infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or the development of serious sequelae. We assessed the association between ICS and COVID-19-related death among people with COPD or asthma using linked electronic health records (EHRs) in England, UK. METHODS: In this observational study, we analysed patient-level data for people with COPD or asthma from primary care EHRs linked with death data from the Office of National Statistics using the OpenSAFELY platform. The index date (start of follow-up) for both cohorts was March 1, 2020; follow-up lasted until May 6, 2020. For the COPD cohort, individuals were eligible if they were aged 35 years or older, had COPD, were a current or former smoker, and were prescribed an ICS or long-acting ß agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA-LAMA) as combination therapy within the 4 months before the index date. For the asthma cohort, individuals were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had been diagnosed with asthma within 3 years of the index date, and were prescribed an ICS or short-acting ß agonist (SABA) only within the 4 months before the index date. We compared the outcome of COVID-19-related death between people prescribed an ICS and those prescribed alternative respiratory medications: ICSs versus LABA-LAMA for the COPD cohort, and low-dose or medium-dose and high-dose ICSs versus SABAs only in the asthma cohort. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between exposure categories and the outcome in each population, adjusted for age, sex, and all other prespecified covariates. We calculated e-values to quantify the effect of unmeasured confounding on our results. FINDINGS: We identified 148 557 people with COPD and 818 490 people with asthma who were given relevant respiratory medications in the 4 months before the index date. People with COPD who were prescribed ICSs were at increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared with those prescribed LABA-LAMA combinations (adjusted HR 1·39 [95% CI 1·10-1·76]). Compared with those prescribed SABAs only, people with asthma who were prescribed high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death (1·55 [1·10-2·18]), whereas those given a low or medium dose were not (1·14 [0·85-1·54]). Sensitivity analyses showed that the apparent harmful association we observed could be explained by relatively small health differences between people prescribed ICS and those not prescribed ICS that were not recorded in the database (e value lower 95% CI 1·43). INTERPRETATION: Our results do not support a major role for regular ICS use in protecting against COVID-19-related death among people with asthma or COPD. Observed increased risks of COVID-19-related death can be plausibly explained by unmeasured confounding due to disease severity. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Comparisons of Staphylococcus aureus infection and other outcomes between users of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers: lessons for COVID-19 from a nationwide cohort study.

Background: Mice receiving angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) drugs show increased susceptibility to infection by Staphylococcus aureus ( S. aureus). We sought to investigate whether humans using ACEI were at increased risk of S. aureus infection, comparing them to users of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARB) with multiple control outcomes to assess the potential for residual confounding. Methods: Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics between 1997 and 2017, we identified adults starting ACEI or ARB (as an active comparator drug). We regarded prescription of ACEI or ARB as time-dependent exposure and used a Cox regression model to compare incidence of first hospitalisation with infection due to S. aureus in periods with ACEI to periods with ARB prescriptions. We repeated the analysis using control outcomes that we did not expect to be associated with use of ACEI versus ARB (Gram-negative sepsis, hip fracture and herpes zoster) and one that we did (dry cough). Results: We identified 445,341 new users of ACEI (mean age 64.0±14.0, male 51.7%) and 41,824 new users of ARB (mean age 64.1±14.0, male 45.5%). The fully adjusted hazard ratio for S. aureus infection (ACEI vs. ARB) was 1.18 (95% CI 1.10-1.27), consistent across sensitivity analyses. However, we also found associations with all control outcomes; rates of Gram-negative sepsis, hip fracture and dry cough were also increased during periods of time treated with ACEI compared to ARB while herpes zoster was more common during time treated with ARB. Conclusions: Our results suggest that although ARB users appear an ideal control for analyses of ACEI effects, there is residual confounding even after multivariable adjustment. This has implications for observational analyses comparing users of these drug classes, in particular the effect of these drugs in relation to COVID-19 infection.