Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 24
Filter
1.
Revista Cubana de Enfermeria ; 38(4), 2022.
Article in Spanish | Scopus | ID: covidwho-2167485

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The mental health of nursing students in times of COVID-19 has had diverse issues, which implies a challenge for training. Being an emerging matter, it is necessary to integrate in a unitary perspective the most relevant studies, to glimpse the immediate impacts of the pandemic and the actions that have been undertaken. Objective: To analyze the available scientific evidence on the mental health of nursing students in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Integrative review conducted during February and March 2021 in the databases Scopus, ScienceDirect, Lilacs, PubMed, CINHAL, Web of Science, SciELO and PsycINFO. The search equation included the terms Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): "Mental Health", "COVID-19" and "Students, Nursing", combined with the Boolean operator AND. We evaluated primary and secondary studies with different approaches or methodologies in Spanish, English or Portuguese, with full text availability, published up to the review date. Opinion articles and letters to the editor were excluded. From a total of 535 articles, 25 were included. Qualitative content analysis was performed. Conclusions: Immediate impacts on emotions, mood states and emotional disorders such as anxiety, stress and depression were identified;all mediated by social, biological and psychological determinants. Actions taken are related to coping strategies and institutional responses. © 2022, Editorial Ciencias Medicas. All rights reserved.

2.
The Lancet ; 400(10368):2028-2030, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2159954

ABSTRACT

The importance of collecting race and ethnicity data was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic;for instance, in the UK, researchers uncovered stark ethnic inequalities1,2 and translated these findings into policy.3 However, in many European countries where the capture of ethnicity data is illegal, COVID-19 prevention efforts were hampered by an inability to target resources towards groups at highest risk of exposure, infection, and disease.4,5 High quality race and ethnicity data are pivotal in redressing the historical under-representation of diverse populations in clinical research and ensuring that algorithms underpinning patient care do not perpetuate bias and inequalities.6,7 Because clinical guidelines draw heavily on studies of predominantly White populations from high-income countries, most disease management approaches are not tailored for the needs of diverse racial and ethnic populations, particularly those residing in low-income and middle-income countries. In countries with private health insurance systems, including India, Pakistan, and the USA, people contributing race and ethnicity data might not be representative of the population as a whole with respect to socioeconomic status, access to health care, and geography, limiting our ability to understand drivers of health disparities in target populations and design appropriate solutions.8–10 Even in countries with comprehensive health-care systems, race and ethnicity data will only be captured for people who present at health-care services. In Singapore, the Ministry of Health workgroup on healthy living for minority ethnic groups includes local leaders and community organisations to generate insights and build trust in the public policy-making process.17 The UK National Institute for Health Research, in collaboration with Trial Forge, has recently published the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework, which can help guide researchers in how to ensure the inclusion of minority ethnic participants in the design and implementation of research.18 Global joint efforts are also underway to improve the inclusion of diverse populations in research examining drug effects.19 Recent research has highlighted algorithmic bias in clinical care that systematically disadvantages minority racial and ethnic groups.20,21 Thanks to the availability of data on race and ethnicity, we have been able to quantify the effect of bias in different population groups and concerted efforts are now being made to redress these historical injustices.22 We must ensure that the language and categories used when collecting race and ethnicity data are not stigmatising.

3.
Int J Epidemiol ; 2022 Aug 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1992195

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(7): e35168, 2022 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1974496

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization World Mental Health International College Student (WMH-ICS) initiative aims to screen for mental health and substance use problems among postsecondary students on a global scale as well as to develop and evaluate evidence-based preventive and ameliorative interventions for this population. This protocol paper presents the Canadian version of the WMH-ICS survey, detailing the adapted survey instrument, the unique weekly cross-sectional administration, the multitiered recruitment strategy, and the associated risk mitigation protocols. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide a methodological resource for researchers conducting cross-national comparisons of WMH-ICS data, as well as to serve as a useful guide for those interested in replicating the outlined cross-sectional methodology to better understand how mental health and substance use vary over time among university students. METHODS: The online survey is based on the WMH-ICS survey instrument, modified to the Canadian context by the addition of questions pertaining to Canadian-based guidelines and the translation of the survey to Canadian French. The survey is administered through the Qualtrics survey platform and is sent to an independent stratified random sample of 350 students per site weekly, followed by two reminder emails. Upon survey closure every week, a random subsample of 70 nonresponders are followed up with via phone or through a personal email in an effort to decrease nonresponder bias. The survey is accompanied by an extensive risk mitigation protocol that stratifies respondents by the level of need and provides tailored service recommendations, including a facilitated expedited appointment to student counseling services for those at increased risk of suicide. The anticipated sample size is approximately 5500 students per site per year. RESULTS: In February 2020, the Canadian survey was deployed at the University of British Columbia. This was followed by deployment at Simon Fraser University (November 2020), McMaster University (January 2021), and the University of Toronto (January 2022). Data collection at all 4 sites is ongoing. As of May 6, 2022, 29,503 responses have been collected. CONCLUSIONS: Based on international collaboration, the Canadian version of the WMH-ICS survey incorporates a novel methodological approach centered on the weekly administration of a comprehensive cross-sectional survey to independent stratified random samples of university students. After 27 months of consecutive survey administration, we have developed and refined a survey protocol that has proven effective in engaging students at four Canadian institutions, allowing us to track how mental health and substance use vary over time using an internationally developed university student survey based on the criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/35168.

5.
BMJ ; 378: e068946, 2022 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1950077

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cohort Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Support
6.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 4(7): e490-e506, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1882682

ABSTRACT

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.

7.
Paediatr Drugs ; 24(3): 269-280, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1797448

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: There was initially insufficient understanding regarding suitable pharmacological treatment for pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) was originally used for the treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) infection. It was also used in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) with positive results. Nonetheless, results from recent randomized controlled trials and observational studies on COVID-19 patients were unfavorable. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 933 COVID-19 patients aged ≤ 18 years were admitted between 21 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 in Hong Kong. Exposure was receiving LPV/r within the first two days of admission. Time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, seroconversion and hyperinflammatory syndrome, cumulative costs, and hospital length of stay were assessed. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and linear models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of time-to-event and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: LPV/r users were associated with longer time to clinical improvement (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001), hospital discharge (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38-0.70; p < 0.001) and seroconversion (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; p < 0.001) when compared with controls. LPV/r users were also associated with prolonged hospital length of stay (6.99 days, 95% CI 6.23-7.76; p < 0.001) and higher costs at 30 days (US$11,709 vs US$8270; p < 0.001) as opposed to controls. CONCLUSION: Early treatment with LPV/r for pediatric COVID-19 patients was associated with longer time to clinical improvement. Our study advocates the recommendation against LPV/r use for pediatric patients across age groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Child , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
8.
Frontiers in endocrinology ; 13, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1749828

ABSTRACT

Aim This study was conducted in order to evaluate the association between metformin use and clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Patients with T2DM with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and admitted between January 21, 2020, and January 31, 2021 in Hong Kong were identified in our cohort. Exposure was defined as metformin use within 90 days prior to admission until hospital discharge for COVID-19. Primary outcome was defined as clinical improvement of ≥1 point on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale (CPS). Other outcomes were hospital discharge, recovery, in-hospital death, acidosis, hyperinflammatory syndrome, length of hospitalization, and changes in WHO CPS score. Results Metformin use was associated with greater odds of clinical improvement (OR = 2.74, p = 0.009), hospital discharge (OR = 2.26, p = 0.009), and recovery (OR = 2.54, p = 0.005), in addition to lower odds of hyperinflammatory syndrome (OR = 0.71, p = 0.021) and death (OR = 0.41, p = 0.010) than control. Patients on metformin treatment had a shorter hospital stay (−2.76 days, p = 0.017) than their control counterparts. The average WHO CPS scores were significantly lower in metformin users than non-users since day 15 (p < 0.001). However, metformin use was associated with higher odds of acidosis. Conclusions Metformin use was associated with lower mortality and lower odds for hyperinflammatory syndrome. This provides additional insights into the potential mechanisms of the benefits of metformin use in T2DM patients with COVID-19.

9.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Sep 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1706197

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The 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 ONS 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 compared to wild type diagnosed from 16th November 2020 to 11th 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 (aHR: 1.73 (95% CI 1.41 - 2.13; P<.0001)) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (aHR: 1.62 ((95% CI 1.48 - 1.78; P<.0001), compared to wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to ICU, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the confidence interval included the null (aHR: 1.20 (95% CI 0.74 - 1.95; P=0.45)). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalisation and mortality than wild-type virus.

10.
The Lancet regional health. Europe ; 14:100295-100295, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1615360

ABSTRACT

Background Residents in care homes have been severely impacted by COVID-19. We describe trends in the mortality risk among residents of care homes compared to private homes. Methods On behalf of NHS England we used OpenSAFELY-TPP to calculate monthly age-standardised risks of death due to all causes and COVID-19 among adults aged >=65 years between 1/2/2019 and 31/03/2021. Care home residents were identified using linkage to Care and Quality Commission data. Findings We included 4,340,648 people aged 65 years or older on the 1st of February 2019, 2.2% of whom were classified as residing in a care or nursing home. Age-standardised mortality risks were approximately 10 times higher among care home residents compared to those in private housing in February 2019: comparative mortality figure (CMF) = 10.59 (95%CI = 9.51, 11.81) among women, and 10.87 (9.93, 11.90) among men. By April 2020 these relative differences had increased to more than 17 times with CMFs of 17.57 (16.43, 18.79) among women and 18.17 (17.22, 19.17) among men. CMFs did not increase during the second wave, despite a rise in the absolute age-standardised COVID-19 mortality risks. Interpretation COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on the mortality of care home residents in England compared to older residents of private homes, but only in the first wave. This may be explained by a degree of acquired immunity, improved protective measures or changes in the underlying frailty of the populations. The care home population should be prioritised for measures aimed at controlling COVID-19. Funding Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1

11.
Diabetes Metab ; 48(1): 101307, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1549728

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have poorer prognosis. Inconclusive evidence suggested dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) might reduce inflammation and prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) entry, hence further evaluation on DPP4i is needed. METHODS: 1214 Patients with T2DM were admitted with COVID-19 between 21st January 2020 and 31st January 2021 in Hong Kong. Exposure was DPP4i use within the 90 days prior to admission for COVID-19. Assessed outcomes included clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, low viral load, positive Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody, hyperinflammatory syndrome, proportion of IgG antibody, clinical status and length of hospitalization. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were performed to estimate odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of event outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: DPP4i users (N = 107) was associated with lower odds of clinical deterioration (OR=0.71, 95%CI 0.54 to 0.93, P = 0.013), hyperinflammatory syndrome (OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.69, P < 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.42, P < 0.001), reduced length of hospitalization (-4.82 days, 95%CI -6.80 to -2.84, P < 0.001), proportion of positive IgG antibody on day-3 (13% vs 8%, p = 0.007) and day-7 (41% vs 26%, P < 0.001), despite lack of association between DPP4i use and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: DPP4i use was associated with reduced odds of clinical deterioration and hyperinflammatory syndrome. Prospective studies are warranted to elucidate the role of DPP4i in T2DM and COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clinical Deterioration , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Humans , Propensity Score , SARS-CoV-2
12.
J Hematol Oncol ; 14(1): 172, 2021 10 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477441

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Thromboembolism/virology , Warfarin/therapeutic use , Administration, Oral , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/pharmacology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , England/epidemiology , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Thromboembolism/blood , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
13.
BMJ ; 374: n1592, 2021 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1311065

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Learning Disabilities/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cerebral Palsy/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Disabled Persons , Down Syndrome/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult
14.
Lancet ; 397(10286): 1711-1724, 2021 05 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301056

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/ethnology , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , England , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Survival Analysis
16.
BJPsych Open ; 7(2): e69, 2021 Mar 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143277

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of specific subpopulations, such as university students, is needed as communities prepare for future waves. AIMS: To study the association of proximity of COVID-19 with symptoms of anxiety and depression in university students. METHOD: This trend study analysed weekly cross-sectional surveys of probabilistic samples of students from the University of British Columbia for 13 weeks, through the first wave of COVID-19. The main variable assessed was propinquity of COVID-19, defined as 'knowing someone who tested positive for COVID-19', which was specified at different levels: knowing someone anywhere globally, in Canada, in Vancouver, in their course or at home. Proximity was included in multivariable linear regressions to assess its association with primary outcomes, including 30-day symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. RESULTS: Of 1388 respondents (adjusted response rate of 50%), 5.6% knew someone with COVID-19 in Vancouver, 0.8% in their course and 0.3% at home. Ten percent were overwhelmed and unable to access help. Knowing someone in Vancouver was associated with an 11-percentage-point increase in the probability of 30-day anxiety symptoms (s.e. 0.05, P ≤ 0.05), moderated by gender, with a significant interaction of the exposure and being female (coefficient -20, s.e. 0.09, P ≤ 0.05). No association was found with depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Propinquity of COVID-19 cases may increase the likelihood of anxiety symptoms in students, particularly among men. Most students reported coping well, but additional support is needed for an emotionally overwhelmed minority who report being unable to access help.

17.
BMJ ; 372: n628, 2021 03 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143026

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Residence Characteristics , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
18.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 484, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133589

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Status , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Child , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multimorbidity , Pregnancy , Prevalence , Public Health , Risk Factors , United Kingdom/epidemiology
19.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(4): e217-e230, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1087355

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Status , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/psychology , Child , Electronic Health Records , Female , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Male , Mental Health , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care/trends , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
20.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(1): e19-e27, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1078252

ABSTRACT

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.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL