Long-term cardiovascular safety of COVID-19 vaccination according to brand, dose and combinations: Cohort study of 46 million adults in England (preprint)

Using longitudinal health records from 45.7 million adults in England followed for a year, our study compared the incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications after first, second and booster doses of brands and combinations of COVID-19 vaccines used during the first two years of the UK vaccination program with the incidence before or without the corresponding vaccination. The incidence of common arterial thrombotic events (mainly acute myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke) was generally lower after each vaccine dose, brand and combination. Similarly, the incidence of common venous thrombotic events, (mainly pulmonary embolism and lower limb deep venous thrombosis) was lower after vaccination. There was a higher incidence of previously reported rare harms after vaccination: vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after first ChAdOx1 vaccination, and myocarditis and pericarditis after first, second and transiently after booster mRNA vaccination (BNT-162b2 and mRNA- 1273) These findings support the wide uptake of future COVID-19 vaccination programs.

Barriers to healthcare access: findings from a co-produced Long Covid case-finding study (preprint)

Background and aimLong Covid can be a stigmatising condition, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This co-produced study with a Community Advisory Board of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. MethodsAn active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care, and the stigma faced by participants and analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration. FindingsTwenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals. Participants questioned their deservedness of seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting, and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the tellers identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. ConclusionWe have developed recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listen to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. Patient or Public ContributionThis study was co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up of twenty-three members including healthcare professionals, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

“If it all goes digital we’ll have to learn”: Facilitators and barriers to uptake of digital health in British South Asians with cardiometabolic disease (preprint)

Background: Although availability and utilisation of digital health interventions (DHIs) for management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease (“cardiometabolic disease”) have increased, they may exacerbate health inequalities. South Asians have increased cardiometabolic risk, but their experiences of DHIs are poorly investigated and characterised. Objective: To explore facilitators and barriers to DHI uptake and use in South Asian individuals in the UK with cardiometabolic disease. Methods: Mixed-methods approach encompassing online/face-to-face/individual interviews (n=45) and survey (n=100). After informed consent, transcription and coding, we conducted a thematic analysis informed by a framework for inequalities in DHIs to examine perceptions at the individual, healthcare professional, societal and intervention level. Results: Participants described an intersection of factors resulting in varied digital skills and confidence within the community, including individual characteristics, awareness, and support. COVID-19 restrictions acted as both a positive (use of online shopping and social media increasing digital confidence) and negative (lack of access to health services) drivers to DHI uptake. Participants made recommendations for improving DHI uptake in the health service and policy area, such as promotion and upskilling through culturally and language-appropriate avenues such as community organisations and outlets. Participants suggested DHI design improvements should focus on literacy, numeracy, accessibility, and cultural appropriateness. Conclusions: DHIs have the potential to support South Asian populations in the UK to prevent and manage cardiometabolic disease. In order to improve their uptake, approaches to their implementation should consider community diversity to provide appropriate promotion, education, and support.

A nationwide study of 331 rare diseases among 58 million individuals: prevalence, demographics, and COVID-19 outcomes (preprint)

Background: The Global Burden of Disease study has provided key evidence to inform clinicians, researchers, and policy makers across common diseases, but no similar effort with single study design exists for hundreds of rare diseases. Consequently, many rare conditions lack population-level evidence including prevalence and clinical vulnerability. This has led to the absence of evidence-based care for rare diseases, prominently in the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: This study used electronic health records (EHRs) of more than 58 million people in England, linking nine National Health Service datasets spanning healthcare settings for people alive on Jan 23, 2020. Starting with all rare diseases listed in Orphanet, we quality assured and filtered down to analyse 331 conditions with ICD-10 or SNOMED-CT mappings clinically validated in our dataset. We report 1) population prevalence, clinical and demographic details of rare diseases, and 2) investigate differences in mortality with SARs-CoV-2. Findings: Among 58,162,316 individuals, we identified 894,396 with at least one rare disease. Prevalence data in Orphanet originates from various sources with varying degrees of precision. Here we present reproducible age and gender-adjusted estimates for all 331 rare diseases, including first estimates for 186 (56.2%) without any reported prevalence estimate in Orphanet. We identified 49 rare diseases significantly more frequent in females and 62 in males. Similarly we identified 47 rare diseases more frequent in Asian as compared to White ethnicity and 22 with higher Black to white ratios as compared to similar ratios in population controls. 37 rare diseases were overrepresented in the white population as compared to both Black and Asian ethnicities. In total, 7,965 of 894,396 (0.9%) of rare-disease patients died from COVID-19, as compared to 141,287 of 58,162,316 (0.2%) in the full study population. Eight rare diseases had significantly increased risks for COVID-19-related mortality in fully vaccinated individuals, with bullous pemphigoid (8.07[3.01-21.62]) being worst affected. Interpretation: Our study highlights that National-scale EHRs provide a unique resource to estimate detailed prevalence, clinical and demographic data for rare diseases. Using COVID-19-related mortality analysis, we showed the power of large-scale EHRs in providing insights to inform public health decision-making for these often neglected patient populations.

Digital ethnicity data in population-wide electronic health records in England: a description of completeness, coverage, and granularity of diversity (preprint)

Background The link between ethnicity and healthcare inequity, and the urgency for better data is well-recognised. This study describes ethnicity data in nation-wide electronic health records in England, UK. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using de-identified person-level records for the England population available in the National Health Service (NHS) Digital trusted research environment. Primary care records (GDPPR) were linked to hospital and national mortality records. We assessed completeness, consistency, and granularity of ethnicity records using all available SNOMED-CT concepts for ethnicity and NHS ethnicity categories. Findings From 61.8 million individuals registered with a primary care practice in England, 51.5 (83.3%) had at least one ethnicity record in GDPPR, increasing to 93·9% when linked with hospital records. Approximately 12·0% had at least two conflicting ethnicity codes in primary care records. Women were more likely to have ethnicity recorded than men. Ethnicity was missing most frequently in individuals from 18 to 39 years old and in the southern regions of England. Individuals with an ethnicity record had more comorbidities recorded than those without. Of 489 SNOMED-CT ethnicity concepts available, 255 were used in primary care records. Discrepancies between SNOMED-CT and NHS ethnicity categories were observed, specifically within “Other-” ethnicity groups. Interpretation More than 250 ethnicity sub-groups may be found in health records for the English population, although commonly categorised into “White”, “Black”, “Asian”, “Mixed”, and “Other”. One in ten individuals do not have ethnicity information recorded in primary care or hospital records. SNOMED-CT codes represent more diversity in ethnicity groups than the NHS ethnicity classification. Improved recording of self-reported ethnicity at first point-of-care and consistency in ethnicity classification across healthcare settings can potentially improve the accuracy of ethnicity in research and ultimately care for all ethnicities. Funding British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre led by Health Data Research UK. Research in context Evidence before this study Ethnicity has been highlighted as a significant factor in the disproportionate impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Better knowledge of ethnicity data recorded in real clinical practice is required to improve health research and ultimately healthcare. We searched PubMed from database inception to 14 th July 2022 for publications using the search terms “ethnicity” and “electronic health records” or “EHR,” without language restrictions. 228 publications in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 304 publications between 2020 and 2022 were identified. However, none of these publications used or reported any of over 400 available SNOMED-CT concepts for ethnicity to account for more granularity and diversity than captured by traditional high-level classification limited to 5 to 9 ethnicity groups. Added value of this study We provide a comprehensive study of the largest collection of ethnicity records from a national-level electronic health records trusted research environment, exploring completeness, consistency, and granularity. This work can serve as a data resource profile of ethnicity from routinely-collected EHR in England. Implications of all the available evidence To achieve equity in healthcare, we need to understand the differences between individuals, as well as the influence of ethnicity both on health status and on health interventions, including variation in the behaviour of tests and therapies. Thus, there is a need for measurements, thresholds, and risk estimates to be tailored to different ethnic groups. This study presents the different medical concepts describing ethnicity in routinely collected data that are readily available to researchers and highlights key elements for improving their accuracy in research. We aim to encourage researchers to use more granular ethnicity than the than typical approaches which aggregate ethnicity into a limited number of categories, failing to reflect the diversity of underlying populations. Accurate ethnicity data will lead to a better understanding of individual diversity, which will help to address disparities and influence policy recommendations that can translate into better, fairer health for all.

Socioeconomic inequalities of Long COVID: findings from a population-based survey in the United Kingdom (preprint)

Objective To estimate the risk of Long COVID by socioeconomic deprivation and to further examine the socioeconomic inequalities in Long COVID by sex and occupational groups. Design We analysed data from the COVID-19 Infection Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics between 26/04/2020 and 31/01/2022. This is the largest and nationally representative survey of COVID-19 in the UK and provides uniquely rich, contemporaneous, and longitudinal data on occupation, health status, COVID-19 exposure, and Long COVID symptoms. Setting Community-based longitudinal survey of COVID-19 in the UK. Participants We included 201,799 participants in our analysis who were aged between 16 and 64 years and had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main outcome measures We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the risk of Long COVID at least 4 weeks after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection by deciles of index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and adjusted for a range of demographic and spatiotemporal factors. We further examined the modifying effects of socioeconomic deprivation by sex and occupational groups. Results A total of 19,315 (9.6%) participants reported having Long COVID symptoms. Compared to the least deprived IMD decile, participants in the most deprived decile had a higher adjusted risk of Long COVID (11.4% vs 8.2%; adjusted OR: 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33, 1.57). There were particularly significantly higher inequalities (most vs least deprived decile) of Long COVID in healthcare and patient facing roles (aOR: 1.76; 1.27, 2.44), and in the education sector (aOR: 1.62; 1.26, 2.08). The inequality of Long COVID was higher in females (aOR: 1.54; 1.38, 1.71) than males (OR: 1.32; 1.15, 1.51). Conclusions Participants living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas had a higher risk of Long COVID. The inequality gap was wider in females and certain public facing occupations (e.g., healthcare and education). These findings will help inform public health policies and interventions in adopting a social justice and health inequality lens.

Indirect effects of the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic on secondary care for cardiovascular disease in the UK: an electronic health record analysis across three countries. (preprint)

BackgroundAlthough morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 have been widely reported, the indirect effects of the pandemic beyond 2020 on other major diseases and health service activity have not been well described. MethodsAnalyses used national administrative electronic hospital records in England, Scotland and Wales for 2016-2021. Admissions and procedures during the pandemic (2020-2021) related to six major cardiovascular conditions (acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysm, and venous thromboembolism) were compared to the annual average in the pre-pandemic period (2016-2019). Differences were assessed by time period and urgency of care. ResultsIn 2020, there were 31,064 (-6%) fewer hospital admissions (14,506 [-4%] fewer emergencies, 16,560 [-23%] fewer elective admissions) compared to 2016-2019 for the six major cardiovascular diseases combined. The proportional reduction in admissions was similar in all three countries. Overall, hospital admissions returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021. Elective admissions remained substantially below expected levels for almost all conditions in all three countries (-10,996 [-15%] fewer admissions). However, these reductions were offset by higher than expected total emergency admissions (+25,878 [+6%] higher admissions), notably for heart failure and stroke in England, and for venous thromboembolism in all three countries. Analyses for procedures showed similar temporal variations to admissions. ConclusionThis study highlights increasing emergency cardiovascular admissions as a result of the pandemic, in the context of a substantial and sustained reduction in elective admissions and procedures. This is likely to increase further the demands on cardiovascular services over the coming years. Key QuestionWhat is the impact in 2020 and 2021 of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admissions and procedures for six major cardiovascular diseases in England, Scotland and Wales? Key FindingIn 2020, there were 6% fewer hospital admissions (emergency: -4%, elective: -23%) compared to 2016-2019 for six major cardiovascular diseases, across three UK countries. Overall, admissions returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021, but elective admissions remained below expected levels. Take-home MessageThere was increasing emergency cardiovascular admissions as a result of the pandemic, with substantial and sustained reduction in elective admissions and procedures. This is likely to increase further the demands on cardiovascular services over the coming years.

Long Covid active case finding: a co-produced community-based pilot within the STIMULATE-ICP study (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways) (preprint)

Background and aim Long Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and discrimination and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups experiences of Long Covid and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area (Camden, London, UK) to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been formally clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid Specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. Methods This protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, promotional material are co-developed and will be distributed in the local community with engagement from key community organisations and leaders to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed and accessing care. Awareness of Long Covid and symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic run by University College London Hospitals (UCLH). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee and Research Integrity and Governance, University of Southampton. (reference number 72400). Findings will be reported in a report and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Definitive methods of dissemination will be decided by the CAB. Summaries of the findings will also be shared on the STIMULATE-ICP website, locally in the study area and through social media. We will specifically target policy makers and those responsible for shaping and commissioning Long Covid healthcare services and social support such as NHSE England Long Covid Group.

STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol (preprint)

Introduction: Long COVID (LC), the persistent symptoms >=12 weeks following acute COVID-19, presents major threats to individual and public health across countries, affecting over 1.5 million people in the UK alone. Evidence-based interventions are urgently required and an integrated care pathway (ICP) approach in pragmatic trials, which include investigations, treatments and rehabilitation for LC, could provide scalable and generalisable solutions at pace. Methods and analysis: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised clinical trial of two components of an ICP (Coverscan, a multi-organ MRI, and Living with COVID Recovery, a digitally enabled rehabilitation platform) with a nested, Phase III, open label, platform randomised drug trial in individuals with LC. Cluster randomisation is at level of primary care networks so that ICP interventions are delivered as "standard of care" in that area. The drug trial randomisation is at individual level and initial arms are rivaroxaban, colchicine, famotidine/loratadine, compared with no drugs, with potential to add in further drug arms. The trial is being carried out in 6-10 NHS LC clinics in the UK and is evaluating the effectiveness of a pathway of care for adults with LC in reducing fatigue and other physical, psychological and functional outcomes (e.g. EQ-5D-5L, GAD-7, PHQ-9, WSAS, PDQ-5, CFQ, SF-12, MRC Dyspnoea score) at 3 months. The trial also includes an economic evaluation which will be described separately. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol was reviewed by South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/SC/0416). All participating sites obtained local approvals prior to recruitment. Coverscan has UKCA certification (752965). The first participant was recruited in July 2022 and interim/final results will be disseminated in 2023, in a plan co-developed with public and patient representatives. The results will be presented at national and international conferences, published in peer reviewed medical journals, and shared via media (mainstream and social) and patient support organisations. Trial registration number: ISRCTN10665760

Evaluating a novel, integrative dashboard for health professionals’ performance in managing deteriorating patients: quality improvement project (preprint)

Background The quality of recording and documentation of deteriorating patient management by health professionals has been challenged at health system level during the COVID-19 pandemic. Non-adherence to monitoring and escalation guidelines and poor documentation increases risk of serious adverse events. Electronic health record (EHR)-integrated dashboards are real-time auditing tools of patients’ status and clinicians’ performance, but neither the views nor the performance of health professionals have been assessed, relating to management of deteriorating patients.. Objective To develop and evaluate a real-time dashboard of deteriorating patients’ assessment, referral, and therapy by examining the perception of the dashboard and the performance of nurses and physicians. Settings Five academic hospitals in the largest NHS trust in the UK (Barts Health NHS Trust). Intervention The dashboard was developed from EHR data to investigate patients with NEWS2>5, assessment, and escalation of deteriorating patients. We adopted the Plan, Do, Study, Act model and followed the SQUIRE framework to evaluate the dashboard. Design Mixed methods: (i) Virtual, face-to-face, key informant interviews and (ii) Retrospective descriptive EHR data analysis to measure performance change over time. Results We interviewed 3 nurses (2 quality and safety and 1 informatics specialists). Key themes were: (1) participants perceived the dashboard as a facilitator for auditing NEWS2 recording and escalation of care to improve clinicians practice; (2) There is a need for guiding clinicians and adjusting data sources and metrics which could enhance the functionality and usability. From EHR (2019 to 2022) data analysis showed: (1) NEWS2 recording has gradually improved in the implementation and evaluation phases (May 2021 to Apr 2022) from 64% to 83%; (2) Referral and nurses’ assessment forms completion increased (n: 170 to 6800 & 23 to 540, respectively). Conclusion The deterioration dashboard is an effective real time data-driven method for improving the quality of managing deteriorating patients. Improving the dashboard by integrating multiple health systems, a wider analysis of further NEWS2 and escalation of care metrics, clinicians’ learning of digital solutions will enhance functionality and experience, potentially boosting its value. There is a need to examine the generalizability of the dashboard through further validation and quality improvement studies.

Implementation of a digital early warning score (NEWS2) in a cardiac specialist and general hospital settings in the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. (preprint)

Objectives: To evaluate implementation of EHR-integrated NEWS2 in a cardiac care setting and a general hospital setting in the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled nurses and managers, as well as online surveys. Settings: Specialist cardiac hospital (St Bartholomews Hospital) and General teaching hospital (University College London Hospital). Participants: Eleven nurses and managers from cardiology, cardiac surgery, oncology, and intensive care wards (St Bartholomews) and medical, haematology and intensive care wards (UCLH) were interviewed and sixty-seven were surveyed online. Results: Three main themes emerged: (i) Implementing NEWS2 challenges and supports; (ii) Value of NEWS2 to alarm, escalate, particularly during the pandemic; and (iii) Digitalisation: EHR integration and automation. The value of NEWS2 was partly positive in escalation, yet there were concerns by nurses who undervalued NEWS2 particularly in cardiac care. Challenges, like clinicians' behaviours, lack of resources and training and the perception of NEWS2 value, limit the success of this implementation. Changes in guidelines in the pandemic have led to overlooking NEWS2. EHR integration and automated monitoring are improvement solutions that are not fully employed yet. Conclusion: Whether in specialist or general medical settings, the health professionals implementing EWS in healthcare face cultural and systems related challenges to adopting NEWS2 and digital solutions. The validity of NEWS2 in specialised settings and complex conditions is not yet apparent and requires comprehensive validation. EHRs integration and automation are powerful tools to facilitate NEWS2 if its principles are reviewed and rectified, and resources and training are accessible. Further examination of implementation from the cultural and automation domains are needed.

Performance of digital Early Warning Score (NEWS2) in a cardiac specialist setting: retrospective cohort study (preprint)

Introduction Patients with Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are at significant risk of developing critical events. Early warning scores are recommended for early recognition and rapid response to deteriorating patients, yet their performance has been poorly studied in cardiac care settings. Standardisation and integrated National early warning score (NEWS2) in EHRs are recommended but their evaluation in specialist settings is limited. Objective To investigate the performance of digital NEWS2 in predicting critical events: death, ICU admission, Cardiac arrest, and medical emergencies. Methods Retrospective cohort analysis Study cohort Individuals admitted with cardiovascular disease diagnoses in 2020 and patients with positive COVID-19. Measures We tested the ability of NEWS2 in predicting death, ICU admission, cardiac arrest, and medical emergency from admission and within 24 hours before the event. NEWS2 was supplemented with age and cardiac rhythm and investigated. We used logistic regression analysis with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) to measure discrimination. Results In 6143 patients admitted under cardiac speciality, NEWS2 showed moderate to low predictive accuracy (AUC: 0.63, 0.56, 0.7& 0.63; 95% CI). Supplemented NEWS2 with age showed no improvement while age and cardiac rhythm improved discrimination (AUC: 0.75, 0.84, 0.95 & 0.94; 95%CI). Improved Performance was found of NEWS2 for COVID-19 cases with age (AUC: 0.96, 0.7, 0.87& 0.88; 95% CI). Conclusion The performance of NEWS2 in patients with CVD is suboptimal, and fair for patients with COVID-19 to predict deterioration early. Adjustment with variables that strongly correlate with critical cardiovascular outcomes, i.e. cardiac rhythm, can improve the early scoring models. There is a need to define critical endpoints, engagement with clinical experts in development of models and further validation and implementation studies of EHR-integrated EWS in cardiac specialist settings.

STIMULATE-ICP-CAREINEQUAL - Defining usual care and examining inequalities in Long Covid support: protocol for a mixed-methods study (part of STIMULATE-ICP: Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways). (preprint)

Introduction Individuals with Long Covid represent a new and growing patient population. In England, fewer than 90 Long Covid clinics deliver assessment and treatment informed by NICE guidelines. However, a paucity of clinical trials or longitudinal cohort studies means that the epidemiology, clinical trajectory, healthcare utilisation and effectiveness of current Long Covid care are poorly documented, and that neither evidence-based treatments nor rehabilitation strategies exist. In addition, and in part due to pre-pandemic health inequalities, access to referral and care varies, and patient experience of the Long Covid care pathways can be poor. In a mixed methods study, we therefore aim to: (1) describe the usual healthcare, outcomes and resource utilisation of individuals with Long Covid; (2) assess the extent of inequalities in access to Long Covid care, and specifically to understand Long Covid patients' experiences of stigma and discrimination. Methods and analysis A mixed methods study will address our aims. Qualitative data collection from patients and health professionals will be achieved through surveys, interviews and focus group discussions, to understand their experience and document the function of clinics. A patient cohort study will provide an understanding of outcomes and costs of care. Accessible data will be further analysed to understand the nature of Long Covid, and the care received. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference 303958). The dissemination plan will be decided by the patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group members and study Co-Is, but will target 1) policy makers, and those responsible for commissioning and delivering Long Covid services, 2) patients and the public, and 3) academics.

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study Protocol. (preprint)

IntroductionAs mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. Methods and analysisThis study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID. RegistrationResearchregistry: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/6246bfeeeaaed6001f08dadc/.

Cardiac impairment in Long Covid 1-year post-SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

Background Long Covid is associated with multiple symptoms and impairment in multiple organs. Cardiac impairment has been reported to varying degrees by varying methodologies in cross-sectional studies. Using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), we investigated the 12-month trajectory of cardiac impairment in individuals with Long Covid. Methods 534 individuals with Long Covid underwent baseline CMR (T1 and T2 mapping, cardiac mass, volumes, function, and strain) and multi-organ MRI at 6 months (IQR 4.3,7.3) since first post-COVID-19 symptoms and 330 were rescanned at 12.6 (IQR 11.4, 14.2) months if abnormal findings were reported at baseline. Symptoms, standardised questionnaires, and blood samples were collected at both timepoints. Cardiac impairment was defined as one or more of: low left or right ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF and RVEF), high left or right ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV and RVEDV), low 3D left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), or elevated native T1 in [≥]3 cardiac segments. A significant change over time was reported by comparison with 92 healthy controls. Results The technical success of this multiorgan assessment in non-acute settings was 99.1% at baseline, and 98.3% at follow up, with 99.6% and 98.8% for CMR respectively. Of individuals with Long Covid, 102/534 [19%] had cardiac impairment at baseline; 71/102 had complete paired data at 12 months. Of those, 58% presented with ongoing cardiac impairment at 12 months. High sensitivity cardiac troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide were not predictive of CMR findings, symptoms, or clinical outcomes. At baseline, low LVEF, high RVEDV and low GLS were associated with cardiac impairment. Low LVEF at baseline was associated with persistent cardiac impairment at 12 months. Conclusion Cardiac impairment, other than myocarditis, is present in 1 in 5 individuals with Long Covid at 6 months, persisting in over half of those at 12 months. Cardiac-related blood biomarkers are unable to identify cardiac impairment in Long COVID. Subtypes of disease (based on symptoms, examination, and investigations) and predictive biomarkers are yet to be established. Interventional trials with pre-specified subgroup analyses are required to inform therapeutic options.

Risk of death following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination in young people in England: a self-controlled case series study (preprint)

Objectives: To assess whether there is a change in the incidence of cardiac and all-cause death in young people following COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated individuals. Design: Self-controlled case series. Setting: National, linked electronic health record data in England. Study population: Individuals aged 12-29 who had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination and died between 8 December 2020 and 2 February 2022 and registered by 16 February 2022 within 12 weeks of COVID-19 vaccination; Individuals aged 12-29 who died within 12 weeks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Main outcome measures: Cardiac and all-cause deaths occurring within 12 weeks of vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: Compared to the baseline period, there was no evidence of a change in the incidence of cardiac death in the six weeks after vaccination, whether for each of weeks 1 to 6 or the whole six-week period. There was a decrease in the risk of all-cause death in the first week after vaccination and no change in each of weeks 2 to 6 after vaccination or whole six-week period after vaccination. Subgroup analyses by sex, age, vaccine type, and last dose also showed no change in the risk of death in the first six weeks after vaccination. There was a large increase in the incidence of cardiac and all-cause death in the overall risk period after SARS-CoV-2 infection among the unvaccinated. Conclusion: There is no evidence of an association between COVID-19 vaccination and an increased risk of death in young people. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with substantially higher risk of cardiac related death and all-cause death.

Multi-organ impairment and Long COVID: a 1-year prospective, longitudinal cohort study (preprint)

Importance: Multi-organ impairment associated with Long COVID is a significant burden to individuals, populations and health systems, presenting challenges for diagnosis and care provision. Standardised assessment across multiple organs over time is lacking, particularly in non-hospitalised individuals. Objective: To determine the prevalence of organ impairment in Long COVID patients at 6 and at 12 months after initial symptoms and to explore links to clinical presentation. Design: This was a prospective, longitudinal study in individuals following recovery from acute COVID-19. We assessed symptoms, health status, and multi-organ tissue characterisation and function, using consensus definitions for single and multi-organ impairment. Physiological and biochemical investigations were performed at baseline on all individuals and those with organ impairment were reassessed, including multi-organ MRI, 6 months later. Setting: Two non-acute settings (Oxford and London). Participants: 536 individuals (mean 45 years, 73% female, 89% white, 32% healthcare workers, 13% acute COVID-19 hospitalisation) completed baseline assessment (median: 6 months post-COVID-19). 331 (62%) with organ impairment or incidental findings had follow up, with reduced symptom burden from baseline (median number of symptoms: 10 and 3, at 6 and 12 months). Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection 6 months prior to first assessment. Main outcome: Prevalence of single and multi-organ impairment at 6 and 12 months post-COVID-19. Results: Extreme breathlessness (36% and 30%), cognitive dysfunction (50% and 38%) and poor health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L<0.7; 55% and 45%) were common at 6 and 12 months, and associated with female gender, younger age and single organ impairment. At baseline, there was fibro-inflammation in the heart (9%), pancreas (9%), kidney (15%) and liver (11%); increased volume in liver (7%), spleen (8%) and kidney (9%); decreased capacity in lungs (2%); and excessive fat deposition in the liver (25%) and pancreas (15%). Single and multi-organ impairment were present in 59% and 23% at baseline, persisting in 59% and 27% at follow-up. Conclusion and Relevance: Organ impairment was present in 59% of individuals at 6 months post-COVID-19, persisting in 59% of those followed up at 1 year, with implications for symptoms, quality of life and longer-term health, signalling need for prevention and integrated care of Long COVID. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04369807

Risk of COVID-19 related deaths for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) compared with Delta (B.1.617.2) (preprint)

Objective To assess the risk of death involving COVID-19 following infection from Omicron (B.1.1.539/BA.1) relative to Delta (B.1.617.2). Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting England, UK, 1 December 2021 to 25 January 2022. Participants 1,035,163 people aged 18-100 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the national surveillance programme, and had an infection identified as either Omicron- or Delta compatible. Main outcome measures Death involving COVID-19 as identified from death certification records. The exposure of interest was the SARS-CoV-2 variant identified from NHS Test and Trace PCR positive tests taken in the community (pillar 2) and analysed by Lighthouse laboratories. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazard regression models were adjusted for sex, age, vaccination status, previous infection, calendar time, ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation rank, household deprivation, university degree, keyworker status, country of birth, main language, region, disability, and comorbidities. Additionally, we tested for interactions between variant and sex, age, vaccination status and comorbidities. Results The risk of death involving COVID-19 was 67% lower for Omicron compared to Delta and the reduction in the risk of death involving COVID-19 for Omicron compared to Delta was more pronounced in males than in females and in people under 70 years old than in people aged 70 years or over. Regardless of age, reduction of the risk of death from Omicron relative to Delta more was more pronounced in people who had received a booster than in those having received only two doses. Conclusions Our results support early work showing the relative reduction in severity of Omicron compared to Delta in terms of hospitalisation and extends this research to assess COVID-19 mortality. Our work also highlights the importance of the vaccination booster campaign, where the reduction in risk of death involving COVID-19 is most pronounced in individuals who had received a booster. What is already known on this topic The Omicron variant, which refers to the whole lineage (BA.1, BA.2, BA.3) had already been shown to be more transmissible than the Delta variant, but there is emerging evidence suggests that the risk of hospitalisation and risk of death within 28 days after a SARS-COV-2 test is lower. However, with a highly transmissible infection and high levels of population testing, definition of death within 28 days is more likely to be susceptible to misclassification bias due to asymptomatic or co-incidental infection. There is no study so far comparing the risk of COVID-19 death as identified from death certification records, with the cause of death assessed by the physician who attended the patient in the last illness. What this study adds Using data from a large cohort of COVID-19 infections that occurred in December 2021, we examined the difference in the risk COVID-19 death, as identified from death certification records, between the Delta and Omicron BA.1 variant. Our study shows that risk of death involving COVID-19 was reduced by 67% following infection with the Omicron BA.1 variant relative to the Delta variant after adjusting for a wide range of potential confounders, including vaccination status and comorbidities. Importantly, we found that the relative risk of COVID-19 mortality following Omicron versus Delta infection varied by age and sex, with lower relative risk in younger individuals and for males than females. The reduction in risk of death involving COVID-19 was also most pronounced in individuals who had received a booster.