Ursodeoxycholic acid and severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with liver disease: a cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform (preprint)

Biological evidence suggests ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) - a common treatment of cholestatic liver disease - may prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a population-based cohort study using primary care records, linked to death registration data and hospital records through the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. We estimated the hazard of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2022, comparing UDCA treatment to no UDCA treatment in a population with indication. Of 11,320 eligible individuals, 642 were hospitalised or died with COVID-19 during follow-up, 402 (63%) events among UDCA users. After confounder adjustment, UDCA was associated with a 21% (95% CI 7%-33%) relative reduction in the hazard of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death, consistent with an absolute risk reduction of 1.3% (95% CI 1.0%-1.6%). Our findings support calls for clinical trials investigating UDCA as a preventative measure for severe COVID-19 outcomes.

The impact of Long COVID on Health-Related Quality-of-life using OpenPROMPT (preprint)

Background: Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we developed OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Results We used data from 6,070 participants where 24.7% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a high probability of reporting loss in quality-of-life (OR: 22, 95% CI:12.35-39.29) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 60.2, 95% CI: 27.79-130.57) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Conclusions We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease.

Clinical coding of long COVID in primary care 2020-2023 in a cohort of 19 million adults: an OpenSAFELY analysis (preprint)

Background Long COVID is the patient-coined term for the persistent symptoms of COVID-19 illness for weeks, months or years following the acute infection. There is a large burden of long COVID globally from self-reported data, but the epidemiology, causes and treatments remain poorly understood. Primary care is used to help identify and treat patients with long COVID and therefore Electronic Health Records (EHRs) of past COVID-19 patients could be used to help fill these knowledge gaps. We aimed to describe those with long COVID in primary care records in England. Methods With the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from over 19 million adults in England linked to SARS-COV-2 test result, hospitalisation and vaccination data to describe trends in the recording of 16 clinical codes related to long COVID between November 2020 and January 2023. We calculated rates per 100,000 person-years and plotted how these changed over time. We compared crude and minimally adjusted rates of recorded long COVID in patient records between different key demographic and vaccination characteristics using negative binomial models. Findings We identified a total of 55,465 people recorded to have long COVID over the study period, with incidence of new long COVID records increasing steadily over 2021, and declining over 2022. The overall rate per 100,000 person-years was 177.5 cases in women (95% CI: 175.5-179) and 100.5 men (99.5-102). In terms of vaccination against COVID-19, the lowest rates were observed in those with 3+ vaccine doses (103.5 [95% CI: 101.5-105]). Finally, the majority of those with a long COVID record did not have a recorded positive SARS-COV-2 test 12 weeks before the long COVID record. Interpretation EHR recorded long COVID remains very low compared and incident records of long COVID declined over 2022. We found the lowest rates of recorded long COVID in people with 3 or more vaccine doses. We summarised several sources of possible bias for researchers using EHRs to study long COVID. Funding This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073))

Fit notes associated with COVID-19 in 24 million patients' primary care records: A cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

Background: Fit notes ("sick notes") are issued by general practitioners (GPs) when a person can't work for health reasons and is an indication of the public health and economic burden for people recovering from COVID-19. Methods: With NHS England approval, we used routine clinical data from >24 million patients to compare fit note incidence in people 18-64 years with and without evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022. We fit Cox regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios, overall and by time post-diagnosis and within demographic subgroups. Results: We identified 365,421, 1,206,555 and 1,321,313 people with evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022. The fit note rate was 4.88 per 100 person-months (95%CI 4.83-4.93) in 2020, 2.66 (95%CI 2.64-2.67) in 2021, and 1.73 (95%CI 1.72-1.73) in 2022. Compared with the age, sex and region matched general population, the hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for demographics and clinical characteristics over the follow-up period was 4.07 (95%CI 4.02-4.12) in 2020 decreasing to 1.57 (95%CI 1.56-1.58) in 2022. The HR was highest in the first 30 days in all years. Conclusions: Despite likely underestimation of the fit note rate, we identified a considerable increase among people with COVID-19, even in an era when most people are vaccinated. Most fit notes are associated with the acute phase of the disease, but the increased risk several months post-diagnosis provides further evidence of the long-term impact.

Living alone and mental health: parallel analyses in longitudinal population surveys and electronic health records prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Objectives: To describe the mental health gap between those who live alone and those who live with others, and to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on this gap. Design: Ten population based prospective cohort studies, and a retrospective descriptive cohort study based on electronic health records (EHRs). Setting: UK Longitudinal population-based surveys (LPS), and primary and secondary care records within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants: Participants from the LPS were included if they had information on living status in early 2020, valid data on mental ill-health at the closest pre-pandemic assessment and at least once during the pandemic, and valid data on a key minimum set of covariates. The EHR dataset included 16 million adults registered with primary care practices in England using TPP SystmOne software on 1st February 2020, with at least three months of registration, valid address data, and living in households of <16 people. Main outcome measures: In the LPS, self-reported survey measures of psychological distress and life satisfaction were assessed in the nearest pre-pandemic sweep and three periods during the pandemic: April-June 2020, July-October 2020, and November 2020-March 2021. In the EHR analyses, outcomes were morbidity codes recorded in primary or secondary care between March 2018 and January 2022 reflecting the diagnoses of depression, self-harm, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, and severe mental illnesses. Results: The LPS consisted of 37,544 participants (15.2% living alone) and we found greater psychological distress (SMD: 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.14) and lower life satisfaction (SMD: -0.22 (95% CI: -0.30, -0.15) in those living alone pre-pandemic, and the gap between the two groups stayed similar after the onset of the pandemic. In the EHR analysis of almost 16 million records (21.4% living alone), codes indicating mental health conditions were more common in those who lived alone compared to those who lived with others (e.g., depression 26 and severe mental illness 58 cases more per 100,000). Recording of mental health conditions fell during the pandemic for common mental health disorders and the gap between the two groups narrowed. Conclusions: Multiple sources of data indicate that those who live alone experience greater levels of common and severe mental illnesses, and lower life satisfaction. During the pandemic this gap in need remained, however, there was a narrowing of the gap in service use, suggesting greater barriers to healthcare access for those who live alone.

Comparative effectiveness of Paxlovid versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised patients: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform (preprint)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of Paxlovid vs. sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients. Design: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Setting: Patient-level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering a period where both Paxlovid and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings. Participants: Non-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high risk of severe outcomes treated with Paxlovid, sotrovimab or molnupiravir between February 11, 2022 and October 1, 2022. Interventions: Paxlovid, sotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units. Main outcome measure: COVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation. Results: A total of 7683 eligible patients treated with Paxlovid (n=4836) and sotrovimab (n=2847) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 54.3 (SD=14.9) years; 64% were female, 93% White and 93% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 52 (0.68%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (33 (0.68%) treated with Paxlovid and 19 (0.67%) with sotrovimab). Cox proportional hazards model stratified by region showed that after adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, treatment with Paxlovid was associated with a similar risk of outcome event as treatment with sotrovimab (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.62 to 2.08; P=0.673). Results from propensity score weighted Cox model also showed comparable risks in these two treatment groups (HR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.71; P=0.700). An exploratory analysis comparing Paxlovid users with 802 molnupiravir users (11 (1.37%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed some evidence in favour of Paxlovid but with variation in the effect estimates between models (HR ranging from 0.26 to 0.61). Conclusion: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received Paxlovid and sotrovimab between February and October 2022, when different subvariants of Omicron were dominant.

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

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

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR linked platform and SRR database (preprint)

Background Patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT; dialysis and kidney transplantation) are at the highest risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Due to limited inclusion of patients on KRT in clinical trials, information is limited on the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody). We sought to address this by comparing its effectiveness against molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Methods With the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT, and data on antiviral treatments, COVID-19 test results, hospitalisation events and death from the OpenSAFELY-TPP data resource. Cox proportional hazards models (stratified for region) were used to estimate hazard ratios of sotrovimab vs. molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19 related hospitalisation or deaths in the subsequent 28 days (as the primary outcome). Further analyses were conducted using propensity score weighting (adjusted for region) and to investigate robustness of results with regards to different time periods, missing data, and adjustment variables. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from patients in the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR) treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir, following similar analytical approaches. Results Among the 2367 renal patients treated with sotrovimab (n=1852) or molnupiravir (n=515) between December 16, 2021 and August 1, 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed during the 28 days of follow-up after treatment initiation, with 21 (1.1%) in the sotrovimab group and 17 (3.3%) in the molnupiravir group. In multiple-adjusted analysis sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio, HR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.71; P=0.004), with results remaining robust in sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, there were 19 cases (1.9%) of COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths during the 28 days of follow-up after treatment initiation of sotrovimab (n=723) or molnupiravir (n=270). In multiple-adjusted analysis, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death than treatment with molnupiravir (HR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.13 to 1.21; P=0.106). In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranging from 0.73-1.20; P>0.05). Conclusions In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on kidney replacement therapy, those who received sotrovimab had substantially lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study (preprint)

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study to estimate the comparative effectiveness of schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n=257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n=169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n=220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n=157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations.

OpenSAFELY: Representativeness of Electronic Health Record platform OpenSAFELY-TPP data compared to the population of England. (preprint)

BackgroundSince its inception in March 2020, data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP electronic health record platform has been used for more than 50 studies relating to the global COVID-19 emergency. OpenSAFELY-TPP data is derived from practices in England using SystmOne software, and has been used for the majority of these studies. We set out to investigate the representativeness of OpenSAFELY-TPP data by comparing it to national population estimates. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we describe the age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation and ethnicity of the OpenSAFELY-TPP population compared to national estimates from the Office for National Statistics. The five leading causes of death occurring between the 1st January 2020 and the 31st December 2020 were also compared to deaths registered in England during the same period. ResultsDespite regional variations, TPP is largely representative of the general population of England in terms of IMD (all within 1.1 percentage points), age, sex (within 0.1 percentage points), ethnicity and causes of death. The proportion of the five leading causes of death is broadly similar to those reported by ONS (all within 1 percentage point). ConclusionsData made available via OpenSAFELY-TPP is broadly representative of the English population. SummaryUsers of OpenSAFELY must consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research. Although the coverage of TPP practices varies regionally across England, TPP registered patients are generally representative of the English population as a whole in terms of key demographic characteristics. Key messagesO_LIThere is regional variability across England in terms of key population characteristics C_LIO_LIUsers of OpenSAFELY should carefully consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research. C_LIO_LITPP registered patients are a representative sub-sample of the English population as a whole in terms of age, sex, IMD and ethnicity. C_LIO_LIThe proportions of the five leading causes of death in TPP in 2020 are broadly similar to those reported by ONS. C_LI

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundKidney disease is a significant risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Achieving high COVID-19 vaccine coverage among people with kidney disease is therefore a public health priority. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people in England were included. A cohort of individuals with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate or inclusion in the UK Renal Registry. Individual-level factors associated with vaccine uptake were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. Results948,845 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 11th May 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0%, and 93.5% for doses 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 61.1% among individuals with one or more indications for receipt of a fourth dose. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with non-White ethnicity, social deprivation, and severe mental illness - associations that were consistent across CKD stages and in RRT recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake, which was also delayed among care home residents. ConclusionAlthough high primary and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across demographic groups. Identifying how to address these disparities remains a priority to reduce the risk of severe disease in this vulnerable patient group.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 booster doses in England: an observational study in OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

Background The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered its first "booster" doses in September 2021, initially in groups at high risk of severe disease then across the adult population. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, with Moderna mRNA-1273 subsequently also used. Methods We used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of English primary care practices and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses between 16 September and 16 December 2021 when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Follow up was for up to 10 weeks. Each booster recipient was matched with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior immunisation. Additional factors were adjusted for in Cox models estimating hazard ratios (HRs). Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and non-COVID-9 death. Booster vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1-HR. Results Among 4,352,417 BNT162b2 booster recipients matched with unboosted controls, estimated effectiveness of a booster dose compared with two doses only was 50.7% (95% CI 50.1-51.3) for positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 80.1% (78.3-81.8) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, 88.5% (85.0-91.1) for COVID-19 death, and 80.3% (79.0-81.5) for non-COVID-19 death. Estimated effectiveness was similar among those who had received a BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S two-dose primary vaccination course, but effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was slightly lower in those classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (76.3% (73.1-79.1) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, and 85.1% (79.6-89.1) for COVID-19 death). Estimated effectiveness against each outcome was lower in those aged 18-65 years than in those aged 65 and over. Conclusion Our findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised patients: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform (preprint)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) vs. molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients. Design: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Setting: Patient-level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission and death within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering a period where both medications were frequently prescribed in community settings. Participants: Non-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high-risk of severe outcomes treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir between December 16, 2021 and February 10, 2022. Interventions: Sotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units. Main outcome measure: COVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation. Results: Patients treated with sotrovimab (n=3288) and molnupiravir (n=2663) were similar with respect to most baseline characteristics. The mean age of all 5951 patients was 52 (SD=16) years; 59% were female, 89% White and 87% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 84 (1.4%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (31 treated with sotrovimab and 53 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio, HR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.88; P=0.014). Consistent results were obtained from propensity score weighted Cox models (HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.83; P=0.007) and when restricted to fully vaccinated people (HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.90; P=0.020). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction>0.10). Conclusion: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.

Accident and emergency (AE) attendance in England following infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron or Delta (preprint)

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is increasing in prevalence around the world. Accurate estimation of disease severity associated with Omicron is critical for pandemic planning. We found lower risk of accident and emergency (AE) attendance following SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron compared to Delta (HR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.30 - 0.51; P<.0001). For AE attendances that lead to hospital admission, Omicron was associated with an 85% lower hazard compared with Delta (HR: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.09 - 0.24; P<.0001)). Conflicts of InterestsNothing to declare. Funding statementThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1. TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data centre pro bono in the context of a national emergency. Rosalind Eggo is funded by HDR UK (grant: MR/S003975/1), MRC (grant: MC_PC 19065), NIHR (grant: NIHR200908).

Describing the population experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough following second vaccination in England: A cohort study from OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Background While the vaccines against COVID-19 are considered to be highly effective, COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough is likely and a small number of people will still fall ill, be hospitalised, or die from COVID-19, despite being fully vaccinated. With the continued increase in numbers of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, describing the characters of individuals who have experienced a COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough could be hugely important in helping to determine who may be at greatest risk. Method We conducted a retrospective cohort study using routine clinical data from the OpenSAFELY TPP database of fully vaccinated individuals, linked to secondary care and death registry data, and described the characteristics of those experiencing a COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough. Results As of 30th June 2021, a total of 10,782,870 individuals were identified as being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, with a median follow-up time of 43 days (IQR: 23-64). From within this population, a total of 16,815 (0.1%) individuals reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. For every 1000 years of patient follow-up time, the corresponding incidence rate was 12.33 (95% CI 12.14-12.51). There were 955 COVID-19 hospital admissions and 145 COVID-19-related deaths; corresponding incidence rates of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.74) and 0.12 (95% CI 0.1-0.14), respectively. When broken down by the initial priority group, higher rates of hospitalisation and death were seen in those in care homes. Comorbidities with the highest rates of breakthrough COVID-19 included renal replacement therapy, organ transplant, haematological malignancy, and immunocompromised. Conclusion The majority of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases in England were mild with relatively few fully vaccinated individuals being hospitalised or dying as a result. However, some concerning differences in rates of breakthrough cases were identified in several clinical and demographic groups, The continued increase in numbers of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests are concerning and, as numbers of fully vaccinated individuals increases and follow-up time lengthens, so too will the number of COVID-19 breakthrough cases. Additional analyses, aimed at identifying individuals at higher risk, are therefore required.

Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in Health and Social Care workers in England: a cohort study using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Background: The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered both the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines during overlapping periods, providing a rare opportunity to emulate a trial that directly compares both vaccines using routinely-collected NHS data. Frontline Health and Social Care workers comprise a useful population to assess comparative effectiveness due to early vaccine eligibility and relatively high post-vaccination transmission risk due to occupational exposure. Methods: With the approval of NHS England we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of GP practices in England and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to compare the effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 in 1/3 million health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021. Recipients were followed-up for 20 weeks. Second-dose effects were estimated under an intention-to-treat strategy. Primary outcomes were recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related accident and emergency attendance, and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Results: The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks post-vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 6 weeks after vaccination with BNT162b2 was 19.2 per 1000 people (95%CI 18.6 to 19.7) and with ChAdOx1 was 18.9 (95%CI 17.6 to 20.3), representing a difference of -0.24 per 1000 people (95%CI -1.71 to 1.22). The difference in the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 accident and emergency attendance at 6 weeks was 0.01 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.27 to 0.28). For COVID-19 hospital admission, this difference was 0.03 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.22 to 0.27). Conclusion: 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 after 3-4 weeks and there were very few COVID-19 hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine-induced immunity, and suggests strong protection against COVID-19 disease for both vaccines.

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

BackgroundIt is unclear if people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) (joint, bowel and skin) and on immune modifying therapy have increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we conducted a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY, analysing routinely-collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders) to estimate hazard ratios (HR) comparing risk of COVID-19-death, death/critical care admission, and hospitalisation (March to September 2020) in: 1) people with IMIDs compared to the general population; and 2) people with IMIDs on targeted immune modifying drugs (e.g., biologics) compared to standard systemic treatment (e.g., methotrexate). FindingsWe identified 17,672,065 adults; of 1,163,438 (7%) with IMIDs, 19,119 people received targeted immune modifying drugs, and 200,813 received standard systemics. We saw evidence of increased COVID-19-death (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27), and COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35) in individuals with IMIDs overall compared to individuals without IMIDs of the same age, sex, deprivation and smoking status. We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19 deaths with targeted compared to standard systemic treatments (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.80, 1.33). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in those prescribed TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23, IL7, IL-6 or JAK inhibitors compared to standard systemics. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19 death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56); however, this finding may relate to confounding. InterpretationCOVID-19 death and hospitalisation was higher in people with IMIDs. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune modifying drugs for IMIDs compared to standard systemics. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed on May 19th, 2021, using the terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2" and "rheumatoid arthritis", "psoriatic arthritis" "ankylosing spondylitis", "Crohns disease" "ulcerative colitis" "hidradenitis suppurativa" and "psoriasis", to identify primary research articles examining severe COVID-19 outcome risk in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and those on immune modifying therapy. The studies identified (including matched cohort studies and studies in disease-specific registries) were limited by small sample sizes and number of outcomes. Most studies did not show a signal of increased adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on targeted therapies, with the exception of rituximab. Additionally, disease- specific registries are subject to selection bias and lack denominator populations. Added value of the studyIn our large population-based study of 17 million individuals, including 1 million people with IMIDs and just under 200,000 receiving immune modifying medications, we saw evidence that people with IMIDs had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared to the general population after adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, deprivation, smoking status) (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27). We saw differences by IMID type, with COVID-19-related death being increased by the most in people with inflammatory joint disease (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.40, 1.54). We also saw some evidence that those with IMIDs were more likely, compared to the general population, to have COVID-19-related critical care admission/death (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.21, 1.28) and hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35). Compared to people with IMIDs taking standard systemics, we saw no evidence of differences in severe COVID-19-related outcomes with TNF inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors and JAK inhibitors. However, there was some evidence that rituximab was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56) and death/critical care admission (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.31, 2.81). We also saw evidence of an increase in COVID-19-related hospital admissions in people prescribed rituximab (HR 1.59, 95%CI 1.16, 2.18) or JAK inhibition (HR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09, 3.01) compared to those on standard systemics, although this could be related to worse underlying health rather than the drugs themselves, and numbers of events were small. This is the first study to our knowledge to use high-cost drug data on medicines supplied by hospitals at a national scale in England (to identify targeted therapies). The availability of these data fills an important gap in the medication record of those with more specialist conditions treated by hospitals creating an important opportunity to generate insights to these conditions and these medications Implications of all of the available evidenceOur study offers insights into future risk mitigation strategies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination priorities for individuals with IMIDs, as it highlights that those with IMIDs and those taking rituximab may be at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Critically, our study does not show a link between most targeted immune modifying medications compared to standard systemics and severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, the increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes that we saw in people with IMIDs and those treated with rituximab merits further study.

Recording of 'COVID-19 vaccine declined' among vaccination priority groups: a cohort study on 57.9 million NHS patients' primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

BackgroundAll patients in England within vaccine priority groups were offered a COVID-19 vaccine by mid-April 2021. Clinical record systems contain codes to denote when such an offer has been declined by a patient (although these can in some cases be entered for a variety of other reasons including vaccination delay, or other administrative issues). We set out to describe the patterns of usage of codes for COVID-19 vaccines being declined. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England and using the full pseudonymised primary care records for 57.9 million NHS patients, we identified all patients in key vaccine priority groups: aged over 50, or over 16 and at increased risk from COVID-19 (Clinically Extremely Vulnerable [CEV] or otherwise "at risk"). We describe the proportion of patients recorded as declining a COVID-19 vaccination for each priority group, and by other clinical and demographic factors; whether patients recorded as "declined" subsequently went on to receive a vaccination; and the distribution of code usage across GP practices. ResultsOf 24.5 million patients in priority groups as of May 25th 2021, 89.2% had received a vaccine, 8.8% had neither a vaccination nor a decline recorded, and 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline code recorded. Of patients with a recorded decline, 125,587 (18.9%) were subsequently vaccinated. Subsequent vaccination was slightly more common in the South Asian population than other ethnicities (e.g. 32.3% vs 22.8%, over 65s). The proportion of declining-unvaccinated patients varied strongly with ethnicity (Black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, White 1.5% in over 80s); and was higher in patients from more deprived areas. COVID-19 vaccine decline codes were present in almost all practices (98.8%), but with wide variation between practices in rates of usage. Among all priority groups, declining-unvaccinated status was most common in CEV (3.3%). ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are widely used in English general practice. They are substantially more common among Black and South Asian patients, and patients from more deprived areas. There is a need for more detailed survey and/or qualitative research with patients and clinicians to determine the most common reasons for these recorded declines.

Mortality among Care Home Residents in England during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of 4.3 million adults over the age of 65 (preprint)

Background: Residents in care homes have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe trends in risk of mortality among care home residents compared to residents in private homes in England. Methods: On behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY-TPP, an analytics platform running across the linked electronic health records of approximately a third of the English population, 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 the Care and Quality Commission. Findings: We included 4,329,078 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 non-residents in February 2019 residents (CMF = 10.59, 95%CI = 9.51, 11.81 among women, CMF = 10.82, 95%CI = 9.89, 11.84 among men). This increased to more than 17 times in April 2020 (CMF = 17.52, 95%CI = 16.38, 18.74 among women, CMF = 18.12, 95%CI = 17.17, 19.12 among men) before returning to pre-pandemic levels in June 2020. CMFs did not increase during the second wave, despite a rise in the absolute age-standardised COVID-19 mortality risks. Interpretation: The first COVID-19 wave had a disproportionate impact on care home residents in England compared to older private home residents. A degree of immunity, improved protective measures or changes in the underlying frailty of the populations may explain the lack of an increase in the relative mortality risks during the second wave. The care home population should be prioritised for measures aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19.

Clinical coding of long COVID in English primary care: a federated analysis of 58 million patient records in situ using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

BackgroundLong COVID is a term to describe new or persistent symptoms at least four weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were released in November 2020 in the UK, but it is not known how these codes have been used in practice. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY data encompassing 96% of the English population. We measured the proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID, overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system, and week. We also measured variation in recording amongst practices. ResultsLong COVID was recorded for 23,273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed amongst practices, with 26.7% of practices having not used the codes at all. Regional variation was high, ranging between 20.3 per 100,000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval 19.3-21.4) and 55.6 in London (95% CI 54.1-57.1). The rate was higher amongst women (52.1, 95% CI 51.3-52.9) compared to men (28.1, 95% CI 27.5-28.7), and higher amongst practices using EMIS software (53.7, 95% CI 52.9-54.4) compared to TPP software (20.9, 95% CI 20.3-21.4). ConclusionsLong COVID coding in primary care is low compared with early reports of long COVID prevalence. This may reflect under-coding, sub-optimal communication of clinical terms, under-diagnosis, a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians, or a combination of factors. We recommend increased awareness of diagnostic codes, to facilitate research and planning of services; and surveys of clinicians experiences, to complement ongoing patient surveys.