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.

Absolute and relative excess mortality across demographic and clinical subgroups during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual-level cohort study from a nationwide healthcare system of US Veterans (preprint)

Background. Most analyses of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic have employed aggregate data. Individual-level data from the largest integrated healthcare system in the US may enhance understanding of excess mortality. Methods. We performed an observational cohort study following patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022. We estimated excess mortality on an absolute scale (i.e., excess mortality rates, number of excess deaths), and a relative scale by measuring the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality comparing pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, overall, and within demographic and clinical subgroups. Comorbidity burden and frailty were measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index, respectively. Results. Of 5,905,747 patients, median age was 65.8 years and 91% were men. Overall, the excess mortality rate was 10.0 deaths/1000 person-years (PY), with a total of 103,164 excess deaths and pandemic HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.25-1.26). Excess mortality rates were highest among the most frail patients (52.0/1000 PY) and those with the highest comorbidity burden (16.3/1000 PY). However, the largest relative mortality increases were observed among the least frail (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30-1.32) and those with the lowest comorbidity burden (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.43-1.46). Conclusions. Individual-level data offered crucial clinical and operational insights into US excess mortality patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable differences emerged among clinical risk groups, emphasising the need for reporting excess mortality in both absolute and relative terms to inform resource allocation in future outbreaks.

COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy and the risk of major congenital anomalies: a national population-based cohort study (preprint)

Evidence on associations between COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of congenital anomalies is limited. We conducted a national, population-based, matched cohort study to estimate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and, separately, SARS-CoV-2 infection between six weeks pre-conception and 19 weeks and six days gestation and the risk of [1] any congenital anomaly and; [2] non-genetic anomalies. Mothers vaccinated in this pregnancy exposure period mostly received an mRNA vaccine (73.7% Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and 7.9% Moderna mRNA-1273). Of the 6,731 babies whose mothers were vaccinated in the pregnancy exposure period, 153 had any congenital anomaly and 120 had a non-genetic anomaly. Primary analyses found no association between vaccination and any anomaly (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.01, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.83–1.24) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.81–1.22). Primary analyses also found no association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and any anomaly (aOR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.66–1.60) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.57–1.54). Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. These data provide reassurance on the safety of vaccination, in particular mRNA vaccines, just before or in early pregnancy.

Early pregnancy outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a national population-based matched cohort study (preprint)

There are limited data regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in early pregnancy. This may contribute to vaccine hesitancy in people who are pregnant, or who are planning pregnancy. We conducted a population-level matched cohort study assessing associations between COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage (pregnancy loss prior to 20 weeks gestation) and ectopic pregnancy. We used electronic health records of all female residents in Scotland who were vaccinated between 6 weeks preconception and 19 weeks 6 days gestation (for miscarriage; n = 18,780) or 2 weeks 6 days gestation (for ectopic; n = 10,570). Primary analyses used unvaccinated women from the pre-pandemic period as controls (historical controls) matched (3:1) on maternal age, gestational age at vaccination, and season of conception; with adjustment for maternal deprivation level, rural/urban status and clinical vulnerability. Supplementary analyses used unvaccinated women from the pandemic period as controls (contemporary controls). Analyses of outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection were undertaken with infection rather than vaccination as the exposure. Following COVID-19 vaccination, the rate of miscarriage was 9.1% (n = 1,716) and ectopic pregnancy 1.2% (n = 126). Primary analyses found no association between vaccination and miscarriage (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.96–1.09) or ectopic pregnancy (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.92–1.38). Primary analyses also found no association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Results of supplementary analyses were similar to primary analyses. Given that SARS-CoV-2 infection in later pregnancy carries substantial risks to women and babies, our findings support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies from COVID-19.

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.

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).

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

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 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 (01/02/2020-31/08/2020) and 2 731 427 in wave 2 (01/09/2020-31/01/2021). Findings 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 3 other generations vs 67+ year olds only: White 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. Interpretation Multigenerational living was 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. 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. Funding This research was funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Trends, regional variation and clinical characteristics of recipients of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for non-hospitalised COVID-19: a descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY (preprint)

ObjectivesAscertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for COVID-19 in community settings in England. DesignCohort study, approved by NHS England. SettingRoutine clinical data from 23.4m people linked to data on COVID-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. ParticipantsNon-hospitalised COVID-19 patients at high-risk of severe outcomes. InterventionsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab or remdesivir, administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units. ResultsWe identified 102,170 non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between 11th December 2021 and 28th April 2022 at high-risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral and/or nMAB treatment. Of these patients, 18,210 (18%) received treatment; sotrovimab, 9,340 (51%); molnupiravir, 4,500 (25%); Paxlovid, 4,290 (24%); casirivimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 20 (<1%). The proportion of patients treated increased from 8% (180/2,380) in the first week of treatment availability to 22% (420/1870) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, lowest in those with Liver disease (12%; 95% CI 11 to 13); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir/Paxlovid in all but three high risk groups: Down syndrome (36%; 95% CI 31 to 40), Rare neurological conditions (46%; 95% CI 44 to 48), and Primary immune deficiencies (49%; 95% CI 48 to 51); by ethnicity, from Black (10%; 95% CI 9 to 11) to White (18%; 95% CI 18 to 19); by NHS Region, from 11% (95% CI 10 to 12) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 23% (95% CI 22 to 24) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, from 12% (95% CI 12 to 13) in the most deprived areas to 21% (95% CI 21 to 22) in the least deprived areas. There was also lower coverage among unvaccinated patients (5%; 95% CI 4 to 7), those with dementia (5%; 95% CI 4 to 6) and care home residents (6%; 95% CI 5 to 6). ConclusionsUsing the OpenSAFELY platform we were able to identify patients who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments amongst these patients. Targeted activity may be needed to address apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, socioeconomically deprived areas, and care homes. What is already known about this topicSince the emergence of COVID-19, a number of approaches to treatment have been tried and evaluated. These have mainly consisted of treatments such as dexamethasone, which were used in UK hospitals,from early on in the pandemic to prevent progression to severe disease. Until recently (December 2021), no treatments have been widely used in community settings across England. What this study addsFollowing the rollout of antiviral medicines and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMABs) as treatment for patients with COVID-19, we were able to identify patients who were potentially eligible to receive antivirals or nMABs and assess the coverage of these new treatments amongst these patients, in as close to real-time as the available data flows would support. While the proportion of the potentially eligible patients receiving treatment increased over time, rising from 8% (180/2,380) in the first week of the roll out to 22% (420/1870) in the last week of April 2022, there were variations in coverage between key clinical, geographic, and demographic subgroup. How this study might affect research, practice, or policyTargeted activity may therefore be needed to address lower treatment rates observed among certain geographic areas and key groups including ethnic minorities, people living in areas of higher deprivation, and in care homes.

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.

Overall and cause-specific hospitalisation and death after COVID-19 hospitalisation in England: cohort study in OpenSAFELY using linked primary care, secondary care and death registration data (preprint)

Background: There is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute COVID-19, but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods and Findings: Working on behalf of NHS-England, we used linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February-December 2020), and (i) demographically-matched controls from the 2019 general population; (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017-19. We used Cox regression adjusted for personal and clinical characteristics. 24,673 post-discharge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls were followed for [≤]315 days. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (adjusted-HR 2.23, 2.14-2.31) but similar to the influenza group (adjusted-HR 0.94, 0.91-0.98). All-cause mortality (7439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (adjusted-HR 4.97, 4.58-5.40 vs general population controls and 1.73, 1.60-1.87 vs influenza controls). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than general population controls, and largely comparable between COVID-19 and influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted/die due to their initial infection/other lower respiratory tract infection (adjusted-HR 1.37, 1.22-1.54), and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission/death (adjusted-HR 1.36, 1.01-2.83); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with pre-existing dementia had higher risk of dementia death. One limitation of our study is that reasons for hospitalisation/death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes. Conclusions: People discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations; but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmissions/death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of post-discharge monitoring.

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.

Factors associated with excess all-cause mortality in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a time-series analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (preprint)

Objectives: Excess mortality captures the total effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality and is not affected by mis-specification of cause of death. We aimed to describe how health and demographic factors have been associated with excess mortality during the pandemic. Design: Time-series analysis. Setting: UK primary care data from practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink on July 31st 2020. Participants: We constructed a time-series dataset including 9,635,613 adults ([≥]40 years old) who were actively registered at the general practice during the study period. Main outcome measures: We extracted weekly numbers of deaths between March 2015 and July 2020, stratified by individual-level factors. Excess mortality during wave 1 of the UK pandemic (5th March to 27th May 2020) compared to pre-pandemic was estimated using seasonally adjusted negative binomial regression models. Relative rates of death for a range of factors were estimated before and during wave 1 by including interaction terms. Results: All-cause mortality increased by 43% (95% CI 40%-47%) during wave 1 compared with pre-pandemic. Changes to the relative rate of death associated with most socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were small during wave 1 compared with pre-pandemic. However, the mortality rate associated with dementia markedly increased (RR for dementia vs no dementia pre-pandemic: 3.5, 95% CI 3.4-3.5; RR during wave 1: 5.1, 4.87-5.28); a similar pattern was seen for learning disabilities (RR pre-pandemic: 3.6, 3.4-3.5; during wave 1: 4.8, 4.4-5.3), for Black or South Asian ethnicity compared to white, and for London compared to other regions. Conclusions: The first UK COVID-19 wave appeared to amplify baseline mortality risk by a relatively constant factor for most population subgroups. However disproportionate increases in mortality were seen for those with dementia, learning disabilities, non-white ethnicity, or living in London.

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.

Association between oral anticoagulants and COVID-19 related outcomes: two cohort studies (preprint)

Objectives: We investigated the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes, comparing current OAC use versus non-use in Study 1; and warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Study 2. Design: Two cohort studies, on behalf of NHS England. Setting: Primary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. Participants: Study 1: 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2. Study 2: 372,746 people with non-valvular AF. Main outcome measures: Time to test for SARS-CoV-2, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 related hospital admission, COVID-19 deaths or non-COVID-19 deaths in Cox regression. Results: In Study 1, we included 52,416 current OAC users and 18,048 non-users. We observed no difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 associated with current use (adjusted HR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.05) versus non-use. We observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR, 0.73, 95%CI, 0.60 to 0.90), and COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.69, 95%CI, 0.49 to 0.97) associated with current use versus non-use. In Study 2, we included 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users. We observed a lower risk of COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.79, 95%CI, 0.76 to 0.83) associated with warfarin versus DOACs. Similar associations were found for all other outcomes. Conclusions: Among people with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, those receiving OACs had a lower risk of receiving a positive COVID-19 test and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk. There was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs in people with non-valvular AF regardless of CHA2DS2-VASc score.

OpenSAFELY: Risks of COVID-19 hospital admission and death for people with learning disabilities - a cohort study. (preprint)

ObjectivesTo assess the association between learning disability and risk of hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19 in England among adults and children. DesignWorking on behalf of NHS England, two cohort studies using patient-level data for >17 million people from primary care electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics and hospitalization data from NHS Secondary Uses Service using the OpenSAFELY platform. SettingGeneral practices in England which use TPP software. ParticipantsParticipants were males and females, aged up to 105 years, from two cohorts: (1) wave 1, registered with a TPP practice as of 1st March 2020 and followed until 31st August, 2020; (2) wave 2 registered 1st September 2020 and followed until 31st December 2020 (for admissions) or 8th February 2021 (for deaths). The main exposure group was people included on a general practice learning disability register (LDR), with a subgroup of people classified as having profound or severe learning disability. We also identified patients with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy (whether or not on the learning disability register). Main outcome measures(i) COVID-19 related death, (ii) COVID-19 related hospitalisation. Non-COVID-19 related death was also explored. ResultsIn wave 1, of 14,301,415 included individuals aged 16 and over, 90,095 (0.63%) were identified as being on the LDR. 30,173 COVID-related hospital admissions, 13,919 COVID-19 related deaths and 69,803 non-COVID deaths occurred; of which 538 (1.8%), 221 (1.6%) and 596 (0.85%) were among individuals on the LDR, respectively. In wave 2, 27,611 COVID-related hospital admissions, 17,933 COVID-19 related deaths and 54,171 non-COVID deaths occurred; of which 383 (1.4%), 260 (1.4%) and 470 (0.87%) were among individuals on the LDR. Wave 1 hazard ratios for individuals on the LDR, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity and geographical location, were 5.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9, 5.8) for COVID-19 related hospital admissions and 8.2 (95% CI: 7.1, 9.4) for COVID-19 related death. Wave 2 produced similar estimates. Associations were stronger among those classed as severe-profound and among those in residential care. Down syndrome and cerebral palsy were associated with increased hazard of both events in both waves; Down syndrome to a much greater extent. Hazards of non-COVID-19 related death followed similar patterns with weaker associations. ConclusionsPeople with learning disabilities have markedly increased risks of hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19. This raised risk is over and above that seen for non-COVID causes of death. Ensuring prompt access to Covid-19 testing and health care and consideration of prioritisation for COVID-19 vaccination and other targeted preventive measures are warranted.

Case fatality risk of the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.1.7 in England (preprint)

The B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC) is increasing in prevalence across Europe. Accurate estimation of disease severity associated with this VOC is critical for pandemic planning. We found increased risk of death for VOC compared with non-VOC cases in England (HR: 1.67 (95% CI: 1.34 - 2.09; P