The safety of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies used in prehospital treatment of Covid-19 (preprint)

Objective This proof-of-principle pharmacovigilance study used Electronic Health Record (EHR) data to examine the safety of sotrovimab, paxlovid and molnupiravir in prehospital treatment of Covid-19. Method With NHS England approval, we conducted an observational cohort study using OpenSAFELY-TPP, a secure software-platform which executes analyses across EHRs for 24 million people in England. High-risk individuals with Covid-19 eligible for prehospital treatment were included. Adverse events (AEs) were categorised into events in the drugs Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), drug-reactions and immune-mediated. Cox models compared risk across treatments. A pre-pandemic record analysis was performed for comparative purposes. Results Between 2021-2023, 37,449 patients received sotrovimab, paxlovid or molnupiravir whilst 109,647 patients made up an eligible-but-untreated population. The 29-day rates of AEs were low: SmPC 0.34 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 0.32-0.36); drug-reactions 0.01 (95% CI 0.01-0.02) and immune-mediated 0.03 (95% CI 0.03-0.04), and similar or lower than the pre-pandemic period. Compared with the eligible but untreated population, sotrovimab and paxlovid associated with a risk of SmPC AE [adjHR 1.36 (95% CI 1.15-1.62) and 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.55), respectively], whilst sotrovimab associated with a risk of drug-reactions [adjHR 2.95 (95% CI 1.56-5.55)] and immune-mediated events [adjHR 3.22 (95% CI 1.86-5.57)]. Conclusion Sotrovimab, paxlovid and molnupiravir demonstrate acceptable safety profiles. Although the risk of AEs was greatest with sotrovimab, event rates were lower than comparative pre-pandemic period.

Incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-level cohort study using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

ObjectiveTo use the OpenSAFELY platform to replicate key metrics from a national clinical audit, and assess the impact of COVID-19 on disease incidence and care delivery for inflammatory arthritis (IA) in England. DesignPopulation-based cohort study, with the approval of NHS England. SettingPrimary care and linked hospital outpatient data for more than 17 million people registered with general practices in England that use TPP electronic health record software. ParticipantsAdults (18-110 years) with new diagnoses of IA (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, undifferentiated IA) between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022. Main outcome measuresThe following outcomes were explored before and after April 2020: 1) incidence of IA diagnoses; 2) time from primary care referral to first rheumatology assessment; 3) time to first prescription of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) in primary care. ResultsFrom a reference population of 17,683,500 adults, there were 31,280 incident IA diagnoses between April 2019 and March 2022. The incidence of IA decreased by 20.3% in the year commencing April 2020, relative to the preceding year (5.1 vs. 6.4 diagnoses per 10,000 adults, respectively). For those who presented with IA, the time to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (median 18 days; interquartile range 8 to 35 days) than before (21 days; 9 to 41 days). Overall, the proportion of patients prescribed DMARDs in primary care was comparable during the pandemic to before; however, the choice of medication changed, with fewer people prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide during the pandemic, and more people prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine. ConclusionsThe incidence of IA diagnoses in England decreased markedly during the early COVID-19 pandemic. However, for people who sought medical attention, the impact of the pandemic on service delivery was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates that it is feasible to use routinely captured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality for long-term conditions on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection.

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.

Describing the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in people with psoriasis: findings from a global cross-sectional study (preprint)

Background Indirect excess morbidity has emerged as a major concern in the COVID-19 pandemic. People with psoriasis may be particularly vulnerable to this because of prevalent anxiety and depression, multimorbidity and therapeutic use of immunosuppression. Objective Characterise the factors associated with worsening psoriasis in the COVID-19 pandemic, using mental health status (anxiety and depression) as the main exposure of interest. Methods Global cross-sectional study using a primary outcome of self-reported worsening of psoriasis. Individuals with psoriasis completed an online self-report questionnaire (PsoProtectMe; Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection Me) between May 2020 and January 2021. Each individual completed a validated screen for anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Results 4,043 people with psoriasis (without COVID-19) from 86 countries self-reported to PsoProtectMe (mean age 47.2 years [SD 15.1]; mean BMI 27.6kg/m2 [SD 6.0], 2,684 [66.4%] female and 3,016 [74.6%] of white European ethnicity). 1,728 (42.7%) participants (1322 [77%] female) reported worsening of their psoriasis in the pandemic. A positive screen for anxiety or depression associated with worsening psoriasis in age and gender adjusted (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.77-2.36), and fully adjusted (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.72-2.34) logistic regression models. Female sex, obesity, shielding behaviour and systemic immunosuppressant non-adherence also associated with worsening psoriasis. The commonest reason for non-adherence was concern regarding complications related to COVID-19. Conclusions These data indicate an association between poor mental health and worsening psoriasis in the pandemic. Access to holistic care including psychological support may mitigate potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on health outcomes in psoriasis. The study also highlights an urgent need to address patient concerns about immunosuppressant-related risks, which may be contributing to non-adherence.

COVID-19-related acute kidney injury; temporal changes in incidence rate and outcomes in a large UK cohort (preprint)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and associated with worse prognosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology, risk factors and outcomes of AKI in patients with COVID-19 in a large UK tertiary centre. Methods: We analysed data of consecutive adults admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 across two sites of a hospital in London, UK, from 1st January to 13th May 2020. Results: Of the 1248 inpatients included, 487 (39%) experienced AKI (51% stage 1, 13% stage 2,and 36% stage 3). The weekly AKI incidence rate gradually increased to peak at week 5 (3.12 cases/100 patient-days), before reducing to its nadir (0.83 cases/100 patient-days) at the end the study period (week 10). Among AKI survivors, 84.0% had recovered renal function to pre-admission levels before discharge and none required on-going renal replacement therapy (RRT). Pre-existing renal impairment [odds ratio (OR) 3.05, 95%CI 2.24-4,18; p<0.0001], and inpatient diuretic use (OR 1.79, 95%CI 1.27-2.53; p<0.005) were independently associated with a higher risk for AKI. AKI was a strong predictor of 30-day mortality with an increasing risk across AKI stages [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95%CI 1.19-2.13) for stage 1; p<0.005, 2.71(95%CI 1.82-4.05); p<0.001for stage 2 and 2.99 (95%CI 2.17-4.11); p<0.001for stage 3]. One third of AKI3 survivors (30.7%), had newly established renal impairment at 3 to 6 months. Conclusions: This large UK cohort demonstrated a high AKI incidence with a changing pattern over time and was associated with increased mortality even at stage 1. Inpatient diuretic use was linked to a higher AKI risk. One third of survivors with AKI3 exhibited newly established renal impairment already at 3-6 months. 

Inpatient COVID-19 Mortality Has Reduced Over Time: Results from an Observational Cohort (preprint)

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves; the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes were different in the first and second waves.Methods: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and January 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone.Findings: There were 3,457 COVID-19 admissions, 2,494 hospital discharges and 619 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (25.7% versus 13.2%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.41(0.30, 0.56)p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 1.22(95%CI 0.91, 1.62),p=0.18] or dexamethasone [HR 1.31(95%CI 0.80, 2.14),p=0.29].Interpretation: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present.Funding: None.Conflict of Interest: None declared by authors.Ethical Approval: This project operated under London South East Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/LO/2048) approval granted to the King’s Electronic Records Research Interface (KERRI); specific work on COVID-19 research was reviewed with expert patient input on a virtual committee with Caldicott Guardian oversight.

Risk mitigating behaviours in people with inflammatory joint and skin disease during the COVID-19 pandemic differ by treatment type: a cross-sectional patient survey (preprint)

Objectives Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared to patients receiving no systemic treatments. We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation. Methods Online surveys were completed by individuals with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMD) (UK only) or psoriasis (globally) between 4th May and 7th September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterised international variation in a mixed effects model. Results Of 3,720 participants (2,869 psoriasis, 851 RMD) from 74 countries, 2,262 (60.8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term shielding). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and JAK inhibitors) reported shielding compared to those receiving no systemic therapy (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.35-1.97) and standard systemic agents (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22-1.56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 (male sex [OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24], obesity [OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.23-1.54], comorbidity burden [OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.15-1.78]), a primary indication of RMD (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.27-1.48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations. Conclusions Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues.

Hughes et al. (2020) 'I feel cancer patients have been neglected'. (preprint)

Purpose This study aimed to explore the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic including Government-enforced restrictions, on women diagnosed with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer in the UK using a mixed-methods approach. MethodsDepression (PHQ-2), anxiety (GAD-7), optimism (LOT-R) and perceived risk of recurrence (IPQ-BCS) were measured pre-COVID-19 outbreak and perceived vulnerability, severity and impact of COVID-19 were measured during the UK lockdown period of 23rd March-13th May 2020. Free text responses provided qualitative data. Descriptive statistics regarding COVID-19-specific behaviours and correlations between pre-COVID-19 psychosocial factors and COVID-19 outcomes were conducted. Thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative responses. Quantitative and qualitative data are presented together.Results253 responses were received during the UK lockdown period. Twenty-six percent of the sample were shielding and 15% felt at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Higher pre-COVID-19 depression and anxiety and lower optimism were associated with higher perceived vulnerability to and severity of COVID-19 and lower confidence in protecting oneself. There were positive and negative effects of lockdown on exercise and relationships and 42% reported negative impacts on anxiety. Participants reported fear of COVID-19, difficulties with adapting to isolation and using technology, and anxiety about the impact of delayed cancer treatment on their cancer recovery and recurrence. ConclusionsNegative effects of lockdown, particularly for delayed cancer treatment should be considered to manage ongoing anxiety. Screening of state depression and anxiety is suggested for intervention prioritisation, but more longitudinal research is needed to understand the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer survivors.

A case-control and cohort study to determine the relationship between ethnic background and severe COVID-19 (preprint)

BackgroundPeople of minority ethnic background may be disproportionately affected by severe COVID-19 for reasons that are unclear. We sought to examine the relationship between ethnic background and (1) hospital admission for severe COVID-19; (2) in-hospital mortality. MethodsWe conducted a case-control study of 872 inner city adult residents admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 (cases) and 3,488 matched controls randomly sampled from a primary healthcare database comprising 344,083 people resident in the same region. To examine in-hospital mortality, we conducted a cohort study of 1827 adults consecutively admitted with COVID-19. Data collected included hospital admission for COVID-19, demographics, comorbidities, in-hospital mortality. The primary exposure variable was self-defined ethnicity. ResultsThe 872 cases comprised 48.1% Black, 33.7% White, 12.6% Mixed/Other and 5.6% Asian patients. In conditional logistic regression analyses, Black and Mixed/Other ethnicity were associated with higher admission risk than white (OR 3.12 [95% CI 2.63-3.71] and 2.97 [2.30-3.85] respectively). Adjustment for comorbidities and deprivation modestly attenuated the association (OR 2.28 [1.87-2.79] for Black, 2.66 [2.01-3.52] for Mixed/Other). Asian ethnicity was not associated with higher admission risk (OR 1.20 [0.86-1.66]). In the cohort study of 1827 patients, 455 (28.9%) died over a median (IQR) of 8 (4-16) days. Age and male sex, but not Black (adjusted HR 0.84 [0.63-1.11]) or Mixed/Other ethnicity (adjusted HR 0.69 [0.43-1.10]), were associated with in-hospital mortality. Asian ethnicity was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 1.54 [0.98-2.41]). ConclusionsBlack and Mixed ethnicity are independently associated with greater admission risk with COVID-19 and may be risk factors for development of severe disease. Comorbidities and socioeconomic factors only partly account for this and additional ethnicity-related factors may play a large role. The impact of COVID-19 may be different in Asians. Funding sourcesBritish Heart Foundation (CH/1999001/11735 and RE/18/2/34213 to AMS); the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR BRC) at Guys & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London (IS-BRC-1215-20006); and the NIHR BRC at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London (IS-BRC-1215-20018).