Comparative safety and effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 versus Sanofi during the spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England: a matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

Introduction: The spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines. All people aged 75 years or over and the clinically vulnerable were eligible to receive a booster dose. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness of these two vaccines in boosting protection against severe COVID-19 events have not been made in trials or observational data. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to compare effectiveness of the Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines during the spring 2023 booster programme, between 1 April and 30 June 2023. We investigated two cohorts separately: those aged 75 or over (75+); and those aged 50 or over and clinically vulnerable (CV). In each cohort, vaccine recipients were matched on date of vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine history, age, and other characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes were COVID-19 hospital admission, COVID-19 critical care admission, and COVID-19 death up to 16 weeks after vaccination. Safety outcomes were pericarditis and myocarditis up to 4 weeks after vaccination. We report the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and compare safety and effectiveness using risk differences (RD), relative risks (RR), and incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results 492,642 people were 1-1 matched in the CV cohort, and 673,926 in the 75+ cohort, contributing a total of 7,423,251 and 10,173,230 person-weeks of follow-up, respectively. The incidence of COVID-19 hospital admission was higher for Sanofi than for Pfizer BA.4-5. In the CV cohort, 16-week risks per 10,000 people were 22.3 (95%CI 20.4 to 24.3) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 26.4 (24.4 to 28.7) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.19 (95%CI 1.06 to 1.34). In the 75+ cohort, these were 17.5 (16.1 to 19.1) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 20.4 (18.9 to 22.1) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.18 (1.05-1.32). These findings were similar across all pre-specified subgroups. More severe COVID-19 related outcomes (critical care admission and death), and safety outcomes at 4 weeks, were rare in both vaccines so we could not reliably compare effectiveness of the two vaccines. Conclusion This observational study comparing effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccine during the spring 2023 programme in England in the two main eligible cohorts - people aged 75 and over and in clinically vulnerable people - found some evidence of superior effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission for Pfizer BA.4-5 compared with Sanofi within 16 weeks after vaccination.

Changes in opioid prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: cohort study of 20 million patients in OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in healthcare delivery, including postponement of elective procedures and difficulty accessing in-person care, which may have increased the need for strong pharmacological pain relief in some patients. Methods: With NHS England approval, we used routine clinical data from >20 million general practice adult patients in OpenSAFELY-TPP. We used interrupted time series analysis to quantify trends in prevalent and incident opioid prescribing prior to the pandemic (January 2018-February 2020) and changes during the COVID-19 lockdown period (March 2020-March 2021) and recovery period (April 2021-June 2022). We identified how these changes varied in people living in care homes, and by age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, and geographic region. Results: The median number of people prescribed an opioid per month was 50.9 per 1000 patients prior to the pandemic. We observed little change in overall prescribing after the start of the pandemic, except for a temporary increase in March 2020. There was a 9.8% (95%CI -14.5%, -6.5%) reduction in new opioid prescribing from March 2020, sustained to the end of the study period. Reductions in new prescribing were observed for all demographics except people 80+ years. Among care home residents, in April 2020 new opioid prescribing increased by 112.5% (95%CI 92.2%, 134.9%) and parenteral opioid prescribing increased by 186.3% (95%CI 153.1%, 223.9%). Conclusion: Changes in opioid prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic were mostly consistent across subgroups with the exception of differences by age and care home residence. Among people in care homes, increases in parenteral opioid prescribing likely reflect use to treat end-of-life COVID-19 symptoms. Further research is needed to understand what is driving the reduction in new opioid prescribing and its relation to changes to health care provision during the pandemic.

Healthcare utilisation in people with long COVID: an OpenSAFELY cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundLong COVID, characterised by various symptoms and complications, potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. ResultsWe identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.07, 95% CI: 7.54 - 8.64), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.47 - 1.50). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58 - 29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73 - 16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.47, 95% CI = 7.02 - 7.95), with costs being 43% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.38 - 1.49). The long COVID group costs approximately {pound}2,500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: {pound}2,562.50, 95% CI: {pound}2,335.60 - {pound}2,819.22), and the comparator group costs {pound}1,500 (predicted mean cost: {pound}1,527.43, 95% CI: {pound}1,404.33 - 1,664.45.) Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. ConclusionLong COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

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.

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))

Group A streptococcal cases and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic and 2022 outbreak: a retrospective cohort study in England using OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Group A streptococcal (GAS) cases and related antibiotic prescriptions. DesignA retrospective cohort study with supporting dashboards with the approval of NHS England. SettingPrimary care practices in England using TPP SystmOne software from January 2018 through March 2023. ParticipantsPatients included were those registered at a TPP practice for each month of the study period. Patients with missing sex or age were excluded, resulting in a population of 23,816,470 in January 2018, increasing to 25,541,940 by March 2023. Main outcome measuresWe calculated monthly counts and crude rates of GAS cases (sore throat/tonsillitis, scarlet fever, invasive group A strep) and prescriptions linked with a GAS case, before (pre-April 2020), during and after (post-April 2021) COVID-19 restrictions. We calculated the maximum and minimum count and rate for each season (years running September-August), and the rate ratio (RR) of the 2022/23 season to the last comparably high season (2017/18). ResultsRecording of GAS cases and antibiotic prescription linked with a GAS case peaked in December 2022, higher than the 2017/2018 peak. The peak rate of monthly sore throat/tonsillitis (possible group A strep throat) recording was 5.33 per 1,000 (RR 2022/23 versus 2017/18 1.39 (CI: 1.38 to 1.40)). Scarlet fever recording peaked at 0.51 per 1,000 (RR 2.68 (CI: 2.59 to 2.77)), and invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) at 0.01 per 1,000 (RR 4.37 (CI: 2.94 to 6.48)). First line antibiotics with a record of a GAS infection peaked at 2.80 per 1,000 (RR 1.37 (CI:1.35 to 1.38)), alternative antibiotics at 2.03 per 1,000 (RR 2.30 (CI:2.26 to 2.34)), and reserved antibiotics at 0.09 per 1,000 (RR 2.42 (CI:2.24 to 2.61). For individual antibiotics, azithromycin with GAS indication showed the greatest relative increase (RR 7.37 (CI:6.22 to 8.74)).This followed a sharp drop in recording of cases and associated prescriptions during the period of COVID-19 restrictions where the maximum count and rates were lower than any pre COVID-19 minimum. More detailed demographic breakdowns can be found in our regularly updated dashboard report. ConclusionsRates of scarlet fever, sore throat/tonsillitis and iGAS recording and associated antibiotic prescribing peaked in December 2022. Primary care data can supplement existing infectious disease surveillance through linkages with relevant prescribing data and detailed clinical and demographic subgroups. What is knownDuring the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a substantial change to the pattern of circulating viruses and bacteria that cause illnesses. A spike in group A streptococcal infections in England starting December 2022 was associated with 426 deaths, including 48 children as of 7th May 2023. Increased demand for antibiotics in this period led to medicines shortages and the introduction of Serious Shortage Protocols (SSPs). Existing surveillance systems such as notifiable disease reports and GP in-hours surveillance bulletins describe clinical events, but they do not link to relevant prescribing data. What this study adds- This study supports the findings of routine surveillance reports which indicated a drop in GAS infections during the COVID-19 restrictions, followed by a spike in December 2022, demonstrating that the OpenSAFELY platform and primary care data can be used to rapidly describe not only clinical events but also relevant prescribing in the case of future outbreaks. - Antibiotic prescribing with a GAS indication, particularly for phenoxymethylpenicillin alternatives and reserved antibiotics, was higher in the December 2022 peak than in the 2017/2018 peak.

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.

The impact of COVID-19 on medication reviews in English primary care. An OpenSAFELY-TPP analysis of 20 million adult electronic health records. (preprint)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity to ensure safety and appropriateness of ongoing prescribing and a disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care. Aim Using routinely collected data, our aim was to i) describe the SNOMED CT codes used to report medication review activity ii) report the impact of COVID-19 on the volume and variation of medication reviews. Design and setting With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 20 million adult patient records in general practice, in-situ using the OpenSAFELY platform. Method For each month between April 2019 - March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months. These measures were broken down by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and amongst those prescribed high risk medications. Results In April 2019, 32.3% of patients had a medication review coded in the previous 12 months. During the first COVID-19 lockdown, monthly activity substantially decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the rate of patients with a medication review coded in the previous 12 months was not substantially impacted according to our classification (-10.5% March 2021). There was regional and ethnic variation (March 2022 - London 21.9% vs North West 33.6%; Chinese 16.8% vs British 33.0%). Following the introduction of "structured medication reviews", the rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high risk groups (March 2022 - care home residents 34.1%, 90+ years 13.1%, high risk medications 10.2%). The most used SNOMED CT medication review code across the study period was Medication review done - 314530002 (59.5%). Conclusion We have reported a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period.

Challenges in estimating waning effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines beyond six months: an OpenSAFELY cohort study using linked electronic health records (preprint)

Quantifying the waning effectiveness of second COVID-19 vaccination beyond six months and against the omicron variant is important for scheduling subsequent doses. With the approval of NHS England, we estimated effectiveness up to one year after second dose, but found that bias in such estimates may be substantial.

Changes in COVID-19-related mortality across key demographic and clinical subgroups: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform on 18 million adults in England (preprint)

Objectives To quantify in absolute and relative terms how population-level COVID-19 death rates have changed in demographic and clinical subgroups. Design Retrospective cohort study on behalf of NHS England. Setting Linked primary care and death registry data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering the first three pandemic waves in England (wave 1: March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave 2: September 7, 2020 to April 24, 2021; and wave 3, delta: May 28 to December 14, 2021). Participants In total, 18.7, 18.8, and 18.7 million adults were included for waves 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Main outcome measures COVID-19-related mortality based on linked death registry records. Results The crude rate of COVID-19-related death per 1,000 person-years decreased from 4.48 in wave 1 (95%CI 4.41;4.55), to 2.70 in wave 2 (95%CI 2.67;2.73), to 0.64 in wave 3 (95%CI 0.63;0.66). The death rate decreased by 90% between waves 1 and 3 in patients aged 80+, but by only 20% in patients aged 18-39. This higher proportional reduction in death rates was also seen for other groups, such as neurological disease, learning disability and severe mental illness. Conversely, death rates in transplant recipients stayed constant across successive waves at 10 per 1,000 person-years. There was also only a small decrease in death rates between waves in people with kidney disease, haematological malignancies or conditions associated with immunosuppression. Consequently, the relative hazard of COVID-19-related death decreased over time for some variables (e.g. age), remained similar for some (e.g. sex, ethnicity), and increased for others (e.g. transplant). Conclusions COVID-19 death rates decreased over the first three pandemic waves. An especially large decrease was seen in older age groups and people with neurological disease, learning disability or severe mental illness. Some demographic inequalities in death rates persisted over time. Groups more likely to experience impaired vaccine effectiveness did not see the same benefit in COVID-19 mortality reduction.

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

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.

OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 2: changes in primary care activity across six clinical areas during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity across a broad range of clinical services. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible. Aims Using routinely collected data, our aim was to describe changes in the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice in: (i) cardiovascular disease, (ii) diabetes, (iii) mental health, (iv) female and reproductive health, (v) screening, and (vi) processes related to medication. Design and setting With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in-situ using OpenSAFELY. Methods We selected common primary care activity using CTV3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 - December 2020, presenting median and deciles of code usage across practices per month. Results We identified substantial and widespread changes in clinical activity in primary care since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with generally good recovery by December 2020. A few exceptions showed poor recovery and warrant further investigation, such as mental health, e.g. "Depression interim review" (median across practices in December 2020 -41.6% compared to December 2019). Conclusions Granular NHS GP data at population-scale can be used to monitor disruptions to healthcare services and guide the development of mitigation strategies. The authors are now developing real-time monitoring dashboards for key measures identified here as well as further studies, using primary care data to monitor and mitigate the indirect health impacts of Covid-19 on the NHS.

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).

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.

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.