ABSTRACT
BackgroundWhile 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. MethodWith the approval of NHS England 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. ResultsAs of 01st November 2021, a total of 15,436,455 individuals were identified as being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, with a median follow-up time of 149 days (IQR: 107-179). From within this population, a total of 577245 (<4%) individuals reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. For every 1000 years of patient follow-up time, the corresponding incidence rate was 98.02 (95% CI 97.9-98.15). There were 16,120 COVID-19-related hospital admissions, 1,100 COVID-19 critical care admission patients and 3,925 COVID-19-related deaths; corresponding incidence rates of 2.72 (95% C 2.7-2.74), 0.19 (95% C 0.18-0.19) and 0.66 (95% C 0.65-0.67), respectively. When broken down by the initial priority group, higher rates of hospitalisation and death were seen in those in care homes and those over 80 years of age. Comorbidities with the highest rates of breakthrough COVID-19 included chronic kidney disease, dialysis, transplant, haematological malignancy, and immunocompromised. ConclusionThe 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. While it is important to note that these findings are simply descriptive and cannot be used to answer why certain groups have higher rates of COVID-19 breakthrough than others, the emergence of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 coupled with the continued increase in numbers of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests are concerning. 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.
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines against infection and COVID-19 disease in health and social care workers. DesignCohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial. SettingLinked primary care, hospital, and COVID-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform. Participants317,341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a GP practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable. InterventionsVaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Main outcome measuresRecorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or COVID-19 related Accident and Emergency attendance or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of vaccination. ResultsThe 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 per 1000 people 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). ConclusionsIn 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.
ABSTRACT
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, analysingroutinely-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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThere 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 FindingsWorking 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. ConclusionsPeople 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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundResidents 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. MethodsOn 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. FindingsWe 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. InterpretationThe 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. FundingMedical Research Council MR/V015737/1
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesWe 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. DesignTwo cohort studies, on behalf of NHS England. SettingPrimary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. ParticipantsStudy 1: 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score of 2. Study 2: 372,746 people with non-valvular AF. Main outcome measuresTime 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. ResultsIn 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. ConclusionsAmong people with AF and a CHA{square}DS{square}-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 CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score. Key pointsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LICurrent studies suggest that prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulant use, particularly low molecular weight heparin, lower the risk of pulmonary embolism and mortality during hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19. C_LIO_LIReduced vitamin K status has been reported to be correlated with severity of COVID-19. This could mean that warfarin, as a vitamin K antagonist, is associated with more severe COVID-19 disease than non-vitamin K anticoagulants. C_LI What this study addsO_LIIn 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation, at the threshold of being treated with an OAC based on risk of stroke, we observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 related deaths associated with routinely prescribed OACs, relative to non-use. C_LIO_LIThis might be explained by OACs preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes, or more cautious behaviours and environmental factors reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those taking OACs. C_LIO_LIIn 372,746 people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin compared with DOACs. C_LI
ABSTRACT
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<.0001). Absolute risk of death by 28-days increased with age and comorbidities. VOC has potential to spread faster with higher mortality than the pandemic to date.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThere has been extensive speculation about the relationship between COVID-19 and various cardiometabolic and pulmonary conditions. This a complex question: COVID-19 may cause a cardiometabolic or respiratory event; admission for a clinical event may result in hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection; both may contribute to a patient surpassing the threshold for presenting to services; and the presence of a pandemic may change whether patients present to services at all. To inform analysis of these questions, we set out to describe the overall rate of various key clinical events over time, and their relationship with COVID-19. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England, we used data from the OpenSAFELY platform containing data from approximately 40% of the population of England. We selected the whole adult population of 17m patients and within this identified two further mutually exclusive groups: patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community; and patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We report counts of death, DVT, PE, ischaemic stroke, MI, heart failure, AKI and diabetic ketoacidosis in each month between February 2019 and October 2020 within each of: the general population, community SARS-CoV-2 cases, and hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Outcome events were defined using hospitalisations, GP records and cause of death data. ResultsFor all outcomes except death there was a lower count of events in April 2020 compared to April 2019. For most outcomes the minimum count of events was in April 2020, where the decrease compared to April 2019 in events ranged from 5.9% (PE) to 40.0% (heart failure). Despite hospitalised COVID-19 patients making up just 0.14% of the population in April 2020, these patients accounted for an extremely high proportion of cardiometabolic and respiratory events in that month (range of proportions 10.3% (DVT) to 33.5% (AKI)). InterpretationWe observed a substantial drop in the incidence of cardiometabolic and pulmonary events in the non-COVID-19 general population, but high occurrence of COVID-19 among patients with these events. Shortcomings in routine NHS secondary care data, especially around the timing and order of events, make causal interpretations challenging. We caution that the intermediate findings reported here should be used to inform the design and interpretation of any studies using a general population comparator to evaluate the relationship between COVID-19 and other clinical events.
ABSTRACT
Black and minority ethnic groups were at raised risk of dying from COVID-19 during the first few months of the COVID-19 epidemic in England. We aimed to investigate whether ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 deaths were similar in the more recent "second wave" of the epidemic. Working on behalf of NHS England, we used primary care and linked ONS mortality data within the OpenSAFELY platform. All adults in the database at 1st September 2020 and with at least 1 year of prior follow-up and a record of ethnicity were included. The outcome was COVID-19-related death (death with COVID-19 listed as a cause of death on the death certificate). Follow-up was to 9th November 2020. Hazard ratios for ethnicity were calculated using Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, and then further adjusted for deprivation. 13,223,154 people were included. During the study period, people of South Asian ethnicity were at higher risk of death due to COVID-19 than white people after adjusting for age and sex (HR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.99-4.03); the association attenuated somewhat on further adjustment for index of multiple deprivation (HR = 2.86, 2.46-3.33, Table 2). In contrast with the first wave of the epidemic, we found little evidence of a raised risk in black or other ethnic groups compared to white (HR for black vs white = 1.28, 0.87-1.88 adjusted for age and sex; and 1.01, 0.69-1.49 further adjusted for deprivation). Our findings suggest that ethnic inequalities in the risk of dying COVID-19-related death have changed between the first and early second wave of the epidemic in England. O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@987a5org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1a8a141org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1f2de56org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1e2f9b8org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@78bfcc_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL O_FLOATNOTable 2:C_FLOATNO O_TABLECAPTIONAssociation between ethnicity and COVID-19 death 1st Sept - 9th Nov 2020 C_TABLECAPTION C_TBL
ABSTRACT
BackgroundOn December 8th 2020, NHS England administered the first COVID-19 vaccination as part of an ambitious vaccination programme during a global health emergency. AimsTo describe trends and variation in vaccine coverage by key clinical and demographic groups; to create a framework for near-real-time monitoring of vaccine coverage in key subgroups. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England we analysed 57.9 million patient records in situ and in near-real-time within the infrastructure of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) software vendors EMIS and TPP using OpenSAFELY. We describe vaccine coverage and time trends across a range of demographic and fine-grained clinical subgroups in eight Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) priority cohorts. Results20,852,692 patients (36%) received a COVID-19 vaccine between December 8th 2020 and March 17th 2021. Of patients aged [≥]80 not in a care home (JCVI group 2) 94.7% received a vaccine, but with substantial variation by ethnicity (White 96.2% vaccinated, Black 68.3%) and deprivation (least deprived 96.6%, most deprived 90.7%). Overall, patients with pre-existing medical conditions were equally or more likely to be vaccinated with two exceptions: severe mental illness (89.5% vaccinated) and learning disability (91.4%). 275,205 vaccine recipients were identified as care home residents (priority group 1; 91.2% coverage). 1,257,914 (6.0%) recipients have had a second dose. Detailed characteristics of recipients in all cohorts are reported. ConclusionsThe NHS in England has rapidly delivered mass vaccination. We were able to deploy a data monitoring framework using publicly auditable methods and a secure, in-situ processing model, using linked but pseudonymised patient-level NHS data on 57.9 million patients with very short delays from vaccine administration to completed analysis. Targeted activity may be needed to address lower vaccination coverage observed among certain key groups: ethnic minorities, those living in deprived areas, and people with severe mental illness or learning disabilities.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with COVID-19 are thought to be at higher risk of cardiometabolic and pulmonary complications, but quantification of that risk is limited. We aimed to describe the overall burden of these complications in survivors of severe COVID-19. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England, we used linked primary care records, death certificate and hospital data from the OpenSAFELY platform. We constructed three cohorts: patients discharged following hospitalisation with COVID-19, patients discharged following hospitalisation with pneumonia in 2019, and a frequency-matched cohort from the general population in 2019. We studied eight cardiometabolic and pulmonary outcomes. Absolute rates were measured in each cohort and Cox regression models were fitted to estimate age/sex adjusted hazard ratios comparing outcome rates between discharged COVID-19 patients and the two comparator cohorts. ResultsAmongst the population of 31,716 patients discharged following hospitalisation with COVID-19, rates for majority of outcomes peaked in the first month post-discharge, then declined over the following four months. Patients in the COVID-19 population had markedly increased risk of all outcomes compared to matched controls from the 2019 general population, especially for pulmonary embolism (HR 12.86; 95% CI: 11.23 - 14.74). Outcome rates were more similar when comparing patients discharged with COVID-19 to those discharged with pneumonia in 2019, although COVID-19 patients had increased risk of type 2 diabetes (HR 1.23; 95% CI: 1.05 - 1.44). InterpretationCardiometabolic and pulmonary adverse outcomes are markedly raised following hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared to the general population. However, the excess risks were more comparable to those seen following hospitalisation with pneumonia. Identifying patients at particularly high risk of outcomes would inform targeted preventive measures. FundingWellcome, Royal Society, National Institute for Health Research, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Health and Safety Executive.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundHydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, but early clinical studies found no benefit treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We set out to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention, as opposed to treatment, of COVID-19 mortality. MethodsWe pre-specified and conducted an observational, population-based cohort study using national primary care data and linked death registrations in the OpenSAFELY platform, representing 40% of the general population in England. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in England and risk of COVID-19 mortality among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Model adjustment was informed by a directed acyclic graph. ResultsOf 194,637 patients with RA or SLE, 30,569 (15.7%) received [≥] 2 prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine in the six months prior to 1 March 2020. Between 1 March 2020 and 13 July 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0.23% (95% CI 0.18-0.29) among users and 0.22% (95% CI 0.20-0.25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0.008% (95% CI -0.051-0.066). After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunuosuppressives, and geographic region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.33). We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressives. Quantitative bias analyses indicated observed associations were robust to missing information regarding additional biologic treatments for rheumatological disease. We observed similar associations with the negative control outcome of non-COVID-19 mortality. ConclusionWe found no evidence of a difference in COVID-19 mortality among patients who received hydroxychloroquine for treatment of rheumatological disease prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in England. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSPublished trials and observational studies to date have shown no evidence of benefit of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for hospitalised patients who already have COVID-19. A separate question remains: whether routine ongoing use of hydroxychloroquine in people without COVID-19 protects against new infections or severe outcomes. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for pharmacoepidemiological studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The keywords "hydroxychloroquine AND (COVID OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (prophyl* OR prevent*) AND (rate OR hazard OR odds OR risk)" were used and results were filtered to articles from the last year with abstracts available. 109 papers were identified for screening; none investigated pre-exposure prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Clinical trials of prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine are ongoing; however, the largest trial does not expect to meet recruitment targets due to "...unjustified extrapolation and exaggerated safety concerns together with intense politicisation and negative publicity." In the absence of reported clinical trials, evidence can be generated from real-world data to support the need for randomised clinical trials. Added value of this studyIn this cohort study representing 40% of the population of England, we investigated whether routine use of hydroxychloroquine prior to the COVID-19 outbreak prevented COVID-19 mortality. Using robust pharmacoepidemiological methods, we found no evidence to support a substantial benefit of hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 mortality. At the same time, we have shown no significant harm, and this generates the equipoise to justify continuing randomised trials. We have demonstrated in this study that it is feasible to address specific hypotheses about medicines in a rapid and transparent manner to inform interim clinical decision making and support the need for large-scale, randomised trial data. Implications of all the available evidenceThis is the first study to investigate the ongoing routine use of hydroxychloroquine and risk of COVID-19 mortality in a general population. While we found no evidence of any protective benefit, due to the observational nature of the study, residual confounding remains a possibility. Completion of trials for prevention of severe outcomes is warranted, but prior to the completion of these, we found no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality.
ABSTRACT
Background: COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority populations, both in the UK and internationally. To date, much of the evidence has been derived from studies within single healthcare settings, mainly those hospitalised with COVID-19. Working on behalf of NHS England, the aim of this study was to identify ethnic differences in the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and mortality using a large general population cohort in England. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study using linked primary care records of 17.5 million adults between 1 February 2020 and 3 August 2020. Exposure was self-reported ethnicity collapsed into the 5 and 16 ethnicity categories of the English Census. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify ethnic differences in the risk of being tested and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and COVID-19 mortality, adjusted for socio-demographic factors, clinical co-morbidities, geographic region, care home residency, and household size. Results: A total of 17,510,002 adults were included in the study; 63% white (n=11,030,673), 6% south Asian (n=1,034,337), 2% black (n=344,889), 2% other (n=324,730), 1% mixed (n=172,551), and 26% unknown (n=4,602,822). After adjusting for measured explanatory factors, south Asian, black, and mixed groups were marginally more likely to be tested (south Asian HR 1.08, 95%CI 1.07-1.09; black HR 1.08; 95%CI 1.06-1.09, mixed HR 1.03, 95%CI 1.01-1.05), and substantially more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared with white adults (south Asian HR 2.02. 95% CI 1.97-2.07; black HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.61-1.76; mixed HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.36-1.56). The risk of being admitted to ICU for COVID-19 was substantially increased in all ethnic minority groups compared with white adults (south Asian HR 2.22, 95%CI 1.96-2.52; black HR 3.07, 95%CI 2.61-3.61; mixed HR 2.86, 95%CI 2.19-3.75, other HR 2.86, 95%CI 2.31-3.63). Risk of COVID-19 mortality was increased by 25-56% in ethnic minority groups compared with white adults (south Asian HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.17-1.38; black HR 1.55, 95%CI 1.38-1.75; mixed HR 1.40, 95%CI 1.12-1.76; other HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.05-1.49). We observed heterogeneity of associations after disaggregation into detailed ethnic groupings; Indian and African groups were at higher risk of all outcomes; Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Caribbean groups were less or equally likely to be tested for SARS-CoV-2, but at higher risk of all other outcomes, Chinese groups were less likely to be tested for and test positive for SARS-CoV-2, more likely to be admitted to ICU, and equally likely to die from COVID-19. Conclusions: We found evidence of substantial ethnic inequalities in the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, ICU admission, and mortality, which persisted after accounting for explanatory factors, including household size. It is likely that some of this excess risk is related to factors not captured in clinical records such as occupation, experiences of structural discrimination, or inequitable access to health and social services. Prioritizing linkage between health, social care, and employment data and engaging with ethnic minority communities to better understand their lived experiences is essential for generating evidence to prevent further widening of inequalities in a timely and actionable manner.
ABSTRACT
ImportanceThere has been speculation that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may negatively affect coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, yet clinical evidence is limited. ObjectiveTo assess the association between NSAID use and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform. DesignTwo cohort studies (1st March-14th June 2020). SettingWorking on behalf of NHS England, we used routine clinical data from >17 million patients in England linked to death data from the Office for National Statistics. ParticipantsStudy 1: General population (people with an NSAID prescription in the last three years). Study 2: people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. ExposuresCurrent NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1st March 2020. Main Outcome and MeasureWe used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities and other medications. ResultsIn Study 1, we included 535,519 current NSAID users and 1,924,095 non-users in the general population. The crude HR for current use was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.07-1.46), versus non-use. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80-1.13) in the fully adjusted model. In Study 2, we included 1,711,052 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175,631 (10%) were current NSAID users. The crude HR for current use was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.36-0.52), versus non-use. In the fully adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR, 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use. Conclusion and RelevanceWe found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks of COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about therapeutic use of NSAIDs.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundEarly descriptions of the coronavirus outbreak showed a lower prevalence of asthma and COPD than was expected for people diagnosed with COVID-19, leading to speculation that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of serious sequelae. We evaluated the association between ICS and COVID-19 related death using linked electronic health records in the UK. MethodsWe conducted cohort studies on two groups of people (COPD and asthma) using the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse data from primary care practices linked to national death registrations. People receiving an ICS were compared to those receiving alternative respiratory medications. Our primary outcome was COVID-19 related death. FindingsWe identified 148,588 people with COPD and 817,973 people with asthma receiving relevant respiratory medications in the four months prior to 01 March 2020. People with COPD receiving ICS were at a greater risk of COVID-19 related death compared to those receiving a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (adjusted HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.08 - 1.75). People with asthma receiving high dose ICS were at an increased risk of death compared to those receiving a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) only (adjusted HR = 1.52, 95%CI = 1.08 - 2.14); the adjusted HR for those receiving low-medium dose ICS was 1.10 (95% CI = 0.82 - 1.49). Quantitative bias analyses indicated that an unmeasured confounder of only moderate strength of association with exposure and outcome could explain the observed associations in both populations. InterpretationThese results do not support a major role of ICS in protecting against COVID-19 related deaths. Observed increased risks of COVID-19 related death among people with COPD and asthma receiving ICS can be plausibly explained by unmeasured confounding due to disease severity. FundingThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1.
