ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT; dialysis and kidney transplantation) are at the highest risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Due to limited inclusion of patients on KRT in clinical trials, information is limited on the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody). We sought to address this by comparing its effectiveness against molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised adults with symptomatic COVID-19. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT, and data on antiviral treatments, COVID-19 test results, hospitalisation events and death from the OpenSAFELY-TPP data resource. Cox proportional hazards models (stratified for region) were used to estimate hazard ratios of sotrovimab vs. molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19 related hospitalisation or deaths in the subsequent 28 days (as the primary outcome). Further analyses were conducted using propensity score weighting (adjusted for region) and to investigate robustness of results with regards to different time periods, missing data, and adjustment variables. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from patients in the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR) treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir, following similar analytical approaches. ResultsAmong the 2367 renal patients treated with sotrovimab (n=1852) or molnupiravir (n=515) between December 16, 2021 and August 1, 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed during the 28 days of follow-up after treatment initiation, with 21 (1.1%) in the sotrovimab group and 17 (3.3%) in the molnupiravir group. In multiple-adjusted analysis sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio, HR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.71; P=0.004), with results remaining robust in sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, there were 19 cases (1.9%) of COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths during the 28 days of follow-up after treatment initiation of sotrovimab (n=723) or molnupiravir (n=270). In multiple-adjusted analysis, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death than treatment with molnupiravir (HR=0.39, 95% CI: 0.13 to 1.21; P=0.106). In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranging from 0.73-1.29; P>0.05). ConclusionsIn routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on kidney replacement therapy, those who received sotrovimab had substantially lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundKidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study to estimate the comparative effectiveness of schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3- 5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT- BNT) schedules. FindingsAfter two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n=257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n=169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1{middle dot}43 [1{middle dot}37-1{middle dot}50], 1{middle dot}59 [1{middle dot}43-1{middle dot}77], 1{middle dot}44 [1{middle dot}12-1{middle dot}85], and 1{middle dot}09 [1{middle dot}02-1{middle dot}17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ- AZ-BNT (n=220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n=157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. InterpretationAmong individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. FundingNational Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched Medline for studies published between 1st December 2020 and 7th September 2022 using the following term: "(coronavir* or covid* or sars*) and (vaccin* or immunis* or immuniz*) and (kidney or dialysis or h?emodialysis or transplant or renal) and (efficacy or effectiveness)". We identified studies reporting on the effectiveness of various COVID-19 vaccines in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease. Several studies have reported no clear differences in effectiveness against outcomes of varying severity after two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 compared to unvaccinated controls, which is contrary to the significantly higher antibody levels observed after BNT162b2 in immunogenicity studies. One study also showed that a third dose of RNA vaccine restored some protection against the Omicron variant among BNT162b2- and AZD1222-primed individuals, with no clear differences between these groups. This finding is consistent with immunogenicity data suggesting that a third dose of BNT162b2 may reduce the gap in antibody levels observed after two of AZD1222 versus BNT162b2. Notably, we found few studies directly comparing effectiveness in BNT162b2 versus AZD1222 recipients, which reduces biases associated with comparison to a small and potentially unrepresentative group of unvaccinated controls. We also found no studies exploring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in kidney disease groups of varying severity (CKD, dialysis, and kidney transplant). Added value of this studyThis is the largest study to compare the effectiveness of two- and three-dose regimens involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. We compared effectiveness after two and three doses in 426,780 and 377,395 individuals, respectively, and harnessed unique data linkages between primary care records and UK Renal Registry data to identify people with CKD and end-stage renal disease (including dialysis and kidney transplant recipients) with high accuracy. During the Delta wave of infection, we observed a higher risk of COVID-19-related outcomes of varying severity after two doses of AZD1222 versus BNT162b2, with consistent findings in CKD, dialysis, and transplant subgroups. After a third dose of BNT162b2, AZD1222- and BNT162b2-primed individuals had similar rates of COVID-19-related outcomes during a period of Omicron dominance. Implications of all the available evidence A growing body of immunogenicity and effectiveness data - including the present study - suggest that two doses of BNT162b2 confers stronger protection than AZD1222 among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. However, a third dose of BNT162b2 appears to compensate for this immunity deficit, providing equivalent protection in BNT162b2- and AZD1222-primed individuals. Achieving high coverage with additional RNA vaccine doses (whether homologous or heterologous) has the capacity to reduce the burden of disease in this vulnerable population.
ABSTRACT
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
ABSTRACT
BackgroundKidney disease is a significant risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Achieving high COVID-19 vaccine coverage among people with kidney disease is therefore a public health priority. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people in England were included. A cohort of individuals with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate or inclusion in the UK Renal Registry. Individual-level factors associated with vaccine uptake were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. Results948,845 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 11th May 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0%, and 93.5% for doses 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 61.1% among individuals with one or more indications for receipt of a fourth dose. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with non-White ethnicity, social deprivation, and severe mental illness - associations that were consistent across CKD stages and in RRT recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake, which was also delayed among care home residents. ConclusionAlthough high primary and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across demographic groups. Identifying how to address these disparities remains a priority to reduce the risk of severe disease in this vulnerable patient group.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsAmong 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. ConclusionOur findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo 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. DesignWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. SettingPatient-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. ParticipantsNon-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high risk of severe outcomes treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir since December 16, 2021. InterventionsSotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units. Main outcome measureCOVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation. ResultsBetween December 16, 2021 and February 10, 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, with no substantial differences in their baseline characteristics. The mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (SD=16) years; 59% were female, 89% White and 88% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 87 (1.4%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 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=0.54, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.88; P=0.014). Consistent results were obtained from propensity score weighted Cox models (HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.81; P=0.005) and when restricted to fully vaccinated people (HR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.90; P=0.019). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction>0.10). Findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between February 16 and May 1, 2022 when the Omicron BA.2 variant was dominant in England. ConclusionIn 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.
ABSTRACT
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).
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
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
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
ObjectivesTo assess the association between learning disability and risk of hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19 in England among adults and children. DesignWorking on behalf of NHS England, two cohort studies using patient-level data for >17 million people from primary care electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics and hospitalization data from NHS Secondary Uses Service using the OpenSAFELY platform. SettingGeneral practices in England which use TPP software. ParticipantsParticipants were males and females, aged up to 105 years, from two cohorts: (1) wave 1, registered with a TPP practice as of 1st March 2020 and followed until 31st August, 2020; (2) wave 2 registered 1st September 2020 and followed until 31st December 2020 (for admissions) or 8th February 2021 (for deaths). The main exposure group was people included on a general practice learning disability register (LDR), with a subgroup of people classified as having profound or severe learning disability. We also identified patients with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy (whether or not on the learning disability register). Main outcome measures(i) COVID-19 related death, (ii) COVID-19 related hospitalisation. Non-COVID-19 related death was also explored. ResultsIn wave 1, of 14,301,415 included individuals aged 16 and over, 90,095 (0.63%) were identified as being on the LDR. 30,173 COVID-related hospital admissions, 13,919 COVID-19 related deaths and 69,803 non-COVID deaths occurred; of which 538 (1.8%), 221 (1.6%) and 596 (0.85%) were among individuals on the LDR, respectively. In wave 2, 27,611 COVID-related hospital admissions, 17,933 COVID-19 related deaths and 54,171 non-COVID deaths occurred; of which 383 (1.4%), 260 (1.4%) and 470 (0.87%) were among individuals on the LDR. Wave 1 hazard ratios for individuals on the LDR, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity and geographical location, were 5.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9, 5.8) for COVID-19 related hospital admissions and 8.2 (95% CI: 7.1, 9.4) for COVID-19 related death. Wave 2 produced similar estimates. Associations were stronger among those classed as severe-profound and among those in residential care. Down syndrome and cerebral palsy were associated with increased hazard of both events in both waves; Down syndrome to a much greater extent. Hazards of non-COVID-19 related death followed similar patterns with weaker associations. ConclusionsPeople with learning disabilities have markedly increased risks of hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19. This raised risk is over and above that seen for non-COVID causes of death. Ensuring prompt access to Covid-19 testing and health care and consideration of prioritisation for COVID-19 vaccination and other targeted preventive measures are warranted.
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesTo compare approaches for obtaining relative and absolute estimates of risk of 28-day COVID-19 mortality for adults in the general population of England in the context of changing levels of circulating infection. DesignThree designs were compared. (A) case-cohort which does not explicitly account for the time-changing prevalence of COVID-19 infection, (B) 28-day landmarking, a series of sequential overlapping sub-studies incorporating time-updating proxy measures of the prevalence of infection, and (C) daily landmarking. Regression models were fitted to predict 28-day COVID-19 mortality. SettingWorking on behalf of NHS England, we used clinical data from adult patients from all regions of England held in the TPP SystmOne electronic health record system, linked to Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data, using the OpenSAFELY platform. ParticipantsEligible participants were adults aged 18 or over, registered at a general practice using TPP software on 1st March 2020 with recorded sex, postcode and ethnicity. 11,972,947 individuals were included, and 7,999 participants experienced a COVID-19 related death. The study period lasted 100 days, ending 8th June 2020. PredictorsA range of demographic characteristics and comorbidities were used as potential predictors. Local infection prevalence was estimated with three proxies: modelled based on local prevalence and other key factors; rate of A&E COVID-19 related attendances; and rate of suspected COVID-19 cases in primary care. Main outcome measuresCOVID-19 related death. ResultsAll models discriminated well between patients who did and did not experience COVID-19 related death, with C-statistics ranging from 0.92-0.94. Accurate estimates of absolute risk required data on local infection prevalence, with modelled estimates providing the best performance. ConclusionsReliable estimates of absolute risk need to incorporate changing local prevalence of infection. Simple models can provide very good discrimination and may simplify implementation of risk prediction tools in practice.
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
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
BackgroundConcerns have been raised that the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic may have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We asked what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic? MethodsUsing electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (2017-2020), we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions (including: anxiety, depression, acute alcohol-related events, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbations, cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies). We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions ( lockdown) compared to the period prior to their introduction in March 2020. FindingsThe overall population included 9,863,903 individuals on 1st January 2017. Primary care contacts for all conditions dropped dramatically after introduction of population-wide restrictions. By July 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. The largest reductions were for contacts for: diabetic emergencies (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.50), depression (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53), and self-harm (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58). InterpretationThere were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions with restrictions, with limited recovery by July 2020. It is likely that much of the deficit in care represents unmet need, with implications for subsequent morbidity and premature mortality. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people experiencing the conditions and healthcare provision. Maintaining access must be a key priority in future public health planning (including further restrictions). FundingWellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (SML), Health Data Research UK. RESULTS IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSA small study in 47 GP practices in a largely deprived, urban area of the UK (Salford) reported that primary care consultations for four broad diagnostic groups (circulatory disease, common mental health problems, type 2 diabetes mellitus and malignant cancer) declined by 16-50% between March and May 2020, compared to what was expected based on data from January 2010 to March 2020. We searched Medline for other relevant evidence of the indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health from inception to September 25th 2020, for articles published in English, with titles including the search terms ("covid*" or "coronavirus" or "sars-cov-2"), and title or abstracts including the search terms ("indirect impact" or "missed diagnos*" or "missing diagnos*" or "delayed diagnos*" or (("present*" or "consult*" or "engag*" or "access*") AND ("reduction" or "decrease" or "decline")). We found no further studies investigating the change in primary care contacts for specific physical- and mental-health conditions indirectly resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic or its control measures. There has been a reduction in hospital admissions and presentations to accident and emergency departments in the UK, particularly for myocardial infarctions and cerebrovascular accidents. However, there is no published evidence specifically investigating the changes in primary care contacts for severe acute physical and mental health conditions. Added value of this studyTo our knowledge this is the first study to explore changes in healthcare contacts for acute physical and mental health conditions in a large population representative of the UK. We used electronic primary care health records of nearly 10 million individuals across the UK to investigate the indirect impact of COVID-19 on primary care contacts for mental health, acute alcohol-related events, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies up to July 2020. For all conditions studied, we found primary care contacts dropped dramatically following the introduction of population-wide restriction measures in March 2020. By July 2020, with the exception of unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, primary care contacts for all conditions studied had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. In the general population, estimates of the absolute reduction in the number of primary care contacts up to July 2020, compared to what we would expect from previous years varied from fewer than 10 contacts per million for some cardiovascular outcomes, to 12,800 per million for depression and 6,600 for anxiety. In people with COPD, we estimated there were 43,900 per million fewer contacts for COPD exacerbations up to July 2020 than what we would expect from previous years. Implicatins of all the available evidenceWhile our results may represent some genuine reduction in disease frequency (e.g. the restriction measures may have improved diabetic glycaemic control due to more regular daily routines at home), it is more likely the reduced primary care conatcts we saw represent a substantial burden of unmet need (particularly for mental health conditions) that may be reflected in subsequent increased mortality and morbidity. Health service providers should take steps to prepare for increased demand in the coming months and years due to the short and longterm ramifications of reduced access to care for severe acute physical and mental health conditions. Maintaining access to primary care is key to future public health planning in relation to the pandemic.
