Collateral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on endocrine treatments for breast and prostate cancer in the UK: a cohort study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic affected cancer screening, diagnosis and treatments. Many surgeries were substituted with bridging therapies during the initial lockdown, yet consideration of treatment side effects and their management was not a priority. Objectives: To examine how the changing social restrictions imposed by the pandemic affected incidence and trends of endocrine treatment prescriptions in newly diagnosed (incident) breast and prostate cancer patients and, secondarily, endocrine treatment-related outcomes (including bisphosphonate prescriptions, osteopenia and osteoporosis), in UK clinical practice from March 2020 to June 2022. Design: Population-based cohort study using UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Methods: There were 13,701 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients and 12,221 prostate cancer patients with ⩾1-year data availability since diagnosis between January 2017 and June 2022. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated across multiple time periods before and after lockdown to examine the impact of changing social restrictions on endocrine treatments and treatment-related outcomes, including osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions. Results: In breast cancer patients, aromatase inhibitor (AI) prescriptions increased during lockdown versus pre-pandemic [IRR: 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.34)], followed by a decrease post-first lockdown [IRR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69-0.89)]. In prostate cancer patients, first-generation antiandrogen prescriptions increased versus pre-pandemic [IRR: 1.23 (95% CI: 1.08-1.4)]. For breast cancer patients on AIs, diagnoses of osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions were reduced across all lockdown periods versus pre-pandemic (IRR range: 0.31-0.62). Conclusion: During the first 2 years of the pandemic, newly diagnosed breast and prostate cancer patients were prescribed more endocrine treatments compared to pre-pandemic due to restrictions on hospital procedures replacing surgeries with bridging therapies. But breast cancer patients had fewer diagnoses of osteopenia and osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions. These patients should be followed up in the coming years for signs of bone thinning. Evidence of poorer management of treatment-related side effects will help assess resource allocation for patients at high risk for bone-related complications.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on hormone treatments for breast and prostate cancer in the UK: implications for bone health The COVID-19 pandemic has had a big impact on health, going beyond just causing illness. One area it has influenced is how patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer are treated. Surgeries and radiotherapies were delayed from the first lockdown as hospitals reduced non-covid related procedures. Some patients with breast or prostate cancer were instead given some medications to help stop their cancers from growing until they were able to have surgery or radiotherapy. These medications (called endocrine treatments) have important side effects, such as conditions that affect the bones. Patients on these medications should be monitored by doctors for signs of bone thinning and should, in some cases, be given other medications to help stop this happening. This study used doctors' records from more than 5 million people to find out whether the pandemic affected the number of endocrine medications being prescribed in patients with breast or prostate cancer, and also looked at the number of these patients that were diagnosed with conditions that affect their bones and whether they were given medications that could protect their bone health. We found that during the first lockdown, patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer had more of some types of endocrine treatments compared to before the lockdown. However, they had fewer diagnoses of conditions related to bone health and fewer medications to protect their bones. It is possible that appointments and tests that are usually carried out to diagnose conditions relating to bone health were not performed in the months after the first lockdown, and so these conditions were underdiagnosed. The use of medications to protect their bones was also reduced, likely because this was not considered a priority during the pandemic. This highlights that such patients should be followed up in the coming years for signs of bone thinning, given the relatively poorer management of these side effects in these people after the pandemic.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Incidence and Short-Term Survival for Common Solid Tumours in the United Kingdom: A Cohort Analysis.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected healthcare systems and patients. There is a need to comprehend the collateral effects of the pandemic on non-communicable diseases. We examined the impact of the pandemic on short-term survival for common solid tumours, including breast, colorectal, head and neck, liver, lung, oesophageal, pancreatic, prostate, and stomach cancer in the UK. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study of electronic health records from the UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. In sum, 12,259,744 eligible patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 year's history identified from January 2000 to December 2022 were included. We estimated age-standardised incidence and short-term (one- and two-year) survival for several common cancers from 2000 to 2019 (in five-year strata) and compared these to 2020-2022 using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Incidence decreased for most cancers in 2020 and recovered to different extents in 2021-2022. Short-term survival improved for most cancers between 2000 and 2019, but then declined, albeit minimally, for those diagnosed in 2020-2022. This was most pronounced for colorectal cancer, with one-year survival falling from 78.8% (95% CI 78%-79.6%) in 2015-2019 to 77% (95% CI 75.6-78.3%) for those diagnosed in 2020-2022. Conclusion: Short-term survival for many cancers was impacted, albeit minimally, by the pandemic in the UK, with reductions in survivorship from colorectal cancer equivalent to returning to the mortality seen in the first decade of the 2000s. While data on longer-term survival are needed to fully comprehend the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, our findings illustrate the need for an urgent and substantial commitment from the UK National Health Service to address the existing backlog in cancer screening and diagnostic procedures to improve cancer care and mortality.

The impact of the UK COVID-19 lockdown on the screening, diagnostics and incidence of breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer in the UK: a population-based cohort study.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had collateral effects on many health systems. Cancer screening and diagnostic tests were postponed, resulting in delays in diagnosis and treatment. This study assessed the impact of the pandemic on screening, diagnostics and incidence of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer; and whether rates returned to pre-pandemic levels by December, 2021. Methods: This is a cohort study of electronic health records from the United Kingdom (UK) primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database. The study included individuals registered with CPRD GOLD between January, 2017 and December, 2021, with at least 365 days of clinical history. The study focused on screening, diagnostic tests, referrals and diagnoses of first-ever breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Incidence rates (IR) were stratified by age, sex, and region, and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated to compare rates during and after lockdown with rates before lockdown. Forecasted rates were estimated using negative binomial regression models. Results: Among 5,191,650 eligible participants, the first lockdown resulted in reduced screening and diagnostic tests for all cancers, which remained dramatically reduced across the whole observation period for almost all tests investigated. There were significant IRR reductions in breast (0.69 [95% CI: 0.63-0.74]), colorectal (0.74 [95% CI: 0.67-0.81]), and prostate (0.71 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78]) cancer diagnoses. IRR reductions for lung cancer were non-significant (0.92 [95% CI: 0.84-1.01]). Extrapolating to the entire UK population, an estimated 18,000 breast, 13,000 colorectal, 10,000 lung, and 21,000 prostate cancer diagnoses were missed from March, 2020 to December, 2021. Discussion: The UK COVID-19 lockdown had a substantial impact on cancer screening, diagnostic tests, referrals, and diagnoses. Incidence rates remained significantly lower than pre-pandemic levels for breast and prostate cancers and associated tests by December, 2021. Delays in diagnosis are likely to have adverse consequences on cancer stage, treatment initiation, mortality rates, and years of life lost. Urgent strategies are needed to identify undiagnosed cases and address the long-term implications of delayed diagnoses.

The role of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing post-COVID-19 thromboembolic and cardiovascular complications.

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic complications. METHODS: We conducted a staggered cohort study based on national vaccination campaigns using electronic health records from the UK, Spain and Estonia. Vaccine rollout was grouped into four stages with predefined enrolment periods. Each stage included all individuals eligible for vaccination, with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccine at the start date. Vaccination status was used as a time-varying exposure. Outcomes included heart failure (HF), venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thrombosis/thromboembolism (ATE) recorded in four time windows after SARS-CoV-2 infection: 0-30, 31-90, 91-180 and 181-365 days. Propensity score overlap weighting and empirical calibration were used to minimise observed and unobserved confounding, respectively.Fine-Gray models estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). Random effect meta-analyses were conducted across staggered cohorts and databases. RESULTS: The study included 10.17 million vaccinated and 10.39 million unvaccinated people. Vaccination was associated with reduced risks of acute (30-day) and post-acute COVID-19 VTE, ATE and HF: for example, meta-analytic sHR of 0.22 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.29), 0.53 (0.44 to 0.63) and 0.45 (0.38 to 0.53), respectively, for 0-30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, while in the 91-180 days sHR were 0.53 (0.40 to 0.70), 0.72 (0.58 to 0.88) and 0.61 (0.51 to 0.73), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination reduced the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic outcomes. These effects were more pronounced for acute COVID-19 outcomes, consistent with known reductions in disease severity following breakthrough versus unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent long COVID symptoms: staggered cohort study of data from the UK, Spain, and Estonia.

BACKGROUND: Although vaccines have proved effective to prevent severe COVID-19, their effect on preventing long-term symptoms is not yet fully understood. We aimed to evaluate the overall effect of vaccination to prevent long COVID symptoms and assess comparative effectiveness of the most used vaccines (ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2). METHODS: We conducted a staggered cohort study using primary care records from the UK (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD] GOLD and AURUM), Catalonia, Spain (Information System for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]), and national health insurance claims from Estonia (CORIVA database). All adults who were registered for at least 180 days as of Jan 4, 2021 (the UK), Feb 20, 2021 (Spain), and Jan 28, 2021 (Estonia) comprised the source population. Vaccination status was used as a time-varying exposure, staggered by vaccine rollout period. Vaccinated people were further classified by vaccine brand according to their first dose received. The primary outcome definition of long COVID was defined as having at least one of 25 WHO-listed symptoms between 90 and 365 days after the date of a PCR-positive test or clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, with no history of that symptom 180 days before SARS-Cov-2 infection. Propensity score overlap weighting was applied separately for each cohort to minimise confounding. Sub-distribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to estimate vaccine effectiveness against long COVID, and empirically calibrated using negative control outcomes. Random effects meta-analyses across staggered cohorts were conducted to pool overall effect estimates. FINDINGS: A total of 1 618 395 (CPRD GOLD), 5 729 800 (CPRD AURUM), 2 744 821 (SIDIAP), and 77 603 (CORIVA) vaccinated people and 1 640 371 (CPRD GOLD), 5 860 564 (CPRD AURUM), 2 588 518 (SIDIAP), and 302 267 (CORIVA) unvaccinated people were included. Compared with unvaccinated people, overall HRs for long COVID symptoms in people vaccinated with a first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine were 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67) in CPRD GOLD, 0·48 (0·34-0·68) in CPRD AURUM, 0·71 (0·55-0·91) in SIDIAP, and 0·59 (0·40-0·87) in CORIVA. A slightly stronger preventative effect was seen for the first dose of BNT162b2 than for ChAdOx1 (sHR 0·85 [0·60-1·20] in CPRD GOLD and 0·84 [0·74-0·94] in CPRD AURUM). INTERPRETATION: Vaccination against COVID-19 consistently reduced the risk of long COVID symptoms, which highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent persistent COVID-19 symptoms, particularly in adults. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.