Qualitative evaluation of a molecular point-of-care testing study for influenza in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Influenza contributes to the surge in winter infections and the consequent winter pressures on the health service. Molecular point-of-care testing(POCT) for influenza might improve patient management by providing rapid and accurate clinical diagnosis to inform the timely initiation of antiviral therapy and reduce unnecessary admissions and antibiotics use. AIM: To explore factors that influence the adoption or non-adoption of POCT in English general practices and provide insights to enable its integration into routine practice workflows. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative implementation evaluation was conducted in ten general practices within the English national sentinel network (Oxford-RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre), from April to July 2023. METHOD: Using the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework, data collection and analysis were conducted across ten practices. We made ethnographic observations of the POCT workflow and surveyed the practice staff for their perspectives on POCT implementation. Data were analysed using a mix of descriptive statistics, graphical modelling techniques and framework approach. RESULTS: Ethnographic observations identified two modes of POCT integration into practice workflow: 1) clinician POCT workflow - typically involving batch testing due to time constraints, 2) research nurse/healthcare assistant POCT workflow - characterised by immediate testing of individual patients. Survey indicated that most primary care staff considered the POCT training offered was sufficient, and these practices were ready for change and had the capacity and resources to integrate POCT in workflows. CONCLUSION: General practices should demonstrate flexibility in the workflow and workforce they deploy to integrate POCT into routine clinical workflow.

Deploying an asthma dashboard to support quality improvement across a nationally representative sentinel network of 7.6 million people in England.

Every year, there are ~100,000 hospital admissions for asthma in the UK, many of which are potentially preventable. Evidence suggests that carefully conceptualised and implemented audit and feedback (A&F) cycles have the potential to improve clinical outcomes for those with chronic conditions. We wanted to investigate the technical feasibility of developing a near-real time asthma dashboard to support A&F interventions for asthma management in primary care. We extracted cross-sectional data on asthma from 756 participating GP practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP RSC) database in England comprising 7.6 million registered people. Summary indicators for a GP practice were compared to all participating RCGP RSC practices using practice-level data, for the week 6-12th-Mar-2023. A weekly, automated asthma dashboard with features that can support electronic-A&F cycles that compared key asthma indicators for a GP practice to RCGP RSC could be created ( https://tinyurl.com/3ydtrt85 ): 12-weeks-incidence 0.4% vs 0.4%, annual prevalence 6.1% vs 6.7%, inhaled relievers to preventer 1.2 vs 1.1, self-management plan given 83.4% vs 60.8%, annual reviews 36.8% vs 57.3%, prednisolone prescriptions 2.0% vs 3.2%, influenza vaccination 56.6% vs 55.5%, pneumococcal vaccination ever (aged ≥65 years) 90.2% vs 84.1% and current smokers 14.9% vs 14.8%. Across the RCGP RSC, the rate of hospitalisations was 0.024%; comparative data had to be suppressed for the study practice because of small numbers. We have successfully created an automated near real-time asthma dashboard that can be used to support A&F initiatives to improve asthma care and outcomes in primary care.

Modifiable risk factors for asthma exacerbations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based repeated cross-sectional study using the Research and Surveillance Centre primary care database.

Background: There were substantial reductions in asthma exacerbations during the COVID-19 pandemic for reasons that remain poorly understood. We investigated changes in modifiable risk factors which might help explain the reductions in asthma exacerbations. Methods: Multilevel generalised linear mixed models were fitted to examine changes in modifiable risk factors for asthma exacerbations during 2020-2022, compared to pre-pandemic year (2019), using observational, routine data from general practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Asthma exacerbations were defined as any of GP recorded: asthma exacerbations, prescriptions of prednisolone, accident and emergency department attendance or hospitalisation for asthma. Modifiable risk factors of interest were ownership of asthma self-management plan, asthma annual review, inhaled-corticosteroid (ICS) prescriptions, influenza vaccinations and respiratory-tract-infections (RTI). Findings: Compared with 2019 (n = 550,995), in 2020 (n = 565,956) and 2022 (n = 562,167) (p < 0.05): asthma exacerbations declined from 67.1% to 51.9% and 61.1%, the proportion of people who had: asthma exacerbations reduced from 20.4% to 15.1% and 18.5%, asthma self-management plans increased from 28.6% to 37.7% and 55.9%; ICS prescriptions increased from 69.9% to 72.0% and 71.1%; influenza vaccinations increased from 14.2% to 25.4% and 55.3%; current smoking declined from 15.0% to 14.5% and 14.7%; lower-RTI declined from 10.5% to 5.3% and 8.1%; upper-RTI reduced from 10.7% to 5.8% and 7.6%. There was cluster effect of GP practices on asthma exacerbations (p = 0.001). People with asthma were more likely (p < 0.05) to have exacerbations if they had LRTI (seven times(x)), had URTI and ILI (both twice), were current smokers (1.4x), PPV vaccinated (1.3x), seasonal flu vaccinated (1.01x), took ICS (1.3x), had asthma reviews (1.09x). People with asthma were less likely to have exacerbations if they had self-management plan (7%), and were partially (4%) than fully COVID-19 vaccinated. Interpretation: We have identified changes in modifiable risk factors for asthma exacerbation that need to be maintained in the post-pandemic era. Funding: Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research and Health Data Research UK.

End of 2022/23 Season Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Primary Care in Great Britain.

BACKGROUND: The 2022/23 influenza season in the United Kingdom saw the return of influenza to prepandemic levels following two seasons with low influenza activity. The early season was dominated by A(H3N2), with cocirculation of A(H1N1), reaching a peak late December 2022, while influenza B circulated at low levels during the latter part of the season. From September to March 2022/23, influenza vaccines were offered, free of charge, to all aged 2-13 (and 14-15 in Scotland and Wales), adults up to 49 years of age with clinical risk conditions and adults aged 50 and above across the mainland United Kingdom. METHODS: End-of-season adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against sentinel primary-care attendance for influenza-like illness, where influenza infection was laboratory confirmed, were calculated using the test negative design, adjusting for potential confounders. METHODS: Results In the mainland United Kingdom, end-of-season VE against all laboratory-confirmed influenza for all those > 65 years of age, most of whom received adjuvanted quadrivalent vaccines, was 30% (95% CI: -6% to 54%). VE for those aged 18-64, who largely received cell-based vaccines, was 47% (95% CI: 37%-56%). Overall VE for 2-17 year olds, predominantly receiving live attenuated vaccines, was 66% (95% CI: 53%-76%). CONCLUSION: The paper provides evidence of moderate influenza VE in 2022/23.

Postpandemic Sentinel Surveillance of Respiratory Diseases in the Context of the World Health Organization Mosaic Framework: Protocol for a Development and Evaluation Study Involving the English Primary Care Network 2023-2024.

BACKGROUND: Prepandemic sentinel surveillance focused on improved management of winter pressures, with influenza-like illness (ILI) being the key clinical indicator. The World Health Organization (WHO) global standards for influenza surveillance include monitoring acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI. The WHO's mosaic framework recommends that the surveillance strategies of countries include the virological monitoring of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential such as influenza. The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioner Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) in collaboration with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has provided sentinel surveillance since 1967, including virology since 1993. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the RSC's plans for sentinel surveillance in the 2023-2024 season and evaluate these plans against the WHO mosaic framework. METHODS: Our approach, which includes patient and public involvement, contributes to surveillance objectives across all 3 domains of the mosaic framework. We will generate an ARI phenotype to enable reporting of this indicator in addition to ILI. These data will support UKHSA's sentinel surveillance, including vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease studies. The panel of virology tests analyzed in UKHSA's reference laboratory will remain unchanged, with additional plans for point-of-care testing, pneumococcus testing, and asymptomatic screening. Our sampling framework for serological surveillance will provide greater representativeness and more samples from younger people. We will create a biomedical resource that enables linkage between clinical data held in the RSC and virology data, including sequencing data, held by the UKHSA. We describe the governance framework for the RSC. RESULTS: We are co-designing our communication about data sharing and sampling, contextualized by the mosaic framework, with national and general practice patient and public involvement groups. We present our ARI digital phenotype and the key data RSC network members are requested to include in computerized medical records. We will share data with the UKHSA to report vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 and influenza, assess the disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus, and perform syndromic surveillance. Virological surveillance will include COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other common respiratory viruses. We plan to pilot point-of-care testing for group A streptococcus, urine tests for pneumococcus, and asymptomatic testing. We will integrate test requests and results with the laboratory-computerized medical record system. A biomedical resource will enable research linking clinical data to virology data. The legal basis for the RSC's pseudonymized data extract is The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, and all nonsurveillance uses require research ethics approval. CONCLUSIONS: The RSC extended its surveillance activities to meet more but not all of the mosaic framework's objectives. We have introduced an ARI indicator. We seek to expand our surveillance scope and could do more around transmissibility and the benefits and risks of nonvaccine therapies.

Influenza vaccination during the 2021/22 season: A data-linkage test-negative case-control study of effectiveness against influenza requiring emergency care in England and serological analysis of primary care patients.

We present England 2021/22 end-of-season adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against laboratory confirmed influenza related emergency care use in children aged 1-17 and in adults aged 50+, and serological findings in vaccinated vs unvaccinated adults by hemagglutination inhibition assay. Influenza vaccination has been routinely offered to all children aged 2-10 years and adults aged 65 years + in England. In 2021/22, the offer was extended to children to age 15 years, and adults aged 50-64 years. Influenza activity rose during the latter half of the 2021/22 season, while remaining comparatively low due to COVID-19 pandemic control measures. Influenza A(H3N2) strains predominated. A test negative design was used to estimate aVE by vaccine type. Cases and controls were identified within a sentinel laboratory surveillance system. Vaccine histories were obtained from the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS), an influenza and COVID-19 vaccine registry. These were linked to emergency department presentations (excluding accidents) with respiratory swabbing ≤ 14 days before or ≤ 7 days after presentation. Amongst adults, 423 positive and 32,917 negative samples were eligible for inclusion, and 145 positive and 6,438 negative samples among children. Those admitted to hospital were further identified. In serology against the circulating A(H3N2) A/Bangladesh/4005/2020-like strain, 61 % of current season adult vaccinees had titres ≥ 1:40 compared to 17 % of those unvaccinated in 2020/21 or 2021/22 (p < 0.001). We found good protection from influenza vaccination against influenza requiring emergency care in children (72.7 % [95 % CI 52.7, 84.3 %]) and modest effectiveness in adults (26.1 % [95 % CI 4.5, 42.8 %]). Adult VE was higher for A(H1N1) (81 % [95 % CI 50, 93 %]) than A(H3N2) (33 % [95 % CI 6, 53 %]). Consistent protection was observable across preschool, primary and secondary school aged children. Imperfect test specificity combined with very low prevalence may have biased estimates towards null. With limited influenza circulation, the study could not determine differences by vaccine types.

Diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in a primary care population (RAPTOR-C19).

OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence exists for the diagnostic performance of point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in community healthcare. We carried out a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of the LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A or B assay in primary care. METHODS: Total of 913 adults and children with symptoms of current SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from 18 UK primary care practices during a period when Omicron was the predominant COVID variant of concern (June 2022 to December 2022). Trained health care staff performed the index test, with diagnostic accuracy parameters estimated for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza against real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rtRT-PCR). RESULTS: 151/887 participants were SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR positive, 109 positive for Influenza A, 6 for Influenza B. Index test sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 80.8% (122 of the 151, 95% CI, 73.6-86.7%) and specificity 98.9% (728 of the 736, 95% CI, 97.9-99.5%). For influenza A, sensitivity was 61.5% (67 of the 109, 95% CI, 51.7-70.6%) and specificity 99.4% (771 of the 776, 95% CI, 98.5-99.8%). Sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza dropped sharply at rtRT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) > 30. DISCUSSIONS: The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B assay had moderate sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in primary care, with lower performance with high rtRT-PCR Ct. Negative results in this patient group cannot definitively rule out SARS-CoV-2 or influenza.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death of people in clinical risk groups during the Delta variant period: English primary care network cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against hospitalisation and death following COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates against severe endpoints among individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of critical disease are limited. METHODS: We used English primary care medical record data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre sentinel network (N > 18 million). Data were linked to the National Immunisation Management Service database, Second Generation Surveillance System for virology test data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. We estimated adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against COVID-19 infection followed by hospitalisation and death among individuals in specific clinical risk groups using a cohort design during the delta-dominant period. We also report mortality statistics and results from our antibody surveillance in this population. FINDINGS: aVE against severe endpoints was high, 14-69d following a third dose aVE was 96.4% (95.1%-97.4%) and 97.9% (97.2%-98.4%) for clinically vulnerable people given a Vaxzevria and Comirnaty primary course respectively. Lower aVE was observed in the immunosuppressed group: 88.6% (79.1%-93.8%) and 91.9% (85.9%-95.4%) for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty respectively. Antibody levels were significantly lower among the immunosuppressed group than those not in this risk group across all vaccination types and doses. The standardised case fatality rate within 28 days of a positive test was 3.9/1000 in people not in risk groups, compared to 12.8/1000 in clinical risk groups. Waning aVE with time since 2nd dose was also demonstrated, for example, Comirnaty aVE against hospitalisation reduced from 96.0% (95.1-96.7%) 14-69days post-dose 2-82.9% (81.4-84.2%) 182days+ post-dose 2. INTERPRETATION: In all clinical risk groups high levels of vaccine effectiveness against severe endpoints were seen. Reduced vaccine effectiveness was noted among the immunosuppressed group.

The Impact of Point-of-Care Testing for Influenza on Antimicrobial Stewardship (PIAMS) in UK Primary Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) used in primary care can inform whether a patient presenting with an acute respiratory infection has influenza. A confirmed clinical diagnosis, particularly early in the disease, could inform better antimicrobial stewardship. Social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have disturbed previous patterns of influenza infections in 2021. However, data from samples taken in the last quarter of 2022 suggest that influenza represents 36% of sentinel network positive virology, compared with 24% for respiratory syncytial virus. Problems with integration into the clinical workflow is a known barrier to incorporating technology into routine care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report the impact of POCT for influenza on antimicrobial prescribing in primary care. We will additionally describe severe outcomes of infection (hospitalization and mortality) and how POCT is integrated into primary care workflows. METHODS: The impact of POCT for influenza on antimicrobial stewardship (PIAMS) in UK primary care is an observational study being conducted between December 2022 and May 2023 and involving 10 practices that contribute data to the English sentinel network. Up to 1000 people who present to participating practices with respiratory symptoms will be swabbed and tested with a rapid molecular POCT analyzer in the practice. Antimicrobial prescribing and other study outcomes will be collected by linking information from the POCT analyzer with data from the patient's computerized medical record. We will collect data on how POCT is incorporated into practice using data flow diagrams, unified modeling language use case diagrams, and Business Process Modeling Notation. RESULTS: We will present the crude and adjusted odds of antimicrobial prescribing (all antibiotics and antivirals) given a POCT diagnosis of influenza, stratifying by whether individuals have a respiratory or other relevant diagnosis (eg, bronchiectasis). We will also present the rates of hospital referrals and deaths related to influenza infection in PIAMS study practices compared with a set of matched practices in the sentinel network and the rest of the network. We will describe any difference in implementation models in terms of staff involved and workflow. CONCLUSIONS: This study will generate data on the impact of POCT testing for influenza in primary care as well as help to inform about the feasibility of incorporating POCT into primary care workflows. It will inform the design of future larger studies about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of POCT to improve antimicrobial stewardship and any impact on severe outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46938.

Representativeness, Vaccination Uptake, and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes 2020-2021 in the UK Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Network: Cohort Profile Summary.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) is one of Europe's oldest sentinel systems, working with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and its predecessor bodies for 55 years. Its surveillance report now runs twice weekly, supplemented by online observatories. In addition to conducting sentinel surveillance from a nationally representative group of practices, the RSC is now also providing data for syndromic surveillance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the cohort profile at the start of the 2021-2022 surveillance season and recent changes to our surveillance practice. METHODS: The RSC's pseudonymized primary care data, linked to hospital and other data, are held in the Oxford-RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, a Trusted Research Environment. We describe the RSC's cohort profile as of September 2021, divided into a Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC)-collecting virological and serological specimens-and a larger group of syndromic surveillance general practices (SSGPs). We report changes to our sampling strategy that brings the RSC into alignment with European Centre for Disease Control guidance and then compare our cohort's sociodemographic characteristics with Office for National Statistics data. We further describe influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coverage for the 2020-2021 season (week 40 of 2020 to week 39 of 2021), with the latter differentiated by vaccine brand. Finally, we report COVID-19-related outcomes in terms of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. RESULTS: As a response to COVID-19, the RSC grew from just over 500 PCSC practices in 2019 to 1879 practices in 2021 (PCSC, n=938; SSGP, n=1203). This represents 28.6% of English general practices and 30.59% (17,299,780/56,550,136) of the population. In the reporting period, the PCSC collected >8000 virology and >23,000 serology samples. The RSC population was broadly representative of the national population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, National Health Service Region, socioeconomic status, obesity, and smoking habit. The RSC captured vaccine coverage data for influenza (n=5.4 million) and COVID-19, reporting dose one (n=11.9 million), two (n=11 million), and three (n=0.4 million) for the latter as well as brand-specific uptake data (AstraZeneca vaccine, n=11.6 million; Pfizer, n=10.8 million; and Moderna, n=0.7 million). The median (IQR) number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and ICU admissions was 1181 (559-1559) and 115 (50-174) per week, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RSC is broadly representative of the national population; its PCSC is geographically representative and its SSGPs are newly supporting UKHSA syndromic surveillance efforts. The network captures vaccine coverage and has expanded from reporting primary care attendances to providing data on onward hospital outcomes and deaths. The challenge remains to increase virological and serological sampling to monitor the effectiveness and waning of all vaccines available in a timely manner.

Assessing the Clinical and Socioeconomic Burden of Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Children Aged Under 5 Years in Primary Care: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study in England and Report on the Adaptations of the Study to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) commonly causes lower respiratory tract infections and hospitalization in children. In 2019-2020, the Europe-wide RSV ComNet standardized study protocol was developed to measure the clinical and socioeconomic disease burden of RSV infections among children aged <5 years in primary care. RSV has a recognized seasonality in England. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe (1) the adaptations of the RSV ComNet standardized study protocol for England and (2) the challenges of conducting the study during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted by the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre-the English national primary care sentinel network. We invited all (N=248) general practices within the network that undertook virology sampling to participate in the study by recruiting eligible patients (registered population: n=3,056,583). Children aged <5 years with the following case definition of RSV infection were included in the study: those consulting a health care practitioner in primary care with symptoms meeting the World Health Organization's definition of acute respiratory illness or influenza-like illness who have laboratory-confirmed RSV infection. The parents/guardians of these cases were asked to complete 2 previously validated questionnaires (14 and 30 days postsampling). A sample size of at least 100 RSV-positive cases is required to estimate the percentage of children that consult in primary care who need hospitalization. Assuming a swab positivity rate of 20% in children aged <5 years, we estimated that 500 swabs are required. We adapted our method for the pandemic by extending sampling planned for winter 2020-2021 to a rolling data collection, allowing verbal consent and introducing home swabbing because of increased web-based consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The preliminary results of the data collection between International Organization for Standardization (ISO) weeks 1-41 in 2021 are described. There was no RSV detected in the winter of 2020-2021 through the study. The first positive RSV swab collected through the sentinel network in England was collected in ISO week 17 and then every week since ISO week 25. In total, 16 (N=248, 6.5%) of the virology-sampling practices volunteered to participate; these were high-sampling practices collecting the majority of eligible swabs across the sentinel network-200 (43.8%) out of 457 swabs, of which 54 (N=200, 27%) were positive for RSV. CONCLUSIONS: Measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic meant there was no circulating RSV last winter; however, RSV has circulated out of season, as detected by the sentinel network. The sentinel network practices have collected 40% (200/500) of the required samples, and 27% (54/200) were RSV positive. We have demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a European-standardized RSV disease burden study protocol in England during a pandemic, and we now need to recruit to this adapted protocol. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38026.

Developing a Long COVID Phenotype for Postacute COVID-19 in a National Primary Care Sentinel Cohort: Observational Retrospective Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Following COVID-19, up to 40% of people have ongoing health problems, referred to as postacute COVID-19 or long COVID (LC). LC varies from a single persisting symptom to a complex multisystem disease. Research has flagged that this condition is underrecorded in primary care records, and seeks to better define its clinical characteristics and management. Phenotypes provide a standard method for case definition and identification from routine data and are usually machine-processable. An LC phenotype can underpin research into this condition. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a phenotype for LC to inform the epidemiology and future research into this condition. We compared clinical symptoms in people with LC before and after their index infection, recorded from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021. We also compared people recorded as having acute infection with those with LC who were hospitalized and those who were not. METHODS: We used data from the Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC) of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database. This network was recruited to be nationally representative of the English population. We developed an LC phenotype using our established 3-step ontological method: (1) ontological step (defining the reasoning process underpinning the phenotype, (2) coding step (exploring what clinical terms are available, and (3) logical extract model (testing performance). We created a version of this phenotype using Protégé in the ontology web language for BioPortal and using PhenoFlow. Next, we used the phenotype to compare people with LC (1) with regard to their symptoms in the year prior to acquiring COVID-19 and (2) with people with acute COVID-19. We also compared hospitalized people with LC with those not hospitalized. We compared sociodemographic details, comorbidities, and Office of National Statistics-defined LC symptoms between groups. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression. RESULTS: The long-COVID phenotype differentiated people hospitalized with LC from people who were not and where no index infection was identified. The PCSC (N=7.4 million) includes 428,479 patients with acute COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by a laboratory test and 10,772 patients with clinically diagnosed COVID-19. A total of 7471 (1.74%, 95% CI 1.70-1.78) people were coded as having LC, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.7-14.3) had a hospital admission related to acute COVID-19, and 6462 (86.5%, 95% CI 85.7-87.3) were not hospitalized, of whom 2728 (42.2%) had no COVID-19 index date recorded. In addition, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.73-14.28) people with LC were hospitalized compared to 17,993 (4.5%, 95% CI 4.48-4.61; P<.001) with uncomplicated COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our LC phenotype enables the identification of individuals with the condition in routine data sets, facilitating their comparison with unaffected people through retrospective research. This phenotype and study protocol to explore its face validity contributes to a better understanding of LC.

Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of COVID-19 severity in the community is essential for patient care and requires COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores adequately validated in a community setting. Following a qualitative phase to identify signs, symptoms, and risk factors, we aimed to develop and validate two COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores. Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care-General Practice score (RECAP-GP; without peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO2]) and RECAP-oxygen saturation score (RECAP-O2; with SpO2). METHODS: RECAP was a prospective cohort study that used multivariable logistic regression. Data on signs and symptoms (predictors) of disease were collected from community-based patients with suspected COVID-19 via primary care electronic health records and linked with secondary data on hospital admission (outcome) within 28 days of symptom onset. Data sources for RECAP-GP were Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP-RSC) primary care practices (development set), northwest London primary care practices (validation set), and the NHS COVID-19 Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS; validation set). The data source for RECAP-O2 was the Doctaly Assist platform (development set and validation set in subsequent sample). The two probabilistic risk prediction models were built by backwards elimination using the development sets and validated by application to the validation datasets. Estimated sample size per model, including the development and validation sets was 2880 people. FINDINGS: Data were available from 8311 individuals. Observations, such as SpO2, were mostly missing in the northwest London, RCGP-RSC, and CCAS data; however, SpO2 was available for 1364 (70·0%) of 1948 patients who used Doctaly. In the final predictive models, RECAP-GP (n=1863) included sex (male and female), age (years), degree of breathlessness (three point scale), temperature symptoms (two point scale), and presence of hypertension (yes or no); the area under the curve was 0·80 (95% CI 0·76-0·85) and on validation the negative predictive value of a low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·1-99·2; 1435 of 1453). RECAP-O2 included age (years), degree of breathlessness (two point scale), fatigue (two point scale), and SpO2 at rest (as a percentage); the area under the curve was 0·84 (0·78-0·90) and on validation the negative predictive value of low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·9-99·7; 1176 of 1183). INTERPRETATION: Both RECAP models are valid tools to assess COVID-19 patients in the community. RECAP-GP can be used initially, without need for observations, to identify patients who require monitoring. If the patient is monitored and SpO2 is available, RECAP-O2 is useful to assess the need for treatment escalation. FUNDING: Community Jameel and the Imperial College President's Excellence Fund, the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and Health Data Research UK.

Differences in Clinical Presentation With Long COVID After Community and Hospital Infection and Associations With All-Cause Mortality: English Sentinel Network Database Study.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of long COVID (symptoms of COVID-19 infection beyond 4 weeks) have focused on people hospitalized in their initial illness. Long COVID is thought to be underrecorded in UK primary care electronic records. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine which symptoms people present to primary care after COVID-19 infection and whether presentation differs in people who were not hospitalized, as well as post-long COVID mortality rates. METHODS: We used routine data from the nationally representative primary care sentinel cohort of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (N=7,396,702), applying a predefined long COVID phenotype and grouped by whether the index infection occurred in hospital or in the community. We included COVID-19 infection cases from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021. We conducted a before-and-after analysis of long COVID symptoms prespecified by the Office of National Statistics, comparing symptoms presented between 1 and 6 months after the index infection matched with the same months 1 year previously. We conducted logistic regression analysis, quoting odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: In total, 5.63% (416,505/7,396,702) and 1.83% (7623/416,505) of the patients had received a coded diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and diagnosis of, or referral for, long COVID, respectively. People with diagnosis or referral of long COVID had higher odds of presenting the prespecified symptoms after versus before COVID-19 infection (OR 2.66, 95% CI 2.46-2.88, for those with index community infection and OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.03-2.89, for those hospitalized). After an index community infection, patients were more likely to present with nonspecific symptoms (OR 3.44, 95% CI 3.00-3.95; P<.001) compared with after a hospital admission (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.56-2.80; P<.001). Mental health sequelae were more strongly associated with index hospital infections (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.64-2.96) than with index community infections (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.21-1.53; P<.001). People presenting to primary care after hospital infection were more likely to be men (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25-1.64; P<.001), more socioeconomically deprived (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24-1.63; P<.001), and with higher multimorbidity scores (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.26-1.57; P<.001) than those presenting after an index community infection. All-cause mortality in people with long COVID was associated with increasing age, male sex (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.34-9.24; P=.01), and higher multimorbidity score (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.34-3.29; P<.001). Vaccination was associated with reduced odds of mortality (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.35; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The low percentage of people recorded as having long COVID after COVID-19 infection reflects either low prevalence or underrecording. The characteristics and comorbidities of those presenting with long COVID after a community infection are different from those hospitalized. This study provides insights into the presentation of long COVID in primary care and implications for workload.

Sociodemographic disparities in COVID-19 seroprevalence across England in the Oxford RCGP primary care sentinel network.

OBJECTIVES: To monitor changes in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in populations over time and between different demographic groups. METHODS: A subset of practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network provided serum samples, collected when volunteer patients had routine blood tests. We tested these samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using Abbott (Chicago, USA), Roche (Basel, Switzerland) and/or Euroimmun (Luebeck, Germany) assays, and linked the results to the patients' primary care computerised medical records. We report seropositivity by region and age group, and additionally examined the effects of gender, ethnicity, deprivation, rurality, shielding recommendation and smoking status. RESULTS: We estimated seropositivity from patients aged 18-100 years old, which ranged from 4.1% (95% CI 3.1-5.3%) to 8.9% (95% CI 7.8-10.2%) across the different assays and time periods. We found higher Euroimmun seropositivity in younger age groups, people of Black and Asian ethnicity (compared to white), major conurbations, and non-smokers. We did not observe any significant effect by region, gender, deprivation, or shielding recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prior to the vaccination programme, most of the population remained unexposed to SARS-CoV-2.

The impact of primary care supported shielding on the risk of mortality in people vulnerable to COVID-19: English sentinel network matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To mitigate risk of mortality from coronavirus 2019 infection (COVID-19), the UK government recommended 'shielding' of vulnerable people through self-isolation for 12 weeks. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative English primary care database comparing people aged >= 40 years who were recorded as being advised to shield using a fixed ratio of 1:1, matching to people with the same diagnoses not advised to shield (n = 77,360 per group). Time-to-death was compared using Cox regression, reporting the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality between groups. A sensitivity analysis compared exact matched cohorts (n = 24,752 shielded, n = 61,566 exact matches). RESULTS: We found a time-varying HR of mortality between groups. In the first 21 days, the mortality risk in people shielding was half those not (HR = 0.50, 95%CI:0.41-0.59. p < 0.0001). Over the remaining nine weeks, mortality risk was 54% higher in the shielded group (HR=1.54, 95%CI:1.41-1.70, p < 0.0001). Beyond the shielding period, mortality risk was over two-and-a-half times higher in the shielded group (HR=2.61, 95%CI:2.38-2.87, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Shielding halved the risk of mortality for 21 days. Mortality risk became higher across the remainder of the shielding period, rising to two-and-a-half times greater post-shielding. Shielding may be beneficial in the next wave of COVID-19.

Influenza and Respiratory Virus Surveillance, Vaccine Uptake, and Effectiveness at a Time of Cocirculating COVID-19: Protocol for the English Primary Care Sentinel System for 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) and Public Health England (PHE) are commencing their 54th season of collaboration at a time when SARS-CoV-2 infections are likely to be cocirculating with the usual winter infections. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to conduct surveillance of influenza and other monitored respiratory conditions and to report on vaccine uptake and effectiveness using nationally representative surveillance data extracted from primary care computerized medical records systems. We also aim to have general practices collect virology and serology specimens and to participate in trials and other interventional research. METHODS: The RCGP RSC network comprises over 1700 general practices in England and Wales. We will extract pseudonymized data twice weekly and are migrating to a system of daily extracts. First, we will collect pseudonymized, routine, coded clinical data for the surveillance of monitored and unexpected conditions; data on vaccine exposure and adverse events of interest; and data on approved research study outcomes. Second, we will provide dashboards to give general practices feedback about levels of care and data quality, as compared to other network practices. We will focus on collecting data on influenza-like illness, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and suspected COVID-19. Third, approximately 300 practices will participate in the 2020-2021 virology and serology surveillance; this will include responsive surveillance and long-term follow-up of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Fourth, member practices will be able to recruit volunteer patients to trials, including early interventions to improve COVID-19 outcomes and point-of-care testing. Lastly, the legal basis for our surveillance with PHE is Regulation 3 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002; other studies require appropriate ethical approval. RESULTS: The RCGP RSC network has tripled in size; there were previously 100 virology practices and 500 practices overall in the network and we now have 322 and 1724, respectively. The Oxford-RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) secure networks enable the daily analysis of the extended network; currently, 1076 practices are uploaded. We are implementing a central swab distribution system for patients self-swabbing at home in addition to in-practice sampling. We have converted all our primary care coding to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) coding. Throughout spring and summer 2020, the network has continued to collect specimens in preparation for the winter or for any second wave of COVID-19 cases. We have collected 5404 swabs and detected 623 cases of COVID-19 through extended virological sampling, and 19,341 samples have been collected for serology. This shows our preparedness for the winter season. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a groundswell of general practices joining our network. It has also created a permissive environment in which we have developed the capacity and capability of the national primary care surveillance systems and our unique public health institute, the RCGP and University of Oxford collaboration.

Using an Ontology to Facilitate More Accurate Coding of Social Prescriptions Addressing Social Determinants of Health: Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) England supports social prescribing in order to address social determinants of health, which account for approximately 80% of all health outcomes. Nevertheless, data on ongoing social prescribing activities are lacking. Although NHS England has attempted to overcome this problem by recommending 3 standardized primary care codes, these codes do not capture the social prescribing activity to a level of granularity that would allow for fair attribution of outcomes to social prescribing. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we explored whether an alternative approach to coding social prescribing activity, specifically through a social prescribing ontology, can be used to capture the social prescriptions used in primary care in greater detail. METHODS: The social prescribing ontology, implemented according to the Web Ontology Language, was designed to cover several key concepts encompassing social determinants of health. Readv2 and Clinical Terms Version 3 codes were identified using the NHS Terms Browser. The Royal College of General Practitioners Research Surveillance Centre, a sentinel network of over 1000 primary care practices across England covering a population of more than 4,000,000 registered patients, was used for data analyses for a defined period (ie, January 2011 to December 2019). RESULTS: In all, 668 codes capturing social prescriptions addressing different social determinants of health were identified for the social prescribing ontology. For the study period, social prescribing ontology codes were used 5,504,037 times by primary care practices of the Royal College of General Practitioners Research Surveillance Centre as compared to 29,606 instances of use of social prescribing codes, including NHS England's recommended codes. CONCLUSIONS: A social prescribing ontology provides a powerful alternative to the codes currently recommended by NHS England to capture detailed social prescribing activity in England. The more detailed information thus obtained will allow for explorations about whether outputs or outcomes of care delivery can be attributed to social prescriptions, which is essential for demonstrating the overall value that social prescribing can deliver to the NHS and health care systems.

Excess mortality in the first COVID pandemic peak: cross-sectional analyses of the impact of age, sex, ethnicity, household size, and long-term conditions in people of known SARS-CoV-2 status in England.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has passed its first peak in Europe. AIM: To describe the mortality in England and its association with SARS-CoV-2 status and other demographic and risk factors. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analyses of people with known SARS-CoV-2 status in the Oxford RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network. METHOD: Pseudonymised, coded clinical data were uploaded from volunteer general practice members of this nationally representative network (n = 4 413 734). All-cause mortality was compared with national rates for 2019, using a relative survival model, reporting relative hazard ratios (RHR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A multivariable adjusted odds ratios (OR) analysis was conducted for those with known SARS-CoV-2 status (n = 56 628, 1.3%) including multiple imputation and inverse probability analysis, and a complete cases sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Mortality peaked in week 16. People living in households of ≥9 had a fivefold increase in relative mortality (RHR = 5.1, 95% CI = 4.87 to 5.31, P<0.0001). The ORs of mortality were 8.9 (95% CI = 6.7 to 11.8, P<0.0001) and 9.7 (95% CI = 7.1 to 13.2, P<0.0001) for virologically and clinically diagnosed cases respectively, using people with negative tests as reference. The adjusted mortality for the virologically confirmed group was 18.1% (95% CI = 17.6 to 18.7). Male sex, population density, black ethnicity (compared to white), and people with long-term conditions, including learning disability (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.22 to 3.18, P = 0.0056) had higher odds of mortality. CONCLUSION: The first SARS-CoV-2 peak in England has been associated with excess mortality. Planning for subsequent peaks needs to better manage risk in males, those of black ethnicity, older people, people with learning disabilities, and people who live in multi-occupancy dwellings.

COVID-19 Surveillance in a Primary Care Sentinel Network: In-Pandemic Development of an Application Ontology.

BACKGROUND: Creating an ontology for COVID-19 surveillance should help ensure transparency and consistency. Ontologies formalize conceptualizations at either the domain or application level. Application ontologies cross domains and are specified through testable use cases. Our use case was an extension of the role of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) to monitor the current pandemic and become an in-pandemic research platform. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an application ontology for COVID-19 that can be deployed across the various use-case domains of the RCGP RSC research and surveillance activities. METHODS: We described our domain-specific use case. The actor was the RCGP RSC sentinel network, the system was the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the outcomes were the spread and effect of mitigation measures. We used our established 3-step method to develop the ontology, separating ontological concept development from code mapping and data extract validation. We developed a coding system-independent COVID-19 case identification algorithm. As there were no gold-standard pandemic surveillance ontologies, we conducted a rapid Delphi consensus exercise through the International Medical Informatics Association Primary Health Care Informatics working group and extended networks. RESULTS: Our use-case domains included primary care, public health, virology, clinical research, and clinical informatics. Our ontology supported (1) case identification, microbiological sampling, and health outcomes at an individual practice and at the national level; (2) feedback through a dashboard; (3) a national observatory; (4) regular updates for Public Health England; and (5) transformation of a sentinel network into a trial platform. We have identified a total of 19,115 people with a definite COVID-19 status, 5226 probable cases, and 74,293 people with possible COVID-19, within the RCGP RSC network (N=5,370,225). CONCLUSIONS: The underpinning structure of our ontological approach has coped with multiple clinical coding challenges. At a time when there is uncertainty about international comparisons, clarity about the basis on which case definitions and outcomes are made from routine data is essential.