Data resource profile: the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) / 한국역학회지

Electronic health records (EHRs) can provide researchers with extraordinary opportunities for population-based research. The National Health Insurance system of Taiwan was established in 1995 and covers more than 99.6% of the Taiwanese population; this system's claims data are released as the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). All data from primary outpatient departments and inpatient hospital care settings after 2000 are included in this database. After a change and update in 2016, the NHIRD is maintained and regulated by the Data Science Centre of the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan. Datasets for approved research are released in three forms: sampling datasets comprising 2 million subjects, disease-specific databases, and full population datasets. These datasets are de-identified and contain basic demographic information, disease diagnoses, prescriptions, operations, and investigations. Data can be linked to government surveys or other research datasets. While only a small number of validation studies with small sample sizes have been undertaken, they have generally reported positive predictive values of over 70% for various diagnoses. Currently, patients cannot opt out of inclusion in the database, although this requirement is under review. In conclusion, the NHIRD is a large, powerful data source for biomedical research.

Data resource profile: the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) / 한국역학회지

Electronic health records (EHRs) can provide researchers with extraordinary opportunities for population-based research. The National Health Insurance system of Taiwan was established in 1995 and covers more than 99.6% of the Taiwanese population; this system's claims data are released as the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). All data from primary outpatient departments and inpatient hospital care settings after 2000 are included in this database. After a change and update in 2016, the NHIRD is maintained and regulated by the Data Science Centre of the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan. Datasets for approved research are released in three forms: sampling datasets comprising 2 million subjects, disease-specific databases, and full population datasets. These datasets are de-identified and contain basic demographic information, disease diagnoses, prescriptions, operations, and investigations. Data can be linked to government surveys or other research datasets. While only a small number of validation studies with small sample sizes have been undertaken, they have generally reported positive predictive values of over 70% for various diagnoses. Currently, patients cannot opt out of inclusion in the database, although this requirement is under review. In conclusion, the NHIRD is a large, powerful data source for biomedical research.

Data resource profile: the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) / 한국역학회지

Electronic health records (EHRs) can provide researchers with extraordinary opportunities for population-based research. The National Health Insurance system of Taiwan was established in 1995 and covers more than 99.6% of the Taiwanese population; this system's claims data are released as the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). All data from primary outpatient departments and inpatient hospital care settings after 2000 are included in this database. After a change and update in 2016, the NHIRD is maintained and regulated by the Data Science Centre of the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan. Datasets for approved research are released in three forms: sampling datasets comprising 2 million subjects, disease-specific databases, and full population datasets. These datasets are de-identified and contain basic demographic information, disease diagnoses, prescriptions, operations, and investigations. Data can be linked to government surveys or other research datasets. While only a small number of validation studies with small sample sizes have been undertaken, they have generally reported positive predictive values of over 70% for various diagnoses. Currently, patients cannot opt out of inclusion in the database, although this requirement is under review. In conclusion, the NHIRD is a large, powerful data source for biomedical research.

What can trends in hospital deaths from COVID-19 tell us about the progress and peak of the pandemic? An analysis of death counts from England announced up to 20 April 2020

BackgroundReporting of daily hospital COVID-19 deaths in the UK are promoted by the government and scientific advisers alike as a key metric for assessing the progress in the control of the epidemic. These data, however, have certain limitations, among which one of the most significant concerns the fact that the daily totals span deaths that have occurred between 1 and 10 days or more in the past. Data and methodsWe obtained daily data published published by NHS England up to and including April 25 in the form of Excel spreadsheets in which deaths counts are presented by date of death according to age and region. Simple descriptive analyses were conducted and presented in graphical and tabular form which were aimed at illustrating the biases inherent in focussing on daily counts regardless of when the deaths occurred. We then looked at how a less biased picture could be obtained by looking at trends in death counts stratifying by individual period of delay in days between occurrence of death and when the death was included in the daily announcement. FindingsThe number of hospital COVID-19 deaths announced daily overestimates the maximum number of deaths actually occurring so far in the epidemic in the UK, and also obscures the pattern of decline in deaths. Taking account of reporting delays suggests that for England as a whole a peak in hospital COVID-19 deaths may have been reached on April 8 with a subsequent gradual decline suggested. The same peak is also seen among those aged 60-79 and 80+, although there is slightly shallower decline in the oldest age group (80+ years). Among those aged 40-59 years a later peak on April 11 is evident. London shows a peak on April 8 and a clearer and steeper pattern of subsequent decline compared to England as a whole. InterpretationAnalyses of mortality trends must take account of delay, and in communication with the public more emphasis should be placed on looking at trends based on deaths that occurred 5 or more days prior to the announcement day. The slightly weaker decline seen at age 80+ may reflect increased hospitalisation of people from care homes, whereas the later peak under the age of 60 years may reflect the higher proportions at these younger ages being admitted to critical care resulting in an extension of life of several days. Competing interestsAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years other than LS who reported grants from Wellcome, MRC, NIHR, GSK, BHF, Diabetes UK all outside the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work other than LS who is a Trustee of the British Heart Foundation and AJM who is a member of the Royal Society Delve Committee.

Prevalence of COVID-19-related risk factors and risk of severe influenza outcomes in cancer survivors: a matched cohort study using linked English electronic health records data

BackgroundPeople with active cancer are recognised as at risk of COVID-19 complications, but it is unclear whether the much larger population of cancer survivors is at elevated risk. We aimed to address this by comparing cancer survivors and cancer-free controls for (i) prevalence of comorbidities considered risk factors for COVID-19; and (ii) risk of severe influenza, as a marker of susceptibility to severe outcomes from epidemic respiratory viruses. MethodsWe included survivors ([≥]1 year) of the 20 most common cancers, and age, sex and general practice-matched cancer-free controls, derived from UK primary care data linked to cancer registrations, hospital admissions and death registrations. Comorbidity prevalences were calculated 1 and 5 years from cancer diagnosis. Risk of hospitalisation or death due to influenza was compared using Cox models adjusted for baseline demographics and comorbidities. Findings108,215 cancer survivors and 523,541 cancer-free controls were included. Cancer survivors had more asthma, other respiratory, cardiac, diabetes, neurological, renal, and liver disease, and less obesity, compared with controls, but there was variation by cancer site. There were 205 influenza hospitalisations/deaths, with cancer survivors at higher risk than controls (adjusted HR 2.78, 95% CI 2.04-3.80). Haematological cancer survivors had large elevated risks persisting for >10 years (HR overall 15.17, 7.84-29.35; HR >10 years from cancer diagnosis 10.06, 2.47-40.93). Survivors of other cancers had evidence of raised risk up to 5 years from cancer diagnosis only (HR 2.22, 1.31-3.74). InterpretationRisks of severe COVID-19 outcomes are likely to be elevated in cancer survivors. This should be taken into account in policies targeted at clinical risk groups, and vaccination for both influenza, and, when available, COVID-19, should be encouraged in cancer survivors. FundingWellcome Trust, Royal Society, NIHR. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSFew data are available to date on how COVID-19 affects cancer survivors. We searched PubMed with the keywords "influenza cancer survivors" to identify studies that compared severe influenza outcomes in cancer survivors and in a control group. No study was identified. Added value of this studyIn this matched cohort study of routinely collected electronic health records, we demonstrated raised risks of influenza hospitalisation or mortality in survivors from haematological malignancies for >10 years after diagnosis, and in survivors from solid cancers up to 5 years after diagnosis. Implications of all the available evidenceCancer survivorship appears to be an important risk factor for severe influenza outcomes, suggesting that cancer survivors may also be at raised risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. This should be taken into account in public health policies targeted at protecting clinical risk groups. Influenza vaccination should be encouraged in this group, and may need to be extended to a wider population of medium- to long-term cancer survivors than currently recommended.

Early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures on routine childhood vaccinations in England, January to April 2020

Electronic health records were used to assess the early impact of COVID-19 on routine childhood vaccination in England to 26 April 2020. MMR vaccination counts fell from February 2020, and in the three weeks after introduction of social distancing measures were 19.8% lower (95% CI -20.7 to -18.9%) than the same period in 2019, before improving in mid-April. A gradual decline in hexavalent vaccination counts throughout 2020 was not accentuated on introduction of social distancing.

Human movement can inform the spatial scale of interventions against COVID-19 transmission

BackgroundIn 2020, the UK enacted an intensive, nationwide lockdown on March 23 to mitigate transmission of COVID-19. As restrictions began to ease, resurgences in transmission were targeted by geographically-limited interventions of various stringencies. Understanding the spatial scale of networks of human interaction, and how these networks change over time, is critical to inform interventions targeted at the most at-risk areas without unnecessarily restricting areas at low risk of resurgence. MethodsWe use detailed human mobility data aggregated from Facebook users to determine how the spatially-explicit network of movements changed before and during the lockdown period, in response to the easing of restrictions, and to the introduction of locally-targeted interventions. We also apply community detection techniques to the weighted, directed network of movements to identify geographically-explicit movement communities and measure the evolution of these community structures through time. FindingsWe found that the mobility network became more sparse and the number of mobility communities decreased under the national lockdown, a change that disproportionately affected long distance journeys central to the mobility network. We also found that the community structure of areas in which locally-targeted interventions were implemented following epidemic resurgence did not show reorganization of community structure but did show small decreases in indicators of travel outside of local areas. InterpretationWe propose that communities detected using Facebook or other mobility data be used to assess the impact of spatially-targeted restrictions and may inform policymakers about the spatial extent of human movement patterns in the UK. These data are available in near real-time, allowing quantification of changes in the distribution of the population across the UK, as well as changes in travel patterns to inform our understanding of the impact of geographically-targeted interventions. Putting Research Into ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSLarge-scale intensive interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented globally, significantly affecting human movement patterns. Mobility data show spatially-explicit network structure, but it is not clear how that structure changed in response to national or locally-targeted interventions. Added value of this studyWe used daily mobility data aggregated from Facebook users to quantify changes in the travel network in the UK during the national lockdown, and in response to local interventions. We identified changes in human behaviour in response to interventions and identified the community structure inherent in these networks. This approach to understanding changes in the travel network can help quantify the extent of strongly connected communities of interaction and their relationship to the extent of spatially-explicit interventions. Implications of all the available evidenceWe show that spatial mobility data available in near real-time can give information on connectivity that can be used to understand the impact of geographically-targeted interventions and in the future, to inform spatially-targeted intervention strategies. Data SharingData used in this study are available from the Facebook Data for Good Partner Program by application. Code and supplementary information for this paper are available online (https://github.com/hamishgibbs/facebook_mobility_uk), alongside publication.

COVID-19 collateral: Indirect acute effects of the pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK

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.

UK prevalence of underlying conditions which increase the risk of severe COVID-19 disease: a point prevalence study using electronic health records

BackgroundThis study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom in 2019. MethodsWe used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to describe the point prevalence on 5 March 2019 of the at-risk population following national guidance. Prevalence for any risk condition and for each individual condition is given overall and stratified by age and region. We repeated the analysis on 5 March 2014 for full regional representation and to describe prevalence of underlying health conditions in pregnancy. We additionally described the population of cancer survivors, and assessed the value of linked secondary care records for ascertaining COVID-19 at-risk status. FindingsOn 5 March 2019, 24{middle dot}4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition, including 8{middle dot}3% of school-aged children, 19{middle dot}6% of working-aged adults, and 66{middle dot}2% of individuals aged 70 years or more. 7{middle dot}1% of the population had multimorbidity. The size of the at-risk population was stable over time comparing 2014 to 2019, despite increases in chronic liver disease and diabetes and decreases in chronic kidney disease and current asthma. Separately, 1{middle dot}6% of the population had a new diagnosis of cancer in the past five years. InterpretationThe population at risk of severe COVID-19 (aged [≥]70 years, or with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals. FundingNIHR HPRU in Immunisation Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched Pubmed for peer-reviewed articles, preprints, and research reports on the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID. We used the terms (1) risk factor or co-morbidity or similar (2) COVID or SARS or similar and (3) prevalence to search for studies aiming to quantify the COVID-19 at-risk UK population published in the previous year to 19 July 2020, with no language restrictions. We found one study which modelled prevalence of risk factors based on the Global Burden of Disease (which included the UK) and one study which estimated that 8.4 million individuals aged [≥]30 years in the UK were at risk based on prevalence of a subset of relevant conditions in England. There were no studies which described the complete COVID-19 at-risk population across the UK. Added value of this studyWe used a large, nationally-representative dataset based on electronic health records to estimate prevalence of increased risk of severe COVID-19 across the United Kingdom, including all conditions in national guidance. We stratified by age, sex and region to enable regionally-tailored prediction of COVID-19-related healthcare burden and interventions to reduce transmission of infection, and planning and modelling of vaccination of the at-risk population. We also quantified the value of linked secondary care records to supplement primary care records. Implications of all the available evidenceIndividuals at moderate or high risk of severe COVID-19 according to current national guidance (aged [≥]70 years, or with a specified underlying health condition) comprise 18{middle dot}5 million individuals in the United Kingdom, rather than the 8.43 million previously estimated. The 8{middle dot}3% of school-aged children and 19{middle dot}6% of working-aged adults considered at-risk according to national guidance emphasises the need to consider younger at-risk individuals in shielding policies and when re-opening schools and workplaces, but also supports prioritising vaccination based on age and condition-specific mortality risk, rather than targeting all individuals with underlying conditions, who form a large population even among younger age groups. Among individuals aged [≥]70 years, 66{middle dot}2% had at least one underlying health condition, suggesting an age-targeted approach to vaccination may efficiently target individuals at risk of severe COVID-19. These national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates and age-targeted vaccination strategies in other countries.

HIV infection and COVID-19 death: population-based cohort analysis of UK primary care data and linked national death registrations within the OpenSAFELY platform

BackgroundIt is unclear whether HIV infection is associated with risk of COVID-19 death. We aimed to investigate this in a large-scale population-based study in England. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse routinely collected electronic primary care data linked to national death registrations. People with a primary care record for HIV infection were compared to people without HIV. COVID-19 death was defined by ICD-10 codes U07.1 or U07.2 anywhere on the death certificate. Cox regression models were used to estimate the association between HIV infection and COVID-19 death, initially adjusted for age and sex, then adding adjustment for index of multiple deprivation and ethnicity, and finally for a broad range of comorbidities. Interaction terms were added to assess effect modification by age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities and calendar time. Results17.3 million adults were included, of whom 27,480 (0.16%) had HIV recorded. People living with HIV were more likely to be male, of black ethnicity, and from a more deprived geographical area than the general population. There were 14,882 COVID-19 deaths during the study period, with 25 among people with HIV. People living with HIV had nearly three-fold higher risk of COVID-19 death than those without HIV after adjusting for age and sex (HR=2.90, 95% CI 1.96-4.30). The association was attenuated but risk remained substantially raised, after adjustment for deprivation and ethnicity (adjusted HR=2.52, 1.70-3.73) and further adjustment for comorbidities (HR=2.30, 1.55-3.41). There was some evidence that the association was larger among people of black ethnicity (HR = 3.80, 2.15-6.74, compared to 1.64, 0.92-2.90 in non-black individuals, p-interaction=0.045) InterpretationHIV infection was associated with a markedly raised risk of COVID-19 death in a country with high levels of antiretroviral therapy coverage and viral suppression; the association was larger in people of black ethnicity.

OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19-related hospital death in the linked electronic health records of 17 million adult NHS patients.

BackgroundEstablishing who is at risk from a novel rapidly arising cause of death, and why, requires a new approach to epidemiological research with very large datasets and timely data. Working on behalf of NHS England we therefore set out to deliver a secure and pseudonymised analytics platform inside the data centre of a major primary care electronic health records vendor establishing coverage across detailed primary care records for a substantial proportion of all patients in England. The following results are preliminary. Data sourcesPrimary care electronic health records managed by the electronic health record vendor TPP, pseudonymously linked to patient-level data from the COVID-19 Patient Notification System (CPNS) for death of hospital inpatients with confirmed COVID-19, using the new OpenSAFELY platform. Population17,425,445 adults. Time period1st Feb 2020 to 25th April 2020. Primary outcomeDeath in hospital among people with confirmed COVID-19. MethodsCohort study analysed by Cox-regression to generate hazard ratios: age and sex adjusted, and multiply adjusted for co-variates selected prospectively on the basis of clinical interest and prior findings. ResultsThere were 5683 deaths attributed to COVID-19. In summary after full adjustment, death from COVID-19 was strongly associated with: being male (hazard ratio 1.99, 95%CI 1.88-2.10); older age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); uncontrolled diabetes (HR 2.36 95% CI 2.18-2.56); severe asthma (HR 1.25 CI 1.08-1.44); and various other prior medical conditions. Compared to people with ethnicity recorded as white, black people were at higher risk of death, with only partial attenuation in hazard ratios from the fully adjusted model (age-sex adjusted HR 2.17 95% CI 1.84-2.57; fully adjusted HR 1.71 95% CI 1.44-2.02); with similar findings for Asian people (age-sex adjusted HR 1.95 95% CI 1.73-2.18; fully adjusted HR 1.62 95% CI 1.431.82). ConclusionsWe have quantified a range of clinical risk factors for death from COVID-19, some of which were not previously well characterised, in the largest cohort study conducted by any country to date. People from Asian and black groups are at markedly increased risk of in-hospital death from COVID-19, and contrary to some prior speculation this is only partially attributable to pre-existing clinical risk factors or deprivation; further research into the drivers of this association is therefore urgently required. Deprivation is also a major risk factor with, again, little of the excess risk explained by co-morbidity or other risk factors. The findings for clinical risk factors are concordant with policies in the UK for protecting those at highest risk. Our OpenSAFELY platform is rapidly adding further NHS patients records; we will update and extend these results regularly.

Overall and cause-specific hospitalisation and death after COVID-19 hospitalisation in England: cohort study in OpenSAFELY using linked primary care, secondary care and death registration data

BackgroundThere is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute COVID-19, but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods and FindingsWorking on behalf of NHS-England, we used linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February-December 2020), and (i) demographically-matched controls from the 2019 general population; (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017-19. We used Cox regression adjusted for personal and clinical characteristics. 24,673 post-discharge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls were followed for [≤]315 days. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (adjusted-HR 2.23, 2.14-2.31) but similar to the influenza group (adjusted-HR 0.94, 0.91-0.98). All-cause mortality (7439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (adjusted-HR 4.97, 4.58-5.40 vs general population controls and 1.73, 1.60-1.87 vs influenza controls). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than general population controls, and largely comparable between COVID-19 and influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted/die due to their initial infection/other lower respiratory tract infection (adjusted-HR 1.37, 1.22-1.54), and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission/death (adjusted-HR 1.36, 1.01-2.83); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with pre-existing dementia had higher risk of dementia death. One limitation of our study is that reasons for hospitalisation/death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes. ConclusionsPeople discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations; but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmissions/death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of post-discharge monitoring.

Association between oral anticoagulants and COVID-19 related outcomes: two cohort studies

ObjectivesWe investigated the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes, comparing current OAC use versus non-use in Study 1; and warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Study 2. DesignTwo cohort studies, on behalf of NHS England. SettingPrimary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. ParticipantsStudy 1: 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score of 2. Study 2: 372,746 people with non-valvular AF. Main outcome measuresTime to test for SARS-CoV-2, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 related hospital admission, COVID-19 deaths or non-COVID-19 deaths in Cox regression. ResultsIn Study 1, we included 52,416 current OAC users and 18,048 non-users. We observed no difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 associated with current use (adjusted HR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.05) versus non-use. We observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR, 0.73, 95%CI, 0.60 to 0.90), and COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.69, 95%CI, 0.49 to 0.97) associated with current use versus non-use. In Study 2, we included 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users. We observed a lower risk of COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.79, 95%CI, 0.76 to 0.83) associated with warfarin versus DOACs. Similar associations were found for all other outcomes. ConclusionsAmong people with AF and a CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score of 2, those receiving OACs had a lower risk of receiving a positive COVID-19 test and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk. There was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs in people with non-valvular AF regardless of CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score. Key pointsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LICurrent studies suggest that prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulant use, particularly low molecular weight heparin, lower the risk of pulmonary embolism and mortality during hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19. C_LIO_LIReduced vitamin K status has been reported to be correlated with severity of COVID-19. This could mean that warfarin, as a vitamin K antagonist, is associated with more severe COVID-19 disease than non-vitamin K anticoagulants. C_LI What this study addsO_LIIn 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation, at the threshold of being treated with an OAC based on risk of stroke, we observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 related deaths associated with routinely prescribed OACs, relative to non-use. C_LIO_LIThis might be explained by OACs preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes, or more cautious behaviours and environmental factors reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those taking OACs. C_LIO_LIIn 372,746 people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin compared with DOACs. C_LI

Case fatality risk of the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.1.7 in England

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.

OpenSAFELY: Risks of COVID-19 hospital admission and death for people with learning disabilities - a cohort study.

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.

Changes in the rate of cardiometabolic and pulmonary events during the COVID-19 pandemic

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.

Short report: Ethnicity and COVID-19 death in the early part of the COVID-19 second wave in England: an analysis of OpenSAFELY data from 1st September to 9th November 2020

Black and minority ethnic groups were at raised risk of dying from COVID-19 during the first few months of the COVID-19 epidemic in England. We aimed to investigate whether ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 deaths were similar in the more recent "second wave" of the epidemic. Working on behalf of NHS England, we used primary care and linked ONS mortality data within the OpenSAFELY platform. All adults in the database at 1st September 2020 and with at least 1 year of prior follow-up and a record of ethnicity were included. The outcome was COVID-19-related death (death with COVID-19 listed as a cause of death on the death certificate). Follow-up was to 9th November 2020. Hazard ratios for ethnicity were calculated using Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, and then further adjusted for deprivation. 13,223,154 people were included. During the study period, people of South Asian ethnicity were at higher risk of death due to COVID-19 than white people after adjusting for age and sex (HR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.99-4.03); the association attenuated somewhat on further adjustment for index of multiple deprivation (HR = 2.86, 2.46-3.33, Table 2). In contrast with the first wave of the epidemic, we found little evidence of a raised risk in black or other ethnic groups compared to white (HR for black vs white = 1.28, 0.87-1.88 adjusted for age and sex; and 1.01, 0.69-1.49 further adjusted for deprivation). Our findings suggest that ethnic inequalities in the risk of dying COVID-19-related death have changed between the first and early second wave of the epidemic in England. O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@987a5org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1a8a141org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1f2de56org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1e2f9b8org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@78bfcc_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL O_FLOATNOTable 2:C_FLOATNO O_TABLECAPTIONAssociation between ethnicity and COVID-19 death 1st Sept - 9th Nov 2020 C_TABLECAPTION C_TBL

Factors associated with deaths due to COVID-19 versus other causes: population-based cohort analysis of UK primary care data and linked national death registrations within the OpenSAFELY platform

BackgroundMortality from COVID-19 shows a strong relationship with age and pre-existing medical conditions, as does mortality from other causes. However it is unclear how specific factors are differentially associated with COVID-19 mortality as compared to mortality from other causes. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England, we carried out a cohort study within the OpenSAFELY platform. Primary care data from England were linked to national death registrations. We included all adults (aged [≥]18 years) in the database on 1st February 2020 and with >1 year of continuous prior registration, the cut-off date for deaths was 9th November 2020. Associations between individual-level characteristics and COVID-19 and non-COVID deaths were estimated by fitting age- and sex-adjusted logistic models for these two outcomes. Results17,456,515 individuals were included. 17,063 died from COVID-19 and 134,316 from other causes. Most factors associated with COVID-19 death were similarly associated with non-COVID death, but the magnitudes of association differed. Older age was more strongly associated with COVID-19 death than non-COVID death (e.g. ORs 40.7 [95% CI 37.7-43.8] and 29.6 [28.9-30.3] respectively for [≥]80 vs 50-59 years), as was male sex, deprivation, obesity, and some comorbidities. Smoking, history of cancer and chronic liver disease had stronger associations with non-COVID than COVID-19 death. All non-white ethnic groups had higher odds than white of COVID-19 death (OR for Black: 2.20 [1.96-2.47], South Asian: 2.33 [2.16-2.52]), but lower odds than white of non-COVID death (Black: 0.88 [0.83-0.94], South Asian: 0.78 [0.75-0.81]). InterpretationSimilar associations of most individual-level factors with COVID-19 and non-COVID death suggest that COVID-19 largely multiplies existing risks faced by patients, with some notable exceptions. Identifying the unique factors contributing to the excess COVID-19 mortality risk among non-white groups is a priority to inform efforts to reduce deaths from COVID-19. FundingWellcome, Royal Society, National Institute for Health Research, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK.

OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 1: describing trends and variation in primary care clinical activity for 23.3 million patients in England during the first wave of COVID-19

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity globally. The NHS in England stopped most non-urgent work by March 2020, but later recommended that services should be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible. The authors are developing the OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory, using data to describe changes in service activity during COVID-19, and reviewing signals for action with commissioners, researchers and clinicians. Here we report phase one: generating, managing, and describing the data. ObjectiveTo describe the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in English primary care across 23.8 million patients records, taking respiratory disease and laboratory procedures as key examples. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England we developed an open source software framework for data management and analysis to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across primary care EHR data on 23.8 million patients; and conducted a population cohort-based study to describe activity using CTV3 coding hierarchy and keyword searches from January 2019-September 2020. ResultsMuch activity recorded in general practice declined to some extent during the pandemic, but largely recovered by September 2020, with some exceptions. There was a large drop in coded activity for commonly used laboratory tests, with broad recovery to pre-pandemic levels by September. One exception was blood coagulation tests such as International Normalised Ratio (INR), with a smaller reduction (median tests per 1000 patients in 2020: February 8.0; April 6.2; September 7.0). The overall pattern of recording for respiratory symptoms was less affected, following an expected seasonal pattern and classified as "no change" from the previous year. Respiratory tract infections exhibited a sustained drop compared with pre-pandemic levels, not returning to pre-pandemic levels by September 2020. Various COVID-19 codes increased through the period. We observed a small decline associated with high level codes for long-term respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Asthma annual reviews experienced a small drop but since recovered, while COPD annual reviews remain below baseline. ConclusionsWe successfully delivered an open source software framework to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. The COVD-19 pandemic led to a substantial change in healthcare activity. Most laboratory tests showed substantial reduction, largely recovering to near-normal levels by September 2020, with some important tests less affected. Records of respiratory infections decreased with the exception of codes related to COVID-19, whilst activity of other respiratory disease codes was mixed. We are expanding the NHS Service Restoration Observatory in collaboration with clinicians, commissioners and researchers and welcome feedback.

OpenSAFELY: impact of national guidance on switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in early phase of COVID-19 pandemic in England

BackgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic the NHS recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately co-prescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change, and associated monitoring. ObjectiveTo describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe co-prescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England we conducted a population cohort based study using routine clinical data from >17 million adults in England. Results20,000 of 164,000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in co-prescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. INR testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). ConclusionsIncreased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people co-prescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.