Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. METHODS: We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 16 208 600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 13 836 390 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45-3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07-9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions-in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53-6·09])-and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90-4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·58]). INTERPRETATION: Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. FUNDING: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Using the COM-B framework to elucidate facilitators and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant women: a qualitative study.

Since April 2021, COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended for pregnant women. Despite this, COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this group is low compared to the non-pregnant population of childbearing age. Our aim was to understand barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant women in Northern Ireland using the COM-B framework, and so to make recommendations for public health interventions. The COM-B proposes that human behaviour is influenced by the extent to which a person has the capability, opportunity, and motivation to enact that behaviour. Understanding the factors underpinning behaviour through this lens helps discern what needs to change to change behaviour, therefore supporting the development of targeted interventions.This study consisted of eight semi-structured interviews with new/expectant mothers who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant since April 2021, and a focus group with five participants who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant. Interview and focus group data were analysed using semi-deductive reflexive thematic analysis framed by a subtle realist approach. The COM-B was used to categorise codes and subthemes were developed within each COM-B construct.Within Psychological Capability, subthemes captured the need for consistent and reliable COVID-19 vaccine information and access to balanced and jargon-free, risk-benefit information that is tailored to the pregnant individual. The behaviour/opinions of family, friends, and local healthcare providers had a powerful influence on COVID-19 vaccine decisions (Social Opportunity). Integrating the COVID-19 vaccine as part of routine antenatal pathways was believed to support access and sense of familiarity (Physical Opportunity). Participants valued health autonomy, however experienced internal conflict driven by concerns about long-term side effects for their baby (Reflective Motivation). Feelings of fear, lack of empathy from healthcare providers, and anticipated guilt commonly underpinned indecision as to whether to get the vaccine (Automatic Motivation).Our study highlighted that the choice to accept a vaccine during pregnancy generates internal conflict and worry. Several participants cited their concern was primarily around the safety for their baby. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a significant part when it comes to decision making about COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant women. HCPs and pregnant women should be involved in the development of interventions to improve the delivery and communication of information.

Suicide risk following ED presentation with self-harm varies by hospital.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to Emergency Department (ED) with self-harm are recognized to be at high risk of suicide and other causes of death in the immediate period following ED presentation. It is also recognized that there is a large variation in the management and care pathways that these patients experience at EDs. AIMS: This study asks if there is a significant variation in mortality risk according to hospital attended and if this is explained by differences in care management. METHODS: Population-wide data from the Northern Ireland Registry of Self-Harm from April 2012 were linked with centrally held mortality records to December 2019, providing data on self-harm type and ED care. Cox proportional hazards models analyzed mortality risk, coded as suicide, all-external causes and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Analysis of the 64,350 ED presentations for self-harm by 30,011 individuals confirmed a marked variation across EDs in proportion of patients receiving mental health assessment and likelihood of admission to general and psychiatric wards. There was a significant variation in suicide risk following attendance according to ED attended with the three-fold range between the lowest (HRadj 0.32 95% CIs 0.16, 0.67) and highest. These differences persisted even after adjustment for patient characteristics, variation in types of self-harm, and care management at the ED. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while the management of self-harm cases in the ED is important, it is the availability and access to, and level of engagement with, the subsequent management and care in the community rather than the immediate care at EDs that is most critical for patients presenting to ED with self-harm. However, the initial care in ED is an important gateway in initiating referrals to these services.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Variations in COVID-19 vaccination uptake among people in receipt of psychotropic drugs: cross-sectional analysis of a national population-based prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions. AIMS: We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (ORadj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (ORadj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (ORadj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.

Prepubertal onset of type 2 diabetes in Shashi-Pena syndrome due to ASXL2 mutation.

Type 2 diabetes remains rare in the pediatric population and the majority of cases occur during puberty. A combination of genetic and environmental factors leads to the development of insulin resistance and ß-cell failure. An increased prevalence is recognized in a number of rare genetic disorders such as Alström and Bardet-Biedl syndromes. Recently, a rare neurodevelopmental disorder, Shashi-Pena syndrome due to the dominant negative effect of heterozygous mutations in additional Sex-Combs-Like Genes 2 (ASXL2) has been reported. ASXL2 null mice exhibit glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and lipodystrophy. The regulatory role of ASXL2 in glucose and lipid homeostasis occurs through its interaction with peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ), a gene implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes on genome-wide association studies. Thiazolidinediones, used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, exert their effects as direct agonists of PPARγ. We report the first case of type 2 diabetes in Shashi-Pena syndrome, occurring in an 8-year-old prepubertal boy with no family history. In addition, the proband had dyslipidemia, and fatty infiltration of the liver with elevated transaminases. Mutation of ASXL2 in humans, through its interaction with PPARγ appears to cause a phenotype of insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Further reported cases will assist in confirming this association.

Key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement in healthcare professions' education: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients and the public have an integral role in educating healthcare professionals. Authentic partnerships between higher education institutions and patients and the public are essential. This study examined key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement (PPI) including the nature of the involvement and requirements for partnership. METHODS: Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit key stakeholders, including patients and members of the public involved in health professions education, and academics interested in PPI. Focus groups were held with patient and public participants, providing the opportunity to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting. Academics with an interest in PPI were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Topic guides were derived from the literature and piloted prior to data collection. Focus groups and interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. All data was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted involving 23 patient and public participants (median number of participants per focus group of 6). Nine interviews were conducted with academics (face-to-face [n = 8] or by telephone [n = 1]). Five themes were developed: previous experiences of PPI, training requirements, challenges/barriers to PPI, facilitators of PPI and future ideas for PPI. All participants held positive views of the value of PPI. Participants had mixed views in terms of training, which depended on the level of involvement, but similar views on the challenges and facilitators for PPI in education. There was agreement that PPI requires institutional vision and investment to build strong relationships and a culture of PPI best practice. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for more strategic and formal involvement of patients and the public to ensure that that PPI becomes sustainably embedded in health professions education.

Psychiatric and Physical Health Outcomes Associated with Interpersonal Violence: A Propensity Score Matching Approach.

This study examined the association between interpersonal violence and a range of psychiatric and physical health outcomes and assessed whether these associations changed when controlling for a stress-related diagnosis. An observational case-control study was conducted on a sample of 4,059 victims of violence. Using propensity score matching a number of risk factors (assessed five years prior assault) were used. Controls were matched 10:1 using the Danish Central Registry System. Outcomes were ICD-10 diagnoses of a range of psychiatric and physical health outcomes in the 15 years post-injury. Statistically significant associations were found for all psychiatric conditions and a diagnosis of a drug or substance misuse disorder. These findings remained even after controlling for a diagnosis of a stress-related disorder. Large scale case-control studies using the Danish nationwide registers enables a powerful way of assessing the relative impact of exposure to interpersonal violence on the development of psychiatric and physical health problems.

Ethical frameworks for quality improvement activities: an analysis of international practice.

PURPOSE: To examine international approaches to the ethical oversight and regulation of quality improvement and clinical audit in healthcare systems. DATA SOURCES: We searched grey literature including websites of national research and ethics regulatory bodies and health departments of selected countries. STUDY SELECTION: National guidance documents were included from six countries: Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from 19 documents using an a priori framework developed from the published literature. RESULTS: We organized data under five themes: ethical frameworks; guidance on ethical review; consent, vulnerable groups and personal health data. Quality improvement activity tended to be outside the scope of the ethics frameworks in most countries. Only New Zealand had integrated national ethics standards for both research and quality improvement. Across countries, there is consensus that this activity should not be automatically exempted from ethical review but requires proportionate review or organizational oversight for minimal risk projects. In the majority of countries, there is a lack of guidance on participant consent, use of personal health information and inclusion of vulnerable groups in routine quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Where countries fail to provide specific ethics frameworks for quality improvement, guidance is dispersed across several organizations which may lack legal certainty. Our review demonstrates a need for appropriate oversight and responsive infrastructure for quality improvement underpinned by ethical frameworks that build equivalence with research oversight. It outlines aspects of good practice, especially The New Zealand framework that integrates research and quality improvement ethics.

Evaluation of medical student retention of clinical skills following simulation training.

BACKGROUND: Adequate clinical skills training is a challenge for present day medical education. Simulation Based Education (SBE) is playing an increasingly important role in healthcare education worldwide to teach invasive procedures. The impact of this teaching on students along with retention of what is taught is not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention levels of practical skills taught and assessed by SBE and to explore the degree of re-training required to restore decayed performance. In exploring this aim, the study further investigates how skilled performance decays over time and which dimensions of clinical skills were more likely to decay. METHODS: Study participants were 51 final year medical students. They were provided with online pre-course videos and procedural guides asynchronously with repeatedly access. 7 of the skills taught over 2 years using task trainers were selected. Following demonstration from faculty, students practiced in small groups with faculty facilitated supervision and peer support prior to formal testing. Score sheets with itemised procedure checklists detailing the minimum passing standard (MPS) for each skill were designed. To test retention of skills, 18 months later, there was an unannounced test to demonstrate proficiency in the skills. Students were asked to complete a questionnaire indicating how many times and where they had practiced or performed the skills. RESULTS: 55% of the students were deficient in 3 or more skills and 4% were not competent in 5 or more skills. A significant number of students had never practiced some skills following the initial teaching session. A relationship was noted with the number of times students self-declared that they had practiced and their performance. Decay is evident in both psychomotor and cognitive domains of the skills. CONCLUSION: A curriculum with deliberate practice significantly increases the competence of students in defined clinical skills. Deliberate practice of clinical skills, under supervision of an engaged instructor, is a key component of the mastery model. Experiences and assessments in the clinical setting need to be augmented with focus on direct observation and focused feedback to reinforce the skills acquired in the simulated setting.