Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly affected mortality worldwide1. There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, and this requires new approaches for the timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England, we created OpenSAFELY-a secure health analytics platform that covers 40% of all patients in England and holds patient data within the existing data centre of a major vendor of primary care electronic health records. Here we used OpenSAFELY to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19-related deaths. COVID-19-related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.53-1.65)); greater age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared with people of white ethnicity, Black and South Asian people were at higher risk, even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48 (1.29-1.69) and 1.45 (1.32-1.58), respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical factors associated with COVID-19-related death in one of the largest cohort studies on this topic so far. More patient records are rapidly being added to OpenSAFELY, we will update and extend our results regularly.

Healthcare utilisation in people with long COVID: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. METHODS: This study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. RESULTS: We identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.29, 95% CI: 7.74-8.87), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.48-1.51). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58-29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73-16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.66, 95% CI = 7.20-8.15), with costs being 44% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.39-1.50). The long COVID group costs approximately £2500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: £2562.50, 95% CI: £2335.60-£2819.22), and the comparator group costs £1500 (predicted mean cost: £1527.43, 95% CI: £1404.33-1664.45). Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

OpenSAFELY: The impact of COVID-19 on azathioprine, leflunomide and methotrexate monitoring, and factors associated with change in monitoring rate.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented pressure on healthcare services. This study investigates whether disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) safety monitoring was affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A population-based cohort study was conducted using the OpenSAFELY platform to access electronic health record data from 24.2 million patients registered at general practices using TPP's SystmOne software. Patients were included for further analysis if prescribed azathioprine, leflunomide or methotrexate between November 2019 and July 2022. Outcomes were assessed as monthly trends and variation between various sociodemographic and clinical groups for adherence with standard safety monitoring recommendations. RESULTS: An acute increase in the rate of missed monitoring occurred across the study population (+12.4 percentage points) when lockdown measures were implemented in March 2020. This increase was more pronounced for some patient groups (70-79 year-olds: +13.7 percentage points; females: +12.8 percentage points), regions (North West: +17.0 percentage points), medications (leflunomide: +20.7 percentage points) and monitoring tests (blood pressure: +24.5 percentage points). Missed monitoring rates decreased substantially for all groups by July 2022. Consistent differences were observed in overall missed monitoring rates between several groups throughout the study. CONCLUSION: DMARD monitoring rates temporarily deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deterioration coincided with the onset of lockdown measures, with monitoring rates recovering rapidly as lockdown measures were eased. Differences observed in monitoring rates between medications, tests, regions and patient groups highlight opportunities to tackle potential inequalities in the provision or uptake of monitoring services. Further research should evaluate the causes of the differences identified between groups.

The impact of COVID-19 on medication reviews in English primary care. An OpenSAFELY-TPP analysis of 20 million adult electronic health records.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity ensuring safety and appropriateness of prescribing. A disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care. Using routinely collected data, our aim was first to describe codes used to record medication review activity and then to report the impact of COVID-19 on the rates of medication reviews. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 20 million adult patient records in general practice, in-situ using the OpenSAFELY platform. For each month, between April 2019 and March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months with breakdowns by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and those prescribed high-risk medications. RESULTS: In April 2019, 32.3% of patients had a medication review coded in the previous 12 months. During the first COVID-19 lockdown, monthly activity decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the 12-month rate was not substantially impacted (-10.5% March 2021). The rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high-risk groups (care home residents 34.1%, age 90+ years 13.1%, high-risk medications 10.2%). The most used medication review code was Medication review done 314530002 (59.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period. Structured medication reviews were prioritized for high-risk patients.

OpenSAFELY: A platform for analysing electronic health records designed for reproducible research.

Electronic health records (EHRs) and other administrative health data are increasingly used in research to generate evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and utilisation of medical products and services, and to inform public health guidance and policy. Reproducibility is a fundamental step for research credibility and promotes trust in evidence generated from EHRs. At present, ensuring research using EHRs is reproducible can be challenging for researchers. Research software platforms can provide technical solutions to enhance the reproducibility of research conducted using EHRs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed the secure, transparent, analytic open-source software platform OpenSAFELY designed with reproducible research in mind. OpenSAFELY mitigates common barriers to reproducible research by: standardising key workflows around data preparation; removing barriers to code-sharing in secure analysis environments; enforcing public sharing of programming code and codelists; ensuring the same computational environment is used everywhere; integrating new and existing tools that encourage and enable the use of reproducible working practices; and providing an audit trail for all code that is run against the real data to increase transparency. This paper describes OpenSAFELY's reproducibility-by-design approach in detail.

Stress and polycystic ovarian morphology in functional hypothalamic amenorrhea: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA) reveal polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM) in up to 50%. If stress sensitivity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the reason why PCOS women are prone to develop FHA, patients with FHA caused by stress should reveal PCOM more often. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 38 stress-associated and 38 excessive exercise-induced FHA women were included. The main outcome parameter was PCOM. In addition, the focus was on general patient characteristics as well as on prolactin, dehydroepiandrosterone-sulphate (DHEAS), and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH). RESULTS: PCOM was found in 34/76 patients (44.7%). The stress group showed a higher prevalence of PCOM than the excessive exercise group (57.9% versus 31.6%, p = 0.019) as well as higher prolactin levels (median 13.2ng/mL versus 11.7ng/mL, p = 0.008) and a trend towards higher DHEAS levels (p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: In FHA women, the PCOM prevalence was significantly higher in the stress-group than in the excessive exercise-group. The well-known stress sensitivity in women with PCOS might explain why PCOS women are prone to develop FHA as well as the high PCOM prevalence in FHA women.

Risk of endometrial cancer in asymptomatic postmenopausal women in relation to ultrasonographic endometrial thickness: systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of endometrial carcinoma and atypical endometrial hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women concerning the endometrial thickness measured by stratified threshold categories used for performing subsequent endometrial sampling and histologic evaluation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, conference proceedings, and international controlled trials registries were searched without temporal, geographic, or language restrictions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were selected if they had a crossover design evaluating the risk of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma in postmenopausal asymptomatic women and calculated the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography thresholds (at least 3.0 mm) confirmed by histopathologic diagnosis. METHODS: This was a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy Tests guidelines. Endometrial thickness thresholds were grouped as follows: from 3.0 to 5.9 mm; between 6.0 and 9.9 mm; between 10.0 and 13.9 mm; and ≥14.0 mm. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Publication bias was quantified using the Deek funnel plot test. Coprimary outcomes were the risk of atypical endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial carcinoma according to the endometrial thickness and diagnostic accuracy of each threshold group. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies provided the data of 10,334 women who were all included in the final analysis. Overall, at an endometrial thickness threshold of at least 3.0 mm, the risk of atypical endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial carcinoma was increased 3-fold relative to women below the cutoff (relative risk, 3.77; 95% confidence interval, 2.26-6.32; I2=74%). Similar degrees of risk were reported for thresholds between 3.0 and 5.9 mm (relative risk, 5.08; 95% confidence interval, 2.26-11.41; I2=0%), 6.0 and 9.9 mm (relative risk, 4.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-11.23; I2=0%), 10.0 and 13.9 mm (relative risk, 4.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-10.87; I2=86%), and ≥14.0 mm (relative risk, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-6.16; I2=78%) with no significant difference among subgroups (P=.885). Regarding diagnostic accuracy, the pooled sensitivity decreased from thresholds below 5.9 mm (relative risk, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.85) to above 14.0 mm (relative risk, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.40). Furthermore, the specificity increased from 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.78) for endometrial thickness between 3.0 and 5.9 mm to 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.94) when the endometrial thickness is ≥14.0 mm. For 3.0 to 5.9 mm and 10.0 to 13.9 mm thresholds, the highest diagnostic odds ratios of 10 (95% confidence interval, 3-41) and 11 (95% confidence interval, 2-49), with areas under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.84) and 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86), respectively, were retrieved. The summary point analysis revealed that the 3.0 to 5.9 mm cutoff point was placed higher in the summary receiver operator curve space than the other subgroups, indicating increased endometrial carcinoma or atypical endometrial hyperplasia diagnosis using these cutoffs. CONCLUSION: Both low and high endometrial thickness thresholds in postmenopausal asymptomatic women seem equally effective in detecting endometrial carcinoma and atypical endometrial hyperplasia. However, although using a 3.0 to 5.9 mm cutoff results in a lower specificity, the offsetting improvement in sensitivity may justify using this cutoff for further endometrial evaluation in patients with suspected endometrial malignancy.

Efficacy of Hysteroscopy in Improving Fertility Outcomes in Women Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Usefulness of hysteroscopy before assisted reproductive technique (ART) was considered debatable. However, over the last decade, several new trials have been added to available literature. We aimed to assess the impact of diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy on reproductive outcomes of infertile women with and without intrauterine abnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, Embase, Cochrane Library at CENTRAL, PROSPERO, CINAHL, grey literature, conference proceedings, and international controlled trials registries were searched without temporal, geographical, or language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of infertile women comparing hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy prior to the first ART or after at least one failed attempt were included. RCTs of infertile women with intrauterine pathology comparing diagnostic versus operative hysteroscopy were included in separate analysis. Random-effect meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Cochrane criteria were used for quality of evidence and risk of bias assessment. Primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy (CPR) and pregnancy loss rate. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (5,038 women) were included. Compared to no hysteroscopy before first or after failed ART attempts, moderate-quality evidence showed that hysteroscopy increased the LBR (relative risk [RR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.43, I2 = 21%), confirmed by subgroup analysis for women with failure after one or more ART cycles (RR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.19-1.72, I2 = 0%) but not before the first ART. Moderate-quality evidence showed that it increased the CPR (RR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.18-1.57; I2 = 51%), confirmed in subgroup analysis for both implantation failure (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.12-1.74, I2 = 52%) and before first ART (RR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57, I2 = 42%). Low-quality data suggest that operative hysteroscopy increases CPR when used to treat intrauterine pathologies (RR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.56-2.92, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Although moderate-quality evidence supports performing hysteroscopy before ART in women with history of implantation failure, hysteroscopic evaluation of uterine cavity should be considered a first-line technique in all infertile women undergoing ART. Additional high-quality RCTs are still needed, particularly to assess yield during couple's initial evaluation even before ART is considered.

Severity of Severe Acute Respiratory System Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Alpha Variant (B.1.1.7) in England.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild-type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and Office for National Statistics all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases with wild-type diagnosed from 16 November 2020 to 11 January 2021. RESULTS: Using data from 185 234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha = 93 153; wild-type = 92 081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-2.13; P < .0001) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (1.62; 1.48-1.78; P < .0001) compared with wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to the intensive care unit, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the CI included the null (aHR: 1.20; 95% CI: .74-1.95; P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalization and mortality than wild-type virus.

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

BACKGROUND: There is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (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 FINDINGS: With the approval of NHS-England, we conducted a cohort study, using 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 to December 2020) and surviving at least 1 week, and (i) demographically matched controls from the 2019 general population; and (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017 to 2019. We used Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidities considered potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. We included 24,673 postdischarge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls, followed for ≤315 days. COVID-19 patients had median age of 66 years, 13,733 (56%) were male, and 19,061 (77%) were of white ethnicity. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30,968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.22, 2.14 to 2.30, p < 0.001) but slightly lower than the influenza group (aHR 0.95, 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.004). All-cause mortality (7,439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (aHR 4.82, 4.48 to 5.19 versus general population controls [p < 0.001] and 1.74, 1.61 to 1.88 versus influenza controls [p < 0.001]). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than in general population controls and largely similar or lower in COVID-19 compared with influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted or die due to their initial infection or other lower respiratory tract infection (aHR 1.37, 1.22 to 1.54, p < 0.001) and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission or death (aHR 1.37, 1.02 to 1.84, p = 0.039); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with preexisting dementia had higher risk of dementia hospitalisation or death (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2.47, 1.37 to 4.44, p = 0.002). Limitations of our study were that reasons for hospitalisation or death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes, and we did not have data to distinguish COVID-19 variants. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that people 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, readmission or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of postdischarge monitoring.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FINDINGS: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories. INTERPRETATION: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Describing the population experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough following second vaccination in England: a cohort study from OpenSAFELY.

BACKGROUND: While the vaccines against COVID-19 are highly effective, COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough is possible despite being fully vaccinated. With SARS-CoV-2 variants still circulating, describing the characteristics of individuals who have experienced COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs could be hugely important in helping to determine who may be at greatest risk. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using routine clinical data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP database of fully vaccinated individuals, linked to secondary care and death registry data and described the characteristics of those experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs. RESULTS: As of 1st November 2021, a total of 15,501,550 individuals were identified as being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, with a median follow-up time of 149 days (IQR: ​107-179). From within this population, a total of 579,780 (<4%) individuals reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. For every 1000 years of patient follow-up time, the corresponding incidence rate (IR) was 98.06 (95% CI 97.93-98.19). There were 28,580 COVID-19-related hospital admissions, 1980 COVID-19-related critical care admissions and 6435 COVID-19-related deaths; corresponding IRs 4.77 (95% CI 4.74-4.80), 0.33 (95% CI 0.32-0.34) and 1.07 (95% CI 1.06-1.09), respectively. The highest rates of breakthrough COVID-19 were seen in those in care homes and in patients with chronic kidney disease, dialysis, transplant, haematological malignancy or who were immunocompromised. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases in England were mild, some differences in rates of breakthrough cases have been identified in several clinical groups. While it is important to note that these findings are simply descriptive and cannot be used to answer why certain groups have higher rates of COVID-19 breakthrough than others, the emergence of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 coupled with the number of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests still occurring is concerning and as numbers of fully vaccinated (and boosted) individuals increases and as follow-up time lengthens, so too will the number of COVID-19 breakthrough cases. Additional analyses, to assess vaccine waning and rates of breakthrough COVID-19 between different variants, aimed at identifying individuals at higher risk, are needed.

Postsurgical barrier strategies to avoid the recurrence of intrauterine adhesion formation after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of mechanical strategies to avoid the recurrence of intrauterine adhesions, to evaluate the impact on subsequent fertility after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis and to rank the available antiadhesive options. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL, Scielo, EMBASE, PROSPERO, Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and international controlled trials registries were searched without temporal, geographic, and language restrictions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized trials that analyzed the recurrence, reproductive outcomes, or both in women undergoing hysteroscopic adhesiolysis followed by mechanical prevention of intrauterine adhesions were included. The exclusion criteria included the following: quasi-randomized trials and trials without randomization and studies including patients undergoing hysteroscopic surgery that was different from adhesiolysis. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension statement for network meta-analyses guidelines were followed. We performed a network meta-analysis based on the random effects model for mixed multiple treatment comparisons to rank the antiadhesive strategies by surface under the cumulative ranking curve area. Quality assessment was performed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was the recurrent presence of intrauterine adhesions. RESULTS: Eleven studies with data for 1596 women were identified as applicable. A copper intrauterine device together with an intrauterine balloon (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=46.4%) or with cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=21.3%) seemed effective in preventing adhesions recurrence. Regarding the fecundity, hyaluronic acid gel demonstrated the highest pregnancy rates (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=79.8%). The greatest degrees of change in the mean adhesions scores were found with the use of hyaluronic acid gel plus an intrauterine device (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=38.9%). For postsurgical adhesion severity, hyaluronic acid gel plus intrauterine device (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=49.9%) followed by intrauterine device alone (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=30.8%) was ranked the highest. Dried amnion graft (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=53.8%) and uterine balloon (surface under the cumulative ranking curve area=45%) showed the greatest menstrual pattern improvement. CONCLUSION: Cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel, with or without insertion of a copper intrauterine device, seems to be the most effective approach. However, the lack of a clear best therapy suggests the need for further studies to draw firm conclusions.

Recording of 'COVID-19 vaccine declined': a cohort study on 57.9 million National Health Service patients' records in situ using OpenSAFELY, England, 8 December 2020 to 25 May 2021.

BackgroundPriority patients in England were offered COVID-19 vaccination by mid-April 2021. Codes in clinical record systems can denote the vaccine being declined.AimWe describe records of COVID-19 vaccines being declined, according to clinical and demographic factors.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study between 8 December 2020 and 25 May 2021 with primary care records for 57.9 million patients using OpenSAFELY, a secure health analytics platform. COVID-19 vaccination priority patients were those aged ≥ 50 years or ≥ 16 years clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) or 'at risk'. We describe the proportion recorded as declining vaccination for each group and stratified by clinical and demographic subgroups, subsequent vaccination and distribution of clinical code usage across general practices.ResultsOf 24.5 million priority patients, 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline recorded, while 2,155,076 (8.8%) had neither a vaccine nor decline recorded. Those recorded as declining, who were subsequently vaccinated (n = 125,587; 18.9%) were overrepresented in the South Asian population (32.3% vs 22.8% for other ethnicities aged ≥ 65 years). The proportion of declining unvaccinated patients was highest in CEV (3.3%), varied strongly with ethnicity (black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, white 1.5% for ≥ 80 years) and correlated positively with increasing deprivation.ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are commonly used in England, but substantially more common among black and South Asian people, and in more deprived areas. Qualitative research is needed to determine typical reasons for recorded declines, including to what extent they reflect patients actively declining.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of death from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort analysis based on two cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform. METHODS: We conducted two cohort studies from 1 March to 14 June 2020. Working on behalf of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data in England linked to death data. In study 1, we identified people with an NSAID prescription in the last 3 years from the general population. In study 2, we identified people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. We defined exposure as current NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1 March 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate HRs for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications and geographical region. RESULTS: In study 1, we included 536 423 current NSAID users and 1 927 284 non-users in the general population. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14) in the multivariable-adjusted model. In study 2, we included 1 708 781 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175 495 (10%) were current NSAID users. In the multivariable-adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a harmful effect of routinely prescribed NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks of COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about the routine therapeutic use of NSAIDs.

Is Chronic Endometritis Associated with Tubal Infertility? A Prospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Chronic endometritis (CE), which often presents asymptomatically, is associated with recurrent pregnancy loss, recurrent implantation failure after in vitro fertilization, and endometriosis. Data connecting CE with fallopian tubal occlusion are limited. The aim was to assess a potential association of CE, defined by the presence of syndecan-1 (CD138)-positive plasma cells in endometrial tissue samples, with fallopian tube patency and other factors for infertility, including endometriosis, adenomyosis, and hydrosalpinges. DESIGN: Prospective, monocentral pilot study. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS: A cohort of 100 women who were infertile was enrolled from July 2019 to December 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopy with endometrial biopsy and laparoscopy with chromopertubation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: CE was found in 13 women (13.0%) and was associated with endometriosis (p = .034) and unilateral/bilateral fallopian tube blockage (p = .013). In women with endometriosis, the mean number of CD138-positive cells was positively correlated with the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine score (r = .302, p = .028). In a binary regression model, the presence of a hydrosalpinx on one or both sides (odds ratio 15.308; 95% confidence interval, 1.637-143.189; p = .017) and the finding of CE in the endometrial tissue sample (odds ratio 5.273; 95% confidence interval, 1.257-22.116; p = .023) were significantly associated with fallopian tubal occlusion. CONCLUSION: CE was significantly associated with blockage of the fallopian tubes and endometriosis. Endometriosis stage was associated with the number of CD138-positive cells in endometrial biopsies.

Hysteroscopy for Assessing Fallopian Tubal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of hysteroscopy compared with that of laparoscopic chromopertubation for the detection of fallopian tubal obstruction. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search from inception to March 31, 2020, was performed in Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: This diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy Tests recommendations. A combination of the following Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords was included in the search strategy: "hysteroscopy[MeSH]," "tubal obstruction," "tubal patency," "tubal dysfunction," and "tubal blockage." Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom). Publication bias was evaluated by means of the Deek funnel plot asymmetry test. The following outcomes were analyzed: diagnostic odds ratio, area under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and area under receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Six studies comparing hysteroscopy with laparoscopic chromopertubation were included in the meta-analysis. After pooling all the studies, the diagnostic odds ratio was 43. The evaluated area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.93, correlating with high diagnostic accuracy for the index test. Sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 85%, respectively. In addition, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.88 and 0.16, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopic techniques are highly accurate and sensitive for detecting fallopian tubal obstruction. Interventional assessment enhances diagnostic accuracy compared with observational assessment, as does the office setting compared with the operating room. Additional studies, along with a refinement of the techniques, could facilitate the widespread use of hysteroscopic techniques for the detection of fallopian tube occlusion.

Surgical and Reproductive Outcomes after Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of hysteroscopy for retained products of conception (RPOC) removal on surgical and reproductive outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials at the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to March 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. Medical Subject Headings terms and text words such as "retained products of conception," "placental remnants," "placenta," and "hysteroscopy" were used for the identification of relevant studies. We included observational and randomized studies that analyzed surgical and/or reproductive outcomes of women who underwent hysteroscopic removal of RPOC. The primary outcome was the complete resection rate after 1 procedure. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty out of 245 studies were applicable, with data provided for 2112 women. The pooled complete resection rate was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.96). The incomplete resection rate evaluated was 7% (95% CI, 0.03-0.14), with a complication rate of 2% (95% CI, 0.00-0.04). Out of 1478 procedures, only 12 cases (0.8%) of postsurgical intrauterine adhesions were reported. Regarding post-therapy fecundity, women attempting postoperative conception had a clinical pregnancy rate of 87% (95% CI, 0.75-0.95), with a live birth rate of 71% (95% CI, 0.60-0.81) and a pregnancy loss rate of 9% (95% CI, 0.06-0.12). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopy has a high rate of completely removing RPOC in a single surgical step, with low complication rates. Subsequent fecundity seems reassuring, with appropriate clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. However, standardization of approach and comparative trials of different hysteroscopic approaches are needed.

Case fatality risk of the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.1.7 in England, 16 November to 5 February.

The SARS-CoV-2 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 (hazard ratio: 1.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-2.09; p < 0.0001). Absolute risk of death by 28 days increased with age and comorbidities. This VOC has potential to spread faster with higher mortality than the pandemic to date.

Detection of hysteroscopic fluid in the pouch of Douglas: a prospective cohort study about the predictability of bilateral tubal occlusion.

PURPOSE: To determine whether an increase in cul de sac (CDS) fluid after hysteroscopy is predictive of tubal patency. METHODS: In a prospective clinical cohort study, 115 subfertile women undergoing laparoscopic and hysteroscopic surgery at the Medical University of Vienna were invited to participate. The primary outcome was determining whether an increase in fluid in the pouch of Douglas was reflective of unilateral or bilateral tubal patency. Vaginal sonography before and after hysteroscopy was performed to detect fluid in the pouch of Douglas, directly followed by laparoscopy with chromopertubation. RESULTS: Laparoscopic chromopertubation revealed bilateral Fallopian tube occlusion in 28 women (24.3%). Twenty-seven/40 patients (67.5%) with no fluid shift had bilateral occlusion during the consecutive laparoscopy (p < 0.001). One/75 patients (1.3%) showing a fluid shift had bilateral occlusion (sensitivity of a present fluid shift for uni- or bilateral patency 85.1%, 95% CI: 81.7-99.9, specificity: 96.4%, 95% CI: 75.8-91.8). Intracavitary abnormalities (odds ratio, OR, 0.038; p = 0.030) and adhesions covering one or both tubes (OR 0.076; p = 0.041) increased the risk for a false abnormal result, i.e., uni- or bilateral tubal patency despite the lack of a fluid shift. CONCLUSION: When CDS fluid does not change after hysteroscopy, this is a sensitive test for tubal occlusion and further testing may be warranted. However, if there is an increase in CDS fluid after hysteroscopy, particularly for a patient without fluid present prior, this is both sensitive and specific for unilateral or bilateral tubal patency.