Comparison of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation using the UK clinical practice research Datalink Aurum: A reference trial (ARISTOTLE) emulation study.

BACKGROUND: Stroke prevention guidance for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) uses evidence generated from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, applicability to patient groups excluded from trials remains unknown. Real-world patient data provide an opportunity to evaluate outcomes in a trial analogous population of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) users and in patients otherwise excluded from RCTs; however, there remains uncertainty on the validity of methods and suitability of the data. Successful reference trial emulation can support the generation of evidence around treatment effects in groups excluded or underrepresented in trials. We used linked United Kingdom primary care data to investigate whether we could emulate the pivotal ARISTOTLE trial (apixaban versus warfarin) and extend the analysis to investigate the impact of warfarin time in therapeutic range (TTR) on results. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Patients with AF in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Aurum) prescribed apixaban or warfarin from 1 January 2013 to 31 July 2019 were selected. ARISTOTLE eligibility criteria were applied to this population and matched to the RCT apixaban arm on baseline characteristics creating a trial-analogous apixaban cohort; this was propensity-score matched to warfarin users in the CPRD Aurum. ARISTOTLE outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by prior warfarin exposure status during 2.5 years of patient follow-up and results benchmarked against the trial results before treatment effectiveness was further evaluated based on (warfarin) TTR. The dataset comprised 8,734 apixaban users and propensity-score matched 8,734 warfarin users. Results [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval)] confirmed apixaban noninferiority for stroke or systemic embolism (SE) [CPRD 0.98 (0.82,1.19) versus trial 0.79 (0.66,0.95)] and death from any cause [CPRD 1.03 (0.93,1.14) versus trial 0.89 (0.80,0.998)] but did not indicate apixaban superiority. Absolute event rates for stroke/SE were similar for apixaban in CPRD Aurum and ARISTOTLE (1.27%/year), whereas a lower event rate was observed for warfarin (CPRD Aurum 1.29%/year, ARISTOTLE 1.60%/year). Analysis by TTR suggested similar effectiveness of apixaban compared with poorly controlled warfarin (TTR < 0.75) for stroke/SE [0.91 (0.73, 1.14)], all-cause death [0.94 (0.84, 1.06)], and superiority for major bleeding [0.74 (0.63, 0.86)]. However, when compared with well-controlled warfarin (TTR ≥ 0.75), apixaban was associated with an increased hazard for all-cause death [1.20 (1.04, 1.37)], and there was no significant benefit for major bleeding [1.08 (0.90, 1.30)]. The main limitation of the study's methodology are the risk of residual confounding, channelling bias and attrition bias in the warfarin arm, and selection bias and misclassification in the analysis by TTR. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of noninterventional data generated results demonstrating noninferiority of apixaban versus warfarin consistent with prespecified benchmarking criteria. Unlike in ARISTOTLE, superiority of apixaban versus warfarin was not seen, possible due to the lower proportion of Asian patients and higher proportion of patients with well-controlled warfarin compared to ARISTOTLE. This methodological template can be used to investigate treatment effects of oral anticoagulants in patient groups excluded from or underrepresented in trials and provides a framework that can be adapted to investigate treatment effects for other conditions.

Sharing Is Caring? International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology Review and Recommendations for Sharing Programming Code.

PURPOSE: There is increasing recognition of the importance of transparency and reproducibility in scientific research. This study aimed to quantify the extent to which programming code is publicly shared in pharmacoepidemiology, and to develop a set of recommendations on this topic. METHODS: We conducted a literature review identifying all studies published in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (PDS) between 2017 and 2022. Data were extracted on the frequency and types of programming code shared, and other key open science practices (clinical codelist sharing, data sharing, study preregistration, and stated use of reporting guidelines and preprinting). We developed six recommendations for investigators who choose to share code and gathered feedback from members of the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE). RESULTS: Programming code sharing by articles published in PDS ranged from 1.8% in 2017 to 9.5% in 2022. It was more prevalent among articles with a methodological focus, simulation studies, and papers which also shared record-level data. CONCLUSION: Programming code sharing is rare but increasing in pharmacoepidemiology studies published in PDS. We recommend improved reporting of whether code is shared and how available code can be accessed. When sharing programming code, we recommend the use of permanent digital identifiers, appropriate licenses, and, where possible, adherence to good software practices around the provision of metadata and documentation, computational reproducibility, and data privacy.

Prevalent new user designs: A literature review of current implementation practice.

PURPOSE: Prevalent new user (PNU) designs extend the active comparator new user design by allowing for the inclusion of initiators of the study drug who were previously on a comparator treatment. We performed a literature review summarising current practice. METHODS: PubMed was searched for studies applying the PNU design since its proposal in 2017. The review focused on three components. First, we extracted information on the overall study design, including the database used. We summarised information on implementation of the PNU design, including key decisions relating to exposure set definition and estimation of time-conditional propensity scores. Finally, we reviewed the analysis strategy of the matched cohort. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the criteria for inclusion. Most studies (73%) implemented the PNU design in electronic health record or registry databases, with the remaining using insurance claims databases. Of 15 studies including a class of prevalent users, 40% deviated from the original exposure set definition proposals in favour of a more complex definition. Four studies did not include prevalent new users but used other aspects of the PNU framework. Several studies lacked details on exposure set definition (n = 2), time-conditional propensity score model (n = 2) or integration of complex analytical techniques, such as the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm (n = 3). CONCLUSION: PNU designs have been applied in a range of therapeutic and disease areas. However, to encourage more widespread use of this design and help shape best practice, there is a need for improved accessibility, specifically through the provision of analytical code alongside guidance to support implementation and transparent reporting.

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.

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.

Transparency of high-dimensional propensity score analyses: Guidance for diagnostics and reporting.

PURPOSE: The high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) is a semi-automated procedure for confounder identification, prioritisation and adjustment in large healthcare databases that requires investigators to specify data dimensions, prioritisation strategy and tuning parameters. In practice, reporting of these decisions is inconsistent and this can undermine the transparency, and reproducibility of results obtained. We illustrate reporting tools, graphical displays and sensitivity analyses to increase transparency and facilitate evaluation of the robustness of analyses involving HDPS. METHODS: Using a study from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink that implemented HDPS we demonstrate the application of the proposed recommendations. RESULTS: We identify seven considerations surrounding the implementation of HDPS, such as the identification of data dimensions, method for code prioritisation and number of variables selected. Graphical diagnostic tools include assessing the balance of key confounders before and after adjusting for empirically selected HDPS covariates and the identification of potentially influential covariates. Sensitivity analyses include varying the number of covariates selected and assessing the impact of covariates behaving empirically as instrumental variables. In our example, results were robust to both the number of covariates selected and the inclusion of potentially influential covariates. Furthermore, our HDPS models achieved good balance in key confounders. CONCLUSIONS: The data-adaptive approach of HDPS and the resulting benefits have led to its popularity as a method for confounder adjustment in pharmacoepidemiological studies. Reporting of HDPS analyses in practice may be improved by the considerations and tools proposed here to increase the transparency and reproducibility of study results.

Proton pump inhibitors and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and both all-cause and cause-specific mortality. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. We compared 733 885 new users of PPIs to 124 410 new users of H2 receptor antagonists (H2Ras). In a secondary analysis we compared 689 602 PPI new users to 1 361 245 nonusers of acid suppression therapy matched on age, sex and calendar year. Hazard ratios for all-cause and cause-specific mortality were estimated using propensity score (PS) weighted Cox models. RESULTS: PPI prescription was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios decreasing considerably by increasing adjustment (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-1.69; PS-weighted HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.33-1.44; high-dimensional PS-weighted HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37). Short-term associations were observed with mortality from causes where a causal short-term association is unexpected (eg, lung cancer mortality: PS-weighted HR at 6 months 1.77, 95% CI 1.39-2.25). Adjusted hazard ratios were substantially higher when compared to nonusers (PS-weighted HR all-cause mortality 1.96, 95% CI 1.94-1.99) rather than H2RA users. CONCLUSIONS: PPI prescription was strongly associated with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. However, the change in hazard ratios (a) by increasing adjustment and (b) between comparator groups indicates that residual confounding is likely to explain the association between poor health outcomes and PPI use, and fully accounting for this using observational data may not be possible.

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.

Implementing high-dimensional propensity score principles to improve confounder adjustment in UK electronic health records.

PURPOSE: Recent evidence from US claims data suggests use of high-dimensional propensity score (hd-PS) methods improve adjustment for confounding in non-randomised studies of interventions. However, it is unclear how best to apply hd-PS principles outside their original setting, given important differences between claims data and electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to implement the hd-PS in the setting of United Kingdom (UK) EHRs. METHODS: We studied the interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Whilst previous observational studies suggested an interaction (with reduced effect of clopidogrel), case-only, genetic and randomised trial approaches showed no interaction, strongly suggesting the original observational findings were subject to confounding. We derived a cohort of clopidogrel users from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. Analyses estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for myocardial infarction (MI) comparing PPI users with non-users using a Cox model adjusting for confounders. To reflect unique characteristics of UK EHRs, we varied the application of hd-PS principles including the level of grouping within coding systems and adapting the assessment of code recurrence. Results were compared with traditional analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-four thousand four hundred and seventy-one patients took clopidogrel, of whom 9111 were prescribed a PPI. Traditional PS approaches obtained a HR for the association between PPI use and MI of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00-1.35). Applying hd-PS modifications resulted in estimates closer to the expected null (HR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.78-1.28). CONCLUSIONS: hd-PS provided improved adjustment for confounding compared with other approaches, suggesting hd-PS can be usefully applied in UK EHRs.

Application of High-Dimensional Propensity Score Methods to the National Health and Aging Trends Study.

BACKGROUND: High-dimensional propensity scoring (HDPS) is a method for empirically identifying potential confounders within large healthcare databases such as administrative claims data. However, this method has not yet been applied to large national health surveys such as the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), an ongoing nationally representative survey of older adults in the United States and important resource in gerontology research. METHODS: In this Research Practice article, we present an overview of HDPS and describe the specific data transformation steps and analytic considerations needed to apply it to national health surveys. We applied HDPS within NHATS to investigate the association between self-reported visual difficulty and incident dementia, comparing HDPS to conventional confounder selection methods. RESULTS: Among 7 207 dementia-free NHATS Wave 1 respondents, 528 (7.3%) had self-reported visual difficulty. In an unadjusted discrete time proportional hazards model accounting for the complex survey design of NHATS, self-reported visual difficulty was strongly associated with incident dementia (odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.95-2.81). After adjustment for standard investigator-selected covariates via inverse probability weighting, the magnitude of this association decreased, but evidence of an association remained (OR 1.44, 95% CI: 1.11-1.85). Adding 75 HDPS-prioritized variables to the investigator-selected propensity score model resulted in further attenuation of the association between visual impairment and dementia (OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.70-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: HDPS can be successfully applied to national health surveys such as NHATS and may improve confounder adjustment. We hope developing this framework will encourage future consideration of HDPS in this setting.

NHS national data opt-outs: trends and potential consequences for health data research.

BACKGROUND: The English NHS data opt-out allows people to prevent use of their health data for purposes other than direct care. In 2021, the number of opt-outs increased in response to government-led proposals to create a centralised pseudonymised primary care record database. AIM: To describe the potential impact of NHS national data opt-outs in 2021 on health data research. DESIGN & SETTING: We conducted a descriptive analysis of opt-outs using publicly available data and the potential consequences on research are discussed. METHOD: Trends in opt-outs in England were described by age, sex, and region. Using a hypothetical study, we explored statistical and epidemiological implications of opt-outs. RESULTS: During the lead up to a key government-led deadline for registering opt-outs (from 31 May 2021-30 June 2021), 1 339 862 national data opt-outs were recorded; increasing the percentage of opt-outs in England from 2.77% to 4.97% of the population. Among females, percentage opt-outs increased by 83% (from 3.02% to 5.53%) compared with 76% in males (from 2.51% to 4.41%). Across age groups, the highest relative increase was among people aged 40-49 years, which rose from 2.89% to 6.04%. Considerable geographical variation was not clearly related to deprivation. Key research consequences of opt-outs include reductions in sample size and unpredictable distortion of observed measures of the frequency of health events or associations between these events. CONCLUSION: Opt-out rates varied by age, sex, and place. The impact of this and variation by other characteristics on research is not quantifiable. Potential effects of opt-outs on research and consequences for health policies based on this research must be considered when creating future opt-out solutions.

Checklist and guidance on creating codelists for routinely collected health data research.

Background: Codelists are required to extract meaningful information on characteristics and events from routinely collected health data such as electronic health records. Research using routinely collected health data relies on codelists to define study populations and variables, thus, trustworthy codelists are important. Here, we provide a checklist, in the style of commonly used reporting guidelines, to help researchers adhere to best practice in codelist development and sharing. Methods: Based on a literature search and a workshop with researchers experienced in the use of routinely collected health data, we created a set of recommendations that are 1. broadly applicable to different datasets, research questions, and methods of codelist creation; 2. easy to follow, implement and document by an individual researcher, and 3. fit within a step-by-step process. We then formatted these recommendations into a checklist. Results: We have created a 10-step checklist, comprising 28 items, with accompanying guidance on each step. The checklist advises on which metadata to provide, how to define a clinical concept, how to identify and evaluate existing codelists, how to create new codelists, and how to review, check, finalise, and publish a created codelist. Conclusions: Use of the checklist can reassure researchers that best practice was followed during the development of their codelists, increasing trust in research that relies on these codelists and facilitating wider re-use and adaptation by other researchers.

When a person receives many types of health care, such as a doctor registering a diagnosis or prescribing a drug, information is collected in their computer system. This information is often organised in a structured way, so that each piece of information can be assigned a "code". For example, if a person was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, this could be recorded with the code E10 from the International classification of diseases, which contains codes on all possible diseases. For type 2 diabetes the code would be E11. To use this information for research, researchers need to define which people they want to study by making a list of all the relevant codes (a "codelist"). For example, to study people with type 1 and 2 diabetes they would need to include E10 and E11 in their codelist. The international classification of diseases coding system includes over 70,000 codes, and other medical dictionaries can include hundreds of thousands of codes. These lists can therefore be long and complex to create. While they are very important in ensuring that research using this data is correct, no step-by-step guidelines exist to help researchers create codelists. To tackle this, we created a checklist and guidance document which researchers can now use to make sure they don't miss important steps and checks while creating their codelists, and to help them share their codelists so they can be re-used by other researchers. We collected recommendations that other authors have made before us, and developed detailed guidance together with experts in using these types of data for research.

Changes in sick notes associated with COVID-19 from 2020 to 2022: a cohort study in 24 million primary care patients in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term sickness absence from employment has negative consequences for the economy and can lead to widened health inequalities. Sick notes (also called 'fit notes') are issued by general practitioners when a person cannot work for health reasons for more than 7 days. We quantified the sick note rate in people with evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022, as an indication of the burden for people recovering from COVID-19. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: With National Health Service (NHS) England approval, we used routine clinical data (primary care, hospital and COVID-19 testing records) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. PARTICIPANTS: People 18-64 years with a recorded positive test or diagnosis of COVID-19 in 2020 (n=365 421), 2021 (n=1 206 555) or 2022 (n=1 321 313); general population matched in age, sex and region in 2019 (n=3 140 326), 2020 (n=3 439 534), 2021 (n=4 571 469) and 2022 (n=4 818 870); people hospitalised with pneumonia in 2019 (n=29 673). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Receipt of a sick note in primary care. RESULTS: Among people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or COVID-19 diagnosis, the sick note rate was 4.88 per 100 person-months (95% CI 4.83 to 4.93) in 2020, 2.66 (95% CI 2.64 to 2.67) in 2021 and 1.73 (95% CI 1.72 to 1.73) in 2022. Compared with the age, sex and region-matched general population, the adjusted HR for receipt of a sick note over the entire follow-up period (up to 10 months) was 4.07 (95% CI 4.02 to 4.12) in 2020 decreasing to 1.57 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.58) in 2022. The HR was highest in the first 30 days postdiagnosis in all years. Among people hospitalised with COVID-19, after adjustment, the sick note rate was lower than in people hospitalised with pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Given the under-recording of postacute COVID-19-related symptoms, these findings contribute a valuable perspective on the long-term effects of COVID-19. Despite likely underestimation of the sick note rate, sick notes were issued more frequently to people with COVID-19 compared with those without, even in an era when most people are vaccinated. Most sick notes occurred in the first 30 days postdiagnosis, but the increased risk several months postdiagnosis may provide further evidence of the long-term impact.

Impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life: an OpenSAFELY population cohort study using patient-reported outcome measures (OpenPROMPT).

Background: Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. We aimed to evaluate and estimate the differences in health impacts of long COVID across sociodemographic categories and quantify this in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), widely used measures across health systems. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we utilised OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Findings: The total OpenPROMPT cohort consisted of 7575 individuals who consented to data collection, with which we used data from 6070 participants who completed a baseline research questionnaire where 24.6% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a higher likelihood or odds of reporting loss in quality-of-life (Odds Ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% CI: 3.72-5.93) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 10.37-30.33) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Interpretation: We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

Clinical coding of long COVID in primary care 2020-2023 in a cohort of 19 million adults: an OpenSAFELY analysis.

Background: Long COVID is the patient-coined term for the persistent symptoms of COVID-19 illness for weeks, months or years following the acute infection. There is a large burden of long COVID globally from self-reported data, but the epidemiology, causes and treatments remain poorly understood. Primary care is used to help identify and treat patients with long COVID and therefore Electronic Health Records (EHRs) of past COVID-19 patients could be used to help fill these knowledge gaps. We aimed to describe the incidence and differences in demographic and clinical characteristics in recorded long COVID in primary care records in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from over 19 million adults in England linked to SARS-COV-2 test result, hospitalisation and vaccination data to describe trends in the recording of 16 clinical codes related to long COVID between November 2020 and January 2023. Using OpenSAFELY, we calculated rates per 100,000 person-years and plotted how these changed over time. We compared crude and adjusted (for age, sex, 9 NHS regions of England, and the dominant variant circulating) rates of recorded long COVID in patient records between different key demographic and vaccination characteristics using negative binomial models. Findings: We identified a total of 55,465 people recorded to have long COVID over the study period, which included 20,025 diagnoses codes and 35,440 codes for further assessment. The incidence of new long COVID records increased steadily over 2021, and declined over 2022. The overall rate per 100,000 person-years was 177.5 cases in women (95% CI: 175.5-179) and 100.5 in men (99.5-102). The majority of those with a long COVID record did not have a recorded positive SARS-COV-2 test 12 or more weeks before the long COVID record. Interpretation: In this descriptive study, EHR recorded long COVID was very low between 2020 and 2023, and incident records of long COVID declined over 2022. Using EHR diagnostic or referral codes unfortunately has major limitations in identifying and ascertaining true cases and timing of long COVID. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on deprivation-level differences in cardiovascular hospitalisations: a comparison of England and Denmark using the OpenSAFELY platform and National Registry Data.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on deprivation-related inequalities in hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) conditions in Denmark and England between March 2018 and December 2021. DESIGN: Time-series studies in England and Denmark. SETTING: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used English primary care electronic health records, linked to secondary care and death registry data through the OpenSAFELY platform and nationwide Danish health registry data. PARTICIPANTS: We included adults aged 18 and over without missing age, sex or deprivation information. On 1 March 2020, 16 234 700 people in England and 4 491 336 people in Denmark met the inclusion criteria. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital admissions with the primary reason for myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, heart failure and venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESULTS: We saw deprivation gradients in monthly CVD hospitalisations in both countries, with differences more pronounced in Denmark. Based on pre-pandemic trends, in England, there were an estimated 2608 fewer admissions than expected for heart failure in the most deprived quintile during the pandemic compared with an estimated 979 fewer admissions in the least deprived quintile. For all other outcomes, there was little variation by deprivation quintile. In Denmark, there were an estimated 1013 fewer admissions than expected over the pandemic for MI in the most deprived quintile compared with 619 in the least deprived quintile. Similar trends were seen for stroke and VTE, though absolute numbers were smaller. Heart failure admissions were similar to pre-pandemic levels with little variation by deprivation quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find that the pandemic substantially worsened pre-existing deprivation-related differences in CVD hospitalisations, though there were exceptions in both countries.

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study.

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK.

Ethnic differences in the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical monitoring and hospitalisations for non-COVID conditions in England: a population-based, observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England. Methods: In this population-based, observational cohort study we used primary care electronic health record data with linkage to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data within OpenSAFELY, a data analytics platform created, with approval of NHS England, to address urgent COVID-19 research questions. We included adults aged 18 years and over registered with a TPP practice between March 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. We excluded those with missing age, sex, geographic region, or Index of Multiple Deprivation. We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, Asian, Black, Other, and Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (blood pressure and Hba1c measurements, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma annual reviews) before and after March 23, 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after March 23, 2020. Findings: Of 33,510,937 registered with a GP as of 1st January 2020, 19,064,019 were adults, alive and registered for at least 3 months, 3,010,751 met the exclusion criteria and 1,122,912 were missing ethnicity. This resulted in 14,930,356 adults with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to the White ethnic group (Pre-pandemic hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41, 0.60, Pandemic HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in those of White ethnicity (heart failure risk difference: 5.4). Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian (Pre-pandemic HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.49, 1.64, Pandemic HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19, 1.29) and Black ethnicity (Pre-pandemic HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.53, Pandemic HR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09, 1.25) compared with White ethnicity. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences. Interpretation: Our study suggests that ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes. Funding: LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912).

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups. Findings: A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033). Interpretation: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.