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.

Risk of emergency hospital admission related to adverse events after antibiotic treatment in adults with a common infection: impact of COVID-19 and derivation and validation of risk prediction models.

BACKGROUND: With the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, evaluating adverse events (AEs) post-antibiotic treatment for common infections is crucial. This study aims to examines the changes in incidence rates of AEs during the COVID-19 pandemic and predict AE risk following antibiotic prescriptions for common infections, considering their previous antibiotic exposure and other long-term clinical conditions. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY platform and analysed electronic health records from patients aged 18-110, prescribed antibiotics for urinary tract infection (UTI), lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), sinusitis, otitis externa, and otitis media between January 2019 and June 2023. We evaluated the temporal trends in the incidence rate of AEs for each infection, analysing monthly changes over time. The survival probability of emergency AE hospitalisation was estimated in each COVID-19 period (period 1: 1 January 2019 to 25 March 2020, period 2: 26 March 2020 to 8 March 2021, period 3: 9 March 2021 to 30 June 2023) using the Kaplan-Meier approach. Prognostic models, using Cox proportional hazards regression, were developed and validated to predict AE risk within 30 days post-prescription using the records in Period 1. RESULTS: Out of 9.4 million patients who received antibiotics, 0.6% of UTI, 0.3% of URTI, and 0.5% of LRTI patients experienced AEs. UTI and LRTI patients demonstrated a higher risk of AEs, with a noted increase in AE incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher comorbidity and recent antibiotic use emerged as significant AE predictors. The developed models exhibited good calibration and discrimination, especially for UTIs and LRTIs, with a C-statistic above 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals a variable incidence of AEs post-antibiotic treatment for common infections, with UTI and LRTI patients facing higher risks. AE risks varied between infections and COVID-19 periods. These findings underscore the necessity for cautious antibiotic prescribing and call for further exploration into the intricate dynamics between antibiotic use, AEs, and the pandemic.

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.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines as First Booster Doses in England: An Observational Study in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

BACKGROUND: The UK delivered its first "booster" COVID-19 vaccine doses in September 2021, initially to individuals at high risk of severe disease, then to all adults. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, then also Moderna mRNA-1273. METHODS: With the approval of the National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses. We matched each booster recipient with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior COVID-19 immunization. We adjusted for additional factors in Cox models, estimating hazard ratios up to 182 days (6 months) following booster dose. We estimated hazard ratios overall and within the following periods: 1-14, 15-42, 43-69, 70-97, 98-126, 127-152, and 155-182 days. Outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 death, non-COVID-19 death, and fracture. RESULTS: We matched 8,198,643 booster recipients with unboosted controls. Adjusted hazard ratios over 6-month follow-up were: positive SARS-CoV-2 test 0.75 (0.74, 0.75); COVID-19 hospitalization 0.30 (0.29, 0.31); COVID-19 death 0.11 (0.10, 0.14); non-COVID-19 death 0.22 (0.21, 0.23); and fracture 0.77 (0.75, 0.78). Estimated effectiveness of booster vaccines against severe COVID-19-related outcomes peaked during the first 3 months following the booster dose. By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that COVID-19 booster vaccination, compared with no booster vaccination, provided substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death but only limited protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Lower rates of fracture in boosted than unboosted individuals may suggest unmeasured confounding. Observational studies should report estimated vaccine effectiveness against nontarget and negative control outcomes.

During the COVID-19 pandemic 20 000 prostate cancer diagnoses were missed in England.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality in England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With the approval of NHS England and using the OpenSAFELY-TPP dataset of 24 million patients, we undertook a cohort study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We visualised monthly rates in prostate cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality per 100 000 adult men from January 2015 to July 2023. To assess the effect of the pandemic, we used generalised linear models and the pre-pandemic data to predict the expected rates from March 2020 as if the pandemic had not occurred. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the predicted values were used to estimate the significance of the difference between the predicted and observed rates. RESULTS: In 2020, there was a drop in recorded incidence by 4772 (31%) cases (15 550 vs 20 322; 95% CI 19 241-21 403). In 2021, the incidence started to recover, and the drop was 3148 cases (18%, 17 950 vs 21 098; 95% CI 19 740-22 456). By 2022, the incidence returned to the levels that would be expected. During the pandemic, the age at diagnosis shifted towards older men. In 2020, the average age was 71.6 (95% CI 71.5-71.8) years, in 2021 it was 71.8 (95% CI 71.7-72.0) years as compared to 71.3 (95% CI 71.1-71.4) years in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Given that our dataset represents 40% of the population, we estimate that proportionally the pandemic led to 20 000 missed prostate cancer diagnoses in England alone. The increase in incidence recorded in 2023 was not enough to account for the missed cases. The prevalence of prostate cancer remained lower throughout the pandemic than expected. As the recovery efforts continue, healthcare should focus on finding the men who were affected. The research should focus on investigating the potential harms to men diagnosed at older age.

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.

Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The results of clinical trials should be completely and rapidly reported during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. This study aimed to examine when, and where, the results of COVID-19 clinical trials were disseminated throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic. METHODS: Clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment or prevention were identified from the WHO ICTRP database. All interventional trials with a registered completion date ≤ 30 June 2021 were included. Trial results, published as preprints, journal articles, or registry results, were located using automated and manual techniques across PubMed, Google Scholar, Google, EuropePMC, CORD-19, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and clinical trial registries. Our main analysis reports the rate of dissemination overall and per route, and the time from registered completion to results using Kaplan-Meier methods, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses reported. RESULTS: Overall, 1643 trials with completion dates ranging from 46 to 561 days prior to the start of results searches were included. The cumulative probability of reporting was 12.5% at 3 months from completion, 21.6% at 6 months, and 32.8% at 12 months. Trial results were most commonly disseminated in journals (n = 278 trials, 69.2%); preprints were available for 194 trials (48.3%), 86 (44.3%) of which converted to a full journal article. Trials completed earlier in the pandemic were reported more rapidly than those later in the pandemic, and those involving ivermectin were more rapidly reported than other common interventions. Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses except when considering only trials in a "completed" status on the registry, which substantially increased reporting rates. Poor trial registry data on completion status and dates limits the precision of estimates. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 trials saw marginal increases in reporting rates compared to standard practice; most registered trials failed to meet even the 12-month non-pandemic standard. Preprints were common, complementing journal publication; however, registries were underutilized for rapid reporting. Maintaining registry data enables accurate representation of clinical research; failing to do so undermines these registries' use for public accountability and analysis. Addressing rapid reporting and registry data quality must be emphasized at global, national, and institutional levels.

The impact of lidocaine plaster prescribing reduction strategies: A comparison of two national health services in Europe.

AIMS: In 2017, two distinct interventions were implemented in Ireland and England to reduce prescribing of lidocaine medicated plasters. In Ireland, restrictions on reimbursement were introduced through implementation of an application system for reimbursement. In England, updated guidance on items which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, including lidocaine plasters, was published. This study aims to compare how the interventions impacted prescribing of lidocaine plasters in these countries. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time-series study using general practice data. For Ireland, monthly dispensing data (2015-2019) from the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme was used. For England, data covered all patients. Outcomes were the rate of dispensings, quantity and costs of lidocaine plasters, and we modelled level and trend changes from the first full month of the policy/guidance change. RESULTS: Ireland had higher rates of lidocaine dispensings compared to England throughout the study period; this was 15.22/1000 population immediately pre-intervention, and there was equivalent to a 97.2% immediate reduction following the intervention. In England, the immediate pre-intervention dispensing rate was 0.36/1000, with an immediate reduction of 0.0251/1000 (a 5.8% decrease), followed by a small but significant decrease in the monthly trend relative to the pre-intervention trend of 0.0057 per month. CONCLUSIONS: Among two different interventions aiming to decrease low-value lidocaine plaster prescribing, there was a substantially larger impact in Ireland of reimbursement restriction compared to issuing guidance in England. However, this is in the context of much higher baseline rates of use in Ireland compared to England.

E-cigarette manufacturers' compliance with clinical trial reporting expectations: a case series of registered trials by Juul Labs.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a frequently debated topic in public health. It is essential that clinical trials examining e-cigarettes are fully and accurately reported, especially given long-standing concerns about tobacco industry research. We assess the reporting of clinical trials sponsored by Juul Labs, the largest e-cigarette company in the USA, against accepted reporting standards. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all trials sponsored by Juul Labs and determined those with registry data consistent with coverage by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act 2007 (FDAAA). For trials with a primary completion date more than 1 year earlier, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the academic literature and a Juul-funded research database (JLI Science) for results. For located results, we compared reported outcomes with registered outcomes in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines. RESULTS: We located five registered trials sponsored by Juul Labs that appeared covered by the FDAAA 2007 in the public data. All five trials did not have results available on ClinicalTrials.gov. We found one publication and four poster presentations reporting results for four of the five covered trials outside of ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 61 specified outcomes, 28 were CONSORT compliant. Specific outcome reporting issues are detailed. DISCUSSION: Our findings raise substantial concerns regarding these trials. Clinicians, public health professionals, and the public cannot make informed choices about the benefits or hazards of e-cigarettes if the results of clinical trials are not completely and transparently reported. Clarification and potential enforcement of reporting laws may be required.

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.

Trends and variation in data quality and availability on the European Union Clinical Trials Register: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The European Union Clinical Trials Register is a public facing portal containing information on trials of medicinal products conducted under the purview of the European Union regulatory system. As of September 2021, the registry holds information on over 40,000 trials. Given its distinct regulatory purpose, and results reporting requirements, the European Union Clinical Trials Register should be a valuable open-source hub for trial information. Past work examining the European Union Clinical Trials Register has suggested that data quality on the registry may be lacking. We therefore set out to examine the quality and availability of trial data on the registry with a focus on areas that fall under the authority of regulators in each European Union/European Economic Area country. METHODS: Using data scraped from the full European Union Clinical Trials Register public dataset, we examined the extent of issues with three areas of trial data availability linked to European Union regulations. We examined whether there is evidence for missing registration of protocols in the public database, whether information on the completion of clinical trials is being made available and how often the results of trials are posted to the registry. We assessed each area overall, and examined variation between national regulators and over time. RESULTS: Major issues with the availability of expected protocols and information on trial completion were focused in a few countries. Overall, when comparing enrolment countries from tabular results to available registrations, 26,932 of 31,118 (86.5%) expected protocols were available and 22 of 30 (73%) countries had over 90% of expected protocols available. The majority of missing protocols, totalling 2764 (66%), were from just three countries: France, Norway and Poland. Evidence for this issue is further supported by data on trends in new registrations by country over time. Low availability of data on trial completion is also most pronounced in a minority of countries, like Spain and the Netherlands, with consistent trends for missingness over time. Finally, overall results availability is substantially worse among the 23,623 trials with a single registered European Union protocol (n = 6259, 26.5%) compared to 13,897 of those taking place in multiple countries (n = 8423, 60.6%). Reporting for single-protocol trials was consistently low across both time and location. CONCLUSION: Deficiencies in the public availability of trial protocols, trial completion information and summary results complicate the utility of the European Union Clinical Trials Register for research, transparency and accountability efforts. Users of the registry would benefit from a more complete and accurate accounting of the European research environment via the official European Union registry. We recommend regulators at the national and pan-national level undertake routine audits of approved trials to ensure national-level issues are proactively and transparently identified, documented and addressed.

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.

Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Failure to report the results of a clinical trial can distort the evidence base for clinical practice, breaches researchers' ethical obligations to participants, and represents an important source of research waste. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 now requires sponsors of applicable trials to report their results directly onto ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of completion. The first trials covered by the Final Rule of this act became due to report results in January, 2018. In this cohort study, we set out to assess compliance. METHODS: We downloaded data for all registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. All cross-sectional analyses in this manuscript were performed on data extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on Sept 16, 2019; monthly trends analysis used archived data closest to the 15th day of each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. Our study cohort included all applicable trials due to report results under FDAAA. We excluded all non-applicable trials, those not yet due to report, and those given a certificate allowing for delayed reporting. A trial was considered reported if results had been submitted and were either publicly available, or undergoing quality control review at ClinicalTrials.gov. A trial was considered compliant if these results were submitted within 1 year of the primary completion date, as required by the legislation. We described compliance with the FDAAA 2007 Final Rule, assessed trial characteristics associated with results reporting using logistic regression models, described sponsor-level reporting, examined trends in reporting, and described time-to-report using the Kaplan-Meier method. FINDINGS: 4209 trials were due to report results; 1722 (40·9%; 95% CI 39·4-42·2) did so within the 1-year deadline. 2686 (63·8%; 62·4-65·3) trials had results submitted at any time. Compliance has not improved since July, 2018. Industry sponsors were significantly more likely to be compliant than non-industry, non-US Government sponsors (odds ratio [OR] 3·08 [95% CI 2·52-3·77]), and sponsors running large numbers of trials were significantly more likely to be compliant than smaller sponsors (OR 11·84 [9·36-14·99]). The median delay from primary completion date to submission date was 424 days (95% CI 412-435), 59 days higher than the legal reporting requirement of 1 year. INTERPRETATION: Compliance with the FDAAA 2007 is poor, and not improving. To our knowledge, this is the first study to fully assess compliance with the Final Rule of the FDAAA 2007. Poor compliance is likely to reflect lack of enforcement by regulators. Effective enforcement and action from sponsors is needed; until then, open public audit of compliance for each individual sponsor may help. We will maintain updated compliance data for each individual sponsor and trial at fdaaa.trialstracker.net. FUNDING: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

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.