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.

Improving modelling for epidemic responses: reflections from members of the UK infectious disease modelling community on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic both relied and placed significant burdens on the experts involved from research and public health sectors. The sustained high pressure of a pandemic on responders, such as healthcare workers, can lead to lasting psychological impacts including acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and moral injury, which can impact individual wellbeing and productivity. Methods: As members of the infectious disease modelling community, we convened a reflective workshop to understand the professional and personal impacts of response work on our community and to propose recommendations for future epidemic responses. The attendees represented a range of career stages, institutions, and disciplines. This piece was collectively produced by those present at the session based on our collective experiences. Results: Key issues we identified at the workshop were lack of institutional support, insecure contracts, unequal credit and recognition, and mental health impacts. Our recommendations include rewarding impactful work, fostering academia-public health collaboration, decreasing dependence on key individuals by developing teams, increasing transparency in decision-making, and implementing sustainable work practices. Conclusions: Despite limitations in representation, this workshop provided valuable insights into the UK COVID-19 modelling experience and guidance for future public health crises. Recognising and addressing the issues highlighted is crucial, in our view, for ensuring the effectiveness of epidemic response work in the future.

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).

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).

COVID-19 inequalities in England: a mathematical modelling study of transmission risk and clinical vulnerability by socioeconomic status.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major inequalities in infection and disease burden between areas of varying socioeconomic deprivation in many countries, including England. Areas of higher deprivation tend to have a different population structure-generally younger-which can increase viral transmission due to higher contact rates in school-going children and working-age adults. Higher deprivation is also associated with a higher presence of chronic comorbidities, which were convincingly demonstrated to be risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease. These two major factors need to be combined to better understand and quantify their relative importance in the observed COVID-19 inequalities. METHODS: We used UK Census data on health status and demography stratified by decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which is a measure of socioeconomic deprivation. We calculated epidemiological impact using an age-stratified COVID-19 transmission model, which incorporated different contact patterns and clinical health profiles by decile. To separate the contribution of each factor, we considered a scenario where the clinical health profile of all deciles was at the level of the least deprived. We also considered the effectiveness of school closures and vaccination of over 65-year-olds in each decile. RESULTS: In the modelled epidemics in urban areas, the most deprived decile experienced 9% more infections, 13% more clinical cases, and a 97% larger peak clinical size than the least deprived; we found similar inequalities in rural areas. Twenty-one per cent of clinical cases and 16% of deaths in England observed under the model assumptions would not occur if all deciles experienced the clinical health profile of the least deprived decile. We found that more deaths were prevented in more affluent areas during school closures and vaccination rollouts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that both clinical and demographic factors synergise to generate health inequalities in COVID-19, that improving the clinical health profile of populations would increase health equity, and that some interventions can increase health inequalities.

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.

Transient increased risk of influenza infection following RSV infection in South Africa: findings from the PHIRST study, South Africa, 2016-2018.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection may have ecological consequences for co-circulating pathogens, including influenza. We assessed if and for how long RSV infection alters the risk for subsequent influenza infection. METHODS: We analysed a prospective longitudinal cohort study conducted in South Africa between 2016 and 2018. For participating households, nasopharyngeal samples were taken twice weekly, irrespective of symptoms, across three respiratory virus seasons, and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to identify infection with RSV and/or influenza. We fitted an individual-level hidden Markov transmission model in order to estimate RSV and influenza infection rates and their interdependence. RESULTS: Of a total of 122,113 samples collected, 1265 (1.0%) were positive for influenza and 1002 (0.8%) positive for RSV, with 15 (0.01%) samples from 12 individuals positive for both influenza and RSV. We observed a 2.25-fold higher incidence of co-infection than expected if assuming infections were unrelated. We estimated that infection with influenza is 2.13 (95% CI 0.97-4.69) times more likely when already infected with, and for a week following, RSV infection, adjusted for age. This equates to 1.4% of influenza infections that may be attributable to RSV in this population. Due to the local seasonality (RSV season precedes the influenza season), we were unable to estimate changes in RSV infection risk following influenza infection. CONCLUSIONS: We find no evidence to suggest that RSV was associated with a subsequent reduced risk of influenza infection. Instead, we observed an increased risk for influenza infection for a short period after infection. However, the impact on population-level transmission dynamics of this individual-level synergistic effect was not measurable in this setting.

The potential cost-effectiveness of next generation influenza vaccines in England and Wales: A modelling analysis.

Next generation influenza vaccines are in development and have the potential for widespread health and economic benefits. Determining the potential health and economic impact for these vaccines is needed to drive investment in bringing these vaccines to the market, and to inform which groups public health policies on influenza vaccination should target. We used a mathematical modelling approach to estimate the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of next generation influenza vaccines in England and Wales. We used data from an existing fitted model, and evaluated new vaccines with different characteristics ranging from improved vaccines with increased efficacy duration and breadth of protection, to universal vaccines, defined in line with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Preferred Product Characteristics (PPC). We calculated the cost effectiveness of new vaccines in comparison to the current seasonal vaccination programme. We calculated and compared the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio and Incremental Net Monetary Benefit for each new vaccine type. All analysis was conducted in R. We show that next generation influenza vaccines may result in a 21% to 77% reduction in influenza infections, dependent on vaccine characteristics. Our economic modelling shows that using any of these next generation vaccines at 2019 coverage levels would be highly cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 for a range of vaccine prices. The vaccine threshold price for the best next generation vaccines in £-2019 is £230 (95%CrI £192 - £269) per dose, but even minimally-improved influenza vaccines could be priced at £18 (95%CrI £16 - £21) per dose and still remain cost-effective. This evaluation demonstrates the promise of next generation influenza vaccines for impact on influenza epidemics, and likely cost-effectiveness profiles. We have provided evidence towards a full value of vaccines assessment which bolsters the investment case for development and roll-out of next-generation influenza vaccines.

Correspondence to: Estimating the full health and economic benefits of current and future influenza vaccines.

We recently published an article in BMC Medicine looking at the potential health and economic impact of paediatric vaccination using next-generation influenza vaccines in Kenya: a modelling study. In their commentary on our article, Lafond et al. highlight the potential importance of the wider benefits of vaccination on cost-effectiveness. Whilst we agree with many points raised in the commentary, we think it raises further interesting discussion points, specifically around model complexity, model assumptions and data availability. These points are both relevant to this manuscript but have wider implications for vaccine cost-effectiveness studies.

Call detail record aggregation methodology impacts infectious disease models informed by human mobility.

This paper demonstrates how two different methods used to calculate population-level mobility from Call Detail Records (CDR) produce varying predictions of the spread of epidemics informed by these data. Our findings are based on one CDR dataset describing inter-district movement in Ghana in 2021, produced using two different aggregation methodologies. One methodology, "all pairs," is designed to retain long distance network connections while the other, "sequential" methodology is designed to accurately reflect the volume of travel between locations. We show how the choice of methodology feeds through models of human mobility to the predictions of a metapopulation SEIR model of disease transmission. We also show that this impact varies depending on the location of pathogen introduction and the transmissibility of infections. For central locations or highly transmissible diseases, we do not observe significant differences between aggregation methodologies on the predicted spread of disease. For less transmissible diseases or those introduced into remote locations, we find that the choice of aggregation methodology influences the speed of spatial spread as well as the size of the peak number of infections in individual districts. Our findings can help researchers and users of epidemiological models to understand how methodological choices at the level of model inputs may influence the results of models of infectious disease transmission, as well as the circumstances in which these choices do not alter model predictions.

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).

First dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage amongst adolescents and children in England: an analysis of 3.21 million patients' primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programme in England was extended to include all adolescents and children by April 2022. The aim of this paper is to describe trends and variation in vaccine coverage in different clinical and demographic groups amongst adolescents and children in England by August 2022. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 3.21 million children and adolescents' records in general practice in England,  in situ and within the infrastructure of the electronic health record software vendor TPP using OpenSAFELY. Vaccine coverage across various demographic (sex, deprivation index and ethnicity) and clinical (risk status) populations is described. Results: Coverage is higher amongst adolescents than it is amongst children, with 53.5% adolescents and 10.8% children having received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Within those groups, coverage varies by ethnicity, deprivation index and risk status; there is no evidence of variation by sex. Conclusion: First dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage is shown to vary amongst various demographic and clinical groups of children and adolescents.

Repurposing an integrated national influenza platform for genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Ghana: a molecular epidemiological analysis.

BACKGROUND: Genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for monitoring the spread of COVID-19 and guiding public health decisions, but the capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing and sequencing in Africa is low. We integrated SARS-CoV-2 surveillance into an existing influenza surveillance network with the aim of providing insights into SARS-CoV-2 transmission and genomics in Ghana. METHODS: In this molecular epidemiological analysis, which is part of a wider multifaceted prospective observational study, we collected national SARS-CoV-2 test data from 35 sites across 16 regions in Ghana from Sept 1, 2020, to Nov 30, 2021, via the Ghanaian integrated influenza and SARS-CoV-2 surveillance network. SARS-CoV-2-positive samples collected through this integrated national influenza surveillance network and from international travellers arriving in Accra were sequenced with Oxford Nanopore Technology sequencing and the ARTIC tiled amplicon method. The sequence lineages were typed with pangolin and the phylogenetic analysis was conducted with IQ-Tree2 and TreeTime. FINDINGS: During the study period, 5495 samples were submitted for diagnostic testing through the national influenza surveillance network (2121 [46·1%] of 4021 samples with complete demographic data were from female individuals and 2479 [53·9%] of 4021 samples were from male individuals). We also obtained 2289 samples from travellers who arrived in Accra and had a positive lateral flow test, of whom 1626 (71·0%, 95% CI 69·1-72·9) were confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 positive. Co-circulation of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in Ghana was detected, with increased cases of influenza in November, 2020, November, 2021, and January and June, 2021. In 4124 samples from individuals with influenza-like illness, SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 583 (14·1%, 95% CI 13·1-15·2) samples and influenza in 356 (8·6%, 7·8-9·5). Conversely, in 476 samples from individuals with of severe acute respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 58 (12·2%, 9·5-15·5) samples and influenza in 95 (19·9%, 16·5-23·9). We detected four waves of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Ghana; each wave was driven by a different variant: B.1 and B.1.1 were the most prevalent lineages in wave 1, alpha (B.1.1.7) was responsible for wave 2, delta (B.1.617.2) and its sublineages (closely related to delta genomes from India) were responsible for wave 3, and omicron variants were responsible for wave 4. We detected omicron variants among 47 (32%) of 145 samples from travellers during the start of the omicron spread in Ghana (wave 4). INTERPRETATION: This study shows the value of repurposing existing influenza surveillance platforms to monitor SARS-CoV-2. Influenza continued to circulate in Ghana in 2020 and 2021, and remained a major cause of severe acute respiratory illness. We detected importations of SARS-CoV-2 variants into Ghana, including those that did or did not lead to onward community transmission. Investment in strengthening national influenza surveillance platforms in low-income and middle-income countries has potential for ongoing monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 and future pandemics. FUNDING: The EDCTP2 programme supported by the EU.

Changes in COVID-19-related mortality across key demographic and clinical subgroups in England from 2020 to 2022: a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been shown to differently affect various demographic and clinical population subgroups. We aimed to describe trends in absolute and relative COVID-19-related mortality risks across clinical and demographic population subgroups during successive SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study in England using the OpenSAFELY platform with the approval of National Health Service England, covering the first five SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves (wave one [wild-type] from March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave two [alpha (B.1.1.7)] from Sept 7, 2020, to April 24, 2021; wave three [delta (B.1.617.2)] from May 28 to Dec 14, 2021; wave four [omicron (B.1.1.529)] from Dec 15, 2021, to April 29, 2022; and wave five [omicron] from June 24 to Aug 3, 2022). In each wave, we included people aged 18-110 years who were registered with a general practice on the first day of the wave and who had at least 3 months of continuous general practice registration up to this date. We estimated crude and sex-standardised and age-standardised wave-specific COVID-19-related death rates and relative risks of COVID-19-related death in population subgroups. FINDINGS: 18 895 870 adults were included in wave one, 19 014 720 in wave two, 18 932 050 in wave three, 19 097 970 in wave four, and 19 226 475 in wave five. Crude COVID-19-related death rates per 1000 person-years decreased from 4·48 deaths (95% CI 4·41-4·55) in wave one to 2·69 (2·66-2·72) in wave two, 0·64 (0·63-0·66) in wave three, 1·01 (0·99-1·03) in wave four, and 0·67 (0·64-0·71) in wave five. In wave one, the standardised COVID-19-related death rates were highest in people aged 80 years or older, people with chronic kidney disease stage 5 or 4, people receiving dialysis, people with dementia or learning disability, and people who had received a kidney transplant (ranging from 19·85 deaths per 1000 person-years to 44·41 deaths per 1000 person-years, compared with from 0·05 deaths per 1000 person-years to 15·93 deaths per 1000 person-years in other subgroups). In wave two compared with wave one, in a largely unvaccinated population, the decrease in COVID-19-related mortality was evenly distributed across population subgroups. In wave three compared with wave one, larger decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were seen in groups prioritised for primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, including people aged 80 years or older and people with neurological disease, learning disability, or severe mental illness (90-91% decrease). Conversely, smaller decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were observed in younger age groups, people who had received organ transplants, and people with chronic kidney disease, haematological malignancies, or immunosuppressive conditions (0-25% decrease). In wave four compared with wave one, the decrease in COVID-19-related death rates was smaller in groups with lower vaccination coverage (including younger age groups) and conditions associated with impaired vaccine response, including people who had received organ transplants and people with immunosuppressive conditions (26-61% decrease). INTERPRETATION: There was a substantial decrease in absolute COVID-19-related death rates over time in the overall population, but demographic and clinical relative risk profiles persisted and worsened for people with lower vaccination coverage or impaired immune response. Our findings provide an evidence base to inform UK public health policy for protecting these vulnerable population subgroups. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Quantifying the value of viral genomics when inferring who infected whom in the 2014-16 Ebola virus outbreak in Guinea.

Transmission trees can be established through detailed contact histories, statistical or phylogenetic inference, or a combination of methods. Each approach has its limitations, and the extent to which they succeed in revealing a 'true' transmission history remains unclear. In this study, we compared the transmission trees obtained through contact tracing investigations and various inference methods to identify the contribution and value of each approach. We studied eighty-six sequenced cases reported in Guinea between March and November 2015. Contact tracing investigations classified these cases into eight independent transmission chains. We inferred the transmission history from the genetic sequences of the cases (phylogenetic approach), their onset date (epidemiological approach), and a combination of both (combined approach). The inferred transmission trees were then compared to those from the contact tracing investigations. Inference methods using individual data sources (i.e. the phylogenetic analysis and the epidemiological approach) were insufficiently informative to accurately reconstruct the transmission trees and the direction of transmission. The combined approach was able to identify a reduced pool of infectors for each case and highlight likely connections among chains classified as independent by the contact tracing investigations. Overall, the transmissions identified by the contact tracing investigations agreed with the evolutionary history of the viral genomes, even though some cases appeared to be misclassified. Therefore, collecting genetic sequences during outbreak is key to supplement the information contained in contact tracing investigations. Although none of the methods we used could identify one unique infector per case, the combined approach highlighted the added value of mixing epidemiological and genetic information to reconstruct who infected whom.

Assessing the impacts of COVID-19 vaccination programme's timing and speed on health benefits, cost-effectiveness, and relative affordability in 27 African countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccine supply shortage in 2021 constrained roll-out efforts in Africa while populations experienced waves of epidemics. As supply improves, a key question is whether vaccination remains an impactful and cost-effective strategy given changes in the timing of implementation. METHODS: We assessed the impact of vaccination programme timing using an epidemiological and economic model. We fitted an age-specific dynamic transmission model to reported COVID-19 deaths in 27 African countries to approximate existing immunity resulting from infection before substantial vaccine roll-out. We then projected health outcomes (from symptomatic cases to overall disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted) for different programme start dates (01 January to 01 December 2021, n = 12) and roll-out rates (slow, medium, fast; 275, 826, and 2066 doses/million population-day, respectively) for viral vector and mRNA vaccines by the end of 2022. Roll-out rates used were derived from observed uptake trajectories in this region. Vaccination programmes were assumed to prioritise those above 60 years before other adults. We collected data on vaccine delivery costs, calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared to no vaccine use, and compared these ICERs to GDP per capita. We additionally calculated a relative affordability measure of vaccination programmes to assess potential nonmarginal budget impacts. RESULTS: Vaccination programmes with early start dates yielded the most health benefits and lowest ICERs compared to those with late starts. While producing the most health benefits, fast vaccine roll-out did not always result in the lowest ICERs. The highest marginal effectiveness within vaccination programmes was found among older adults. High country income groups, high proportions of populations over 60 years or non-susceptible at the start of vaccination programmes are associated with low ICERs relative to GDP per capita. Most vaccination programmes with small ICERs relative to GDP per capita were also relatively affordable. CONCLUSION: Although ICERs increased significantly as vaccination programmes were delayed, programmes starting late in 2021 may still generate low ICERs and manageable affordability measures. Looking forward, lower vaccine purchasing costs and vaccines with improved efficacies can help increase the economic value of COVID-19 vaccination programmes.

Potential health and economic impact of paediatric vaccination using next-generation influenza vaccines in Kenya: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a major year-round cause of respiratory illness in Kenya, particularly in children under 5. Current influenza vaccines result in short-term, strain-specific immunity and were found in a previous study not to be cost-effective in Kenya. However, next-generation vaccines are in development that may have a greater impact and cost-effectiveness profile. METHODS: We expanded a model previously used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccines in Kenya to include next-generation vaccines by allowing for enhanced vaccine characteristics and multi-annual immunity. We specifically examined vaccinating children under 5 years of age with improved vaccines, evaluating vaccines with combinations of increased vaccine effectiveness, cross-protection between strains (breadth) and duration of immunity. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs) for a range of values for the willingness-to-pay (WTP) per DALY averted. Finally, we estimated threshold per-dose vaccine prices at which vaccination becomes cost-effective. RESULTS: Next-generation vaccines can be cost-effective, dependent on the vaccine characteristics and assumed WTP thresholds. Universal vaccines (assumed to provide long-term and broad immunity) are most cost-effective in Kenya across three of four WTP thresholds evaluated, with the lowest median value of ICER per DALY averted ($263, 95% Credible Interval (CrI): $ - 1698, $1061) and the highest median INMBs. At a WTP of $623, universal vaccines are cost-effective at or below a median price of $5.16 per dose (95% CrI: $0.94, $18.57). We also show that the assumed mechanism underlying infection-derived immunity strongly impacts vaccine outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation provides evidence for country-level decision makers about future next-generation vaccine introduction, as well as global research funders about the potential market for these vaccines. Next-generation vaccines may offer a cost-effective intervention to reduce influenza burden in low-income countries with year-round seasonality like Kenya.

Protocol for an OpenSAFELY cohort study collecting patient-reported outcome measures using the TPP Airmid smartphone application and linked big data to quantify the health and economic costs of long COVID (OpenPROMPT).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of long COVID on health-related quality of-life (HRQoL) and productivity is not currently known. It is important to understand who is worst affected by long COVID and the cost to the National Health Service (NHS) and society, so that strategies like booster vaccines can be prioritised to the right people. OpenPROMPT aims to understand the impact of long COVID on HRQoL in adults attending English primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will ask people to participate in this cohort study through a smartphone app (Airmid), and completing a series of questionnaires held within the app. Questionnaires will ask about HRQoL, productivity and symptoms of long COVID. Participants will be asked to fill in the questionnaires once a month, for 90 days. Questionnaire responses will be linked, where possible, to participants' existing health records from primary care, secondary care, and COVID testing and vaccination data. Analysis will take place using the OpenSAFELY data platform and will estimate the impact of long COVID on HRQoL, productivity and cost to the NHS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Proportionate Review Sub-Committee of the South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee has reviewed and approved the study and have agreed that we can ask people to take part (22/SC/0198). Our results will provide information to support long-term care, and make recommendations for prevention of long COVID in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05552612.