RESUMEN
BackgroundHealthcare across all sectors, in the UK and globally, was negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quantity of healthcare services delivered to people with pancreatic cancer. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, and drawing from a nationally representative OpenSAFELY-TPP dataset of 24 million patients (over 40% of the English population), we undertook a cohort study of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. We queried electronic healthcare records for information on the provision of healthcare services across the pancreatic cancer pathway. To estimate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, we predicted the rates of healthcare services if the pandemic had not happened. We used generalised linear models (GLM) and the pre-pandemic data from January 2015 to February 2020 to predict rates in March 2020 to September 2022. The 95% confidence intervals of the predicted values were used to estimate the significance of the difference between the predicted and observed rates. ResultsThe rate of pancreatic cancer and diabetes diagnoses in the cohort was not affected by the pandemic. There were 24,500 people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from January 2015 to September 2022. The mean age at diagnosis was 72 ({+/-}11 SD), 48% of people were female, 95% were of White ethnicity and 39% were diagnosed with diabetes. We found a reduction in surgical resections by nearly 25% during the pandemic. In addition, 20%, 10% and 5% fewer people received BMI, HbA1c and liver function tests respectively before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. There was no impact of the pandemic on the number of people making contact with primary care, but the number of contacts increased on average by 1 to 2 per person amongst those who made contact. Abdominal scans decreased by 7% and reporting of jaundice decreased by 20%, but recovered within six months into the pandemic. Emergency department visits, hospital admissions and deaths were not affected. ConclusionsThe pandemic affected healthcare in England across the pancreatic cancer pathway. Positive lessons could be learnt from services that recovered quickly. The reductions in healthcare experienced by people with cancer have the potential to lead to worse outcomes. Current efforts should focus on addressing the unmet needs of people with cancer.
RESUMEN
BackgroundPatients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT; dialysis and kidney transplantation) are at the highest risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Due to limited inclusion of patients on KRT in clinical trials, information is limited on the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody). We sought to address this by comparing its effectiveness against molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised adults with symptomatic COVID-19. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT, and data on antiviral treatments, COVID-19 test results, hospitalisation events and death from the OpenSAFELY-TPP data resource. Cox proportional hazards models (stratified for region) were used to estimate hazard ratios of sotrovimab vs. molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19 related hospitalisation or deaths in the subsequent 28 days (as the primary outcome). Further analyses were conducted using propensity score weighting (adjusted for region) and to investigate robustness of results with regards to different time periods, missing data, and adjustment variables. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from patients in the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR) treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir, following similar analytical approaches. ResultsAmong the 2367 renal patients treated with sotrovimab (n=1852) or molnupiravir (n=515) between December 16, 2021 and August 1, 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed during the 28 days of follow-up after treatment initiation, with 21 (1.1%) in the sotrovimab group and 17 (3.3%) in the molnupiravir group. In multiple-adjusted analysis sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio, HR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.71; P=0.004), with results remaining robust in sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, there were 19 cases (1.9%) of COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths during the 28 days of follow-up after treatment initiation of sotrovimab (n=723) or molnupiravir (n=270). In multiple-adjusted analysis, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death than treatment with molnupiravir (HR=0.39, 95% CI: 0.13 to 1.21; P=0.106). In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranging from 0.73-1.29; P>0.05). ConclusionsIn routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on kidney replacement therapy, those who received sotrovimab had substantially lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and associated national lockdowns created unprecedented disruption to healthcare, with reduced access to services and planned clinical encounters postponed or cancelled. It was widely anticipated that failure to obtain timely treatment would cause progression of illness and increased hospital admissions. Additional concerns were that social and spatial inequalities would widen given the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 directly. The aim of our study is to determine whether this was observable in England. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we utilised individual-level electronic health records from OpenSAFELY, which covered [~]40% of general practices in England (mean monthly population size 23.5 million people). We estimated crude and directly age-standardised rates for potentially preventable unplanned hospital admissions: ambulatory care sensitive conditions and urgent emergency sensitive conditions. We considered how trends in these outcomes varied by three measures of social and spatial inequality: neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, and geographical region. FindingsThere were large declines in avoidable hospitalisations during the first national lockdown, which then reversed post-lockdown albeit never reaching pre-pandemic levels. While trends were consistent by each measure of inequality, absolute levels of inequalities narrowed throughout 2020 (especially during the first national lockdown) and remained lower than pre-pandemic trends. While the scale of inequalities remained similar into 2021 for deprivation and ethnicity, we found evidence of widening absolute and relative inequalities by geographic region in 2021 and 2022. InterpretationThe anticipation that healthcare disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns would result in more (avoidable) hospitalisations and widening social inequalities was wrong. However, the recent growing gap between geographic regions suggests that the effects of the pandemic has reinforced spatial inequalities.
RESUMEN
BackgroundKidney 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. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study to estimate the comparative effectiveness of schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with 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. FindingsAfter 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{middle dot}43 [1{middle dot}37-1{middle dot}50], 1{middle dot}59 [1{middle dot}43-1{middle dot}77], 1{middle dot}44 [1{middle dot}12-1{middle dot}85], and 1{middle dot}09 [1{middle dot}02-1{middle dot}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. InterpretationAmong 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. FundingNational Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched Medline for studies published between 1st December 2020 and 7th September 2022 using the following term: "(coronavir* or covid* or sars*) and (vaccin* or immunis* or immuniz*) and (kidney or dialysis or h?emodialysis or transplant or renal) and (efficacy or effectiveness)". We identified studies reporting on the effectiveness of various COVID-19 vaccines in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease. Several studies have reported no clear differences in effectiveness against outcomes of varying severity after two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 compared to unvaccinated controls, which is contrary to the significantly higher antibody levels observed after BNT162b2 in immunogenicity studies. One study also showed that a third dose of RNA vaccine restored some protection against the Omicron variant among BNT162b2- and AZD1222-primed individuals, with no clear differences between these groups. This finding is consistent with immunogenicity data suggesting that a third dose of BNT162b2 may reduce the gap in antibody levels observed after two of AZD1222 versus BNT162b2. Notably, we found few studies directly comparing effectiveness in BNT162b2 versus AZD1222 recipients, which reduces biases associated with comparison to a small and potentially unrepresentative group of unvaccinated controls. We also found no studies exploring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in kidney disease groups of varying severity (CKD, dialysis, and kidney transplant). Added value of this studyThis is the largest study to compare the effectiveness of two- and three-dose regimens involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. We compared effectiveness after two and three doses in 426,780 and 377,395 individuals, respectively, and harnessed unique data linkages between primary care records and UK Renal Registry data to identify people with CKD and end-stage renal disease (including dialysis and kidney transplant recipients) with high accuracy. During the Delta wave of infection, we observed a higher risk of COVID-19-related outcomes of varying severity after two doses of AZD1222 versus BNT162b2, with consistent findings in CKD, dialysis, and transplant subgroups. After a third dose of BNT162b2, AZD1222- and BNT162b2-primed individuals had similar rates of COVID-19-related outcomes during a period of Omicron dominance. Implications of all the available evidence A growing body of immunogenicity and effectiveness data - including the present study - suggest that two doses of BNT162b2 confers stronger protection than AZD1222 among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. However, a third dose of BNT162b2 appears to compensate for this immunity deficit, providing equivalent protection in BNT162b2- and AZD1222-primed individuals. Achieving high coverage with additional RNA vaccine doses (whether homologous or heterologous) has the capacity to reduce the burden of disease in this vulnerable population.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on delivery of NHS care. We have developed the OpenSAFELY Service Restoration Observatory (SRO) to describe this impact on primary care activity and monitor its recovery. ObjectivesTo develop key measures of primary care activity and describe the trends in these measures throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we developed an open source software framework for data management and analysis to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across primary care electronic health record (EHR) data on 48 million adults. We developed SNOMED-CT codelists for key measures of primary care clinical activity selected by a expert clinical advisory group and conducted a population cohort-based study to describe trends and variation in these measures January 2019-December 2021, and pragmatically classified their level of recovery one year into the pandemic using the percentage change in the median practice level rate. ResultsWe produced 11 measures reflective of clinical activity in general practice. A substantial drop in activity was observed in all measures at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. By April 2021, the median rate had recovered to within 15% of the median rate in April 2019 in six measures. The remaining measures showed a sustained drop, ranging from a 18.5% reduction in medication reviews to a 42.0% reduction in blood pressure monitoring. Three measures continued to show a sustained drop by December 2021. ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a substantial change in primary care activity across the measures we developed, with recovery in most measures. We delivered an open source software framework to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. We will continue to expand the set of key measures to be routinely monitored using our publicly available NHS OpenSAFELY SRO dashboards with near real-time data.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo use the OpenSAFELY platform to replicate key metrics from a national clinical audit, and assess the impact of COVID-19 on disease incidence and care delivery for inflammatory arthritis (IA) in England. DesignPopulation-based cohort study, with the approval of NHS England. SettingPrimary care and linked hospital outpatient data for more than 17 million people registered with general practices in England that use TPP electronic health record software. ParticipantsAdults (18-110 years) with new diagnoses of IA (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, undifferentiated IA) between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022. Main outcome measuresThe following outcomes were explored before and after April 2020: 1) incidence of IA diagnoses; 2) time from primary care referral to first rheumatology assessment; 3) time to first prescription of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) in primary care. ResultsFrom a reference population of 17,683,500 adults, there were 31,280 incident IA diagnoses between April 2019 and March 2022. The incidence of IA decreased by 20.3% in the year commencing April 2020, relative to the preceding year (5.1 vs. 6.4 diagnoses per 10,000 adults, respectively). For those who presented with IA, the time to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (median 18 days; interquartile range 8 to 35 days) than before (21 days; 9 to 41 days). Overall, the proportion of patients prescribed DMARDs in primary care was comparable during the pandemic to before; however, the choice of medication changed, with fewer people prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide during the pandemic, and more people prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine. ConclusionsThe incidence of IA diagnoses in England decreased markedly during the early COVID-19 pandemic. However, for people who sought medical attention, the impact of the pandemic on service delivery was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates that it is feasible to use routinely captured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality for long-term conditions on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo quantify in absolute and relative terms how population-level COVID-19 death rates have changed in demographic and clinical subgroups. DesignRetrospective cohort study on behalf of NHS England. SettingLinked primary care and death registry data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering the first three pandemic waves in England (wave 1: March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave 2: September 7, 2020 to April 24, 2021; and wave 3, delta: May 28 to December 14, 2021). ParticipantsIn total, 18.7, 18.8, and 18.7 million adults were included for waves 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Main outcome measuresCOVID-19-related mortality based on linked death registry records. ResultsThe crude absolute COVID-19-related death rate per 1,000 person-years decreased from 4.48 in wave 1 (95%CI 4.41;4.55), to 2.70 in wave 2 (95%CI 2.67;2.73), to 0.64 in wave 3 (95%CI 0.63;0.66). The absolute death rate decreased by 90% between waves 1 and 3 in patients aged 80+, but by only 20% in patients aged 18-39. This higher proportional reduction in age- and sex-standardised death rates was also seen for other groups, such as neurological disease, learning disability and severe mental illness. Conversely, standardised death rates in transplant recipients stayed constant across successive waves at 10 per 1,000 person-years. There was also only a small decrease in death rates between waves in people with kidney disease, haematological malignancies or conditions associated with immunosuppression. Consequently, the relative hazard of COVID-19-related death decreased over time for some variables (e.g. age), remained similar for some (e.g. sex, ethnicity), and increased for others (e.g. transplant). ConclusionsCOVID-19 death rates decreased over the first three pandemic waves. An especially large decrease was seen in older age groups and people with neurological disease, learning disability or severe mental illness. Some demographic inequalities in death rates persisted over time. Groups more likely to experience impaired vaccine effectiveness did not see the same benefit in COVID-19 mortality reduction.
RESUMEN
BackgroundCancer treatments were variably disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite UK national guidelines recommending pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy to all people with unresectable pancreatic cancer, observational studies demonstrate under-prescribing. AimTo investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prescribing of pancreatic enzyme replacement to people with unresectable pancreatic cancer. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using 24 million health records through the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform. We modelled the effect of COVID-19 with multivariable linear regression. ResultsWe found no reduction in pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, since 2015, the rates of prescribing increased steadily over time by 1% every year. The national rates ranged from 41% in 2015 to 48% in 2022. There was substantial regional variation. The highest rates of 50% to 60% were in the West Midlands and lowest (20% to 30%) in London. ConclusionsIn contrast to many other treatments, prescribing of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy was not affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although overall rates increased over time, substantial under-prescribing existed at the end of this study (March 2022). At just under 50% in 2022, the rates were still below the recommended 100% standard. Prior work evaluating quality of care in this area relied on manual audits which come at increased cost and reduced frequency of updates. With the methodological advantage of OpenSAFELY, we established an automated audit which allows for regular updates.
RESUMEN
IntroductionThe COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness against severe COVID-19 of these two vaccines for boosting have not been made in trials or observational data. MethodsOn behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to match adult recipients of each vaccine type on date of vaccination, primary vaccine course, age, and other characteristics. Recipients were eligible if boosted between 29 October 2021 and 31 January 2022, and followed up for 12 weeks. Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death. We estimated the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and quantified comparative effectiveness using risk differences (RD) and hazard ratios (HRs). Results1,528,431 people were matched in each group, contributing a total 23,150,504 person-weeks of follow-up. The 12-week risks per 1,000 people of positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 103.2 (95%CI 102.4 to 104.0) for BNT162b2 and 96.0 (95.2 to 96.8) for mRNA-1273: the HR comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.92 (95%CI 0.91 to 0.92). For COVID-19 hospitalisations the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.65 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.75) and 0.44 (0.36 to 0.54): HR 0.67 (95%CI 0.58 to 0.78). COVID-19 deaths were rare: the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.03 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.06) and 0.01 (0.01 to 0.02): HR 1.23 (95%CI 0.59 to 2.56). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and clinical vulnerability. ConclusionBooster vaccination with mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine was more effective than BNT162b2 in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation during the first 12 weeks after vaccination, during a period of Delta followed by Omicron variant dominance.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSince its inception in March 2020, data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP electronic health record platform has been used for more than 50 studies relating to the global COVID-19 emergency. OpenSAFELY-TPP data is derived from practices in England using SystmOne software, and has been used for the majority of these studies. We set out to investigate the representativeness of OpenSAFELY-TPP data by comparing it to national population estimates. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we describe the age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation and ethnicity of the OpenSAFELY-TPP population compared to national estimates from the Office for National Statistics. The five leading causes of death occurring between the 1st January 2020 and the 31st December 2020 were also compared to deaths registered in England during the same period. ResultsDespite regional variations, TPP is largely representative of the general population of England in terms of IMD (all within 1.1 percentage points), age, sex (within 0.1 percentage points), ethnicity and causes of death. The proportion of the five leading causes of death is broadly similar to those reported by ONS (all within 1 percentage point). ConclusionsData made available via OpenSAFELY-TPP is broadly representative of the English population. SummaryUsers of OpenSAFELY must consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research. Although the coverage of TPP practices varies regionally across England, TPP registered patients are generally representative of the English population as a whole in terms of key demographic characteristics. Key messagesO_LIThere is regional variability across England in terms of key population characteristics C_LIO_LIUsers of OpenSAFELY should carefully consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research. C_LIO_LITPP registered patients are a representative sub-sample of the English population as a whole in terms of age, sex, IMD and ethnicity. C_LIO_LIThe proportions of the five leading causes of death in TPP in 2020 are broadly similar to those reported by ONS. C_LI
RESUMEN
BackgroundKidney disease is a significant risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Achieving high COVID-19 vaccine coverage among people with kidney disease is therefore a public health priority. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people in England were included. A cohort of individuals with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate or inclusion in the UK Renal Registry. Individual-level factors associated with vaccine uptake were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. Results948,845 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 11th May 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0%, and 93.5% for doses 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 61.1% among individuals with one or more indications for receipt of a fourth dose. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with non-White ethnicity, social deprivation, and severe mental illness - associations that were consistent across CKD stages and in RRT recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake, which was also delayed among care home residents. ConclusionAlthough high primary and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across demographic groups. Identifying how to address these disparities remains a priority to reduce the risk of severe disease in this vulnerable patient group.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered its first "booster" doses in September 2021, initially in groups at high risk of severe disease then across the adult population. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, with Moderna mRNA-1273 subsequently also used. MethodsWe used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of English primary care practices and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses between 16 September and 16 December 2021 when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Follow up was for up to 10 weeks. Each booster recipient was matched with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior immunisation. Additional factors were adjusted for in Cox models estimating hazard ratios (HRs). Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and non-COVID-9 death. Booster vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1-HR. ResultsAmong 4,352,417 BNT162b2 booster recipients matched with unboosted controls, estimated effectiveness of a booster dose compared with two doses only was 50.7% (95% CI 50.1-51.3) for positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 80.1% (78.3-81.8) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, 88.5% (85.0-91.1) for COVID-19 death, and 80.3% (79.0-81.5) for non-COVID-19 death. Estimated effectiveness was similar among those who had received a BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S two-dose primary vaccination course, but effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was slightly lower in those classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (76.3% (73.1-79.1) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, and 85.1% (79.6-89.1) for COVID-19 death). Estimated effectiveness against each outcome was lower in those aged 18-65 years than in those aged 65 and over. ConclusionOur findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity across a broad range of clinical services. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible. AimsUsing routinely collected data, our aim was to describe changes in the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice in: (i) cardiovascular disease, (ii) diabetes, (iii) mental health, (iv) female and reproductive health, (v) screening, and (vi) processes related to medication. Design and settingWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in-situ using OpenSAFELY. MethodsWe selected common primary care activity using CTV3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 - December 2020, presenting median and deciles of code usage across practices per month. ResultsWe identified substantial and widespread changes in clinical activity in primary care since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with generally good recovery by December 2020. A few exceptions showed poor recovery and warrant further investigation, such as mental health, e.g. "Depression interim review" (median across practices in December 2020 -41.6% compared to December 2019). ConclusionsGranular NHS GP data at population-scale can be used to monitor disruptions to healthcare services and guide the development of mitigation strategies. The authors are now developing real-time monitoring dashboards for key measures identified here as well as further studies, using primary care data to monitor and mitigate the indirect health impacts of Covid-19 on the NHS. How this fits inDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, routine healthcare services in England faced significant disruption, and NHS England recommended restoring NHS services to near-normal levels before winter 2020. Our previous report covered the disruption and recovery in pathology tests and respiratory activity: here we describe an additional six areas of common primary care activity. We found most activities exhibited significant reductions during pandemic wave 1 (with most recovering to near-normal levels by December); however many important aspects of care - especially those of a more time-critical nature - were maintained throughout the pandemic. We recommend key measures for ongoing monitoring and further investigation of the impacts on health inequalities, to help measure and mitigate the ongoing indirect health impacts of COVID-19 on the NHS.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) vs. molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients. DesignWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. SettingPatient-level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering a period where both medications were frequently prescribed in community settings. ParticipantsNon-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high risk of severe outcomes treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir since December 16, 2021. InterventionsSotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units. Main outcome measureCOVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation. ResultsBetween December 16, 2021 and February 10, 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, with no substantial differences in their baseline characteristics. The mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (SD=16) years; 59% were female, 89% White and 88% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 87 (1.4%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio, HR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.88; P=0.014). Consistent results were obtained from propensity score weighted Cox models (HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.81; P=0.005) and when restricted to fully vaccinated people (HR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.90; P=0.019). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction>0.10). Findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between February 16 and May 1, 2022 when the Omicron BA.2 variant was dominant in England. ConclusionIn routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on safe prescribing, using the PINCER prescribing indicators; to implement complex prescribing indicators at national scale using GP data. DesignPopulation based cohort study, with the approval of NHS England using the OpenSAFELY platform. SettingElectronic health record data from 56.8 million NHS patients general practice records. ParticipantsAll NHS patients registered at a GP practice using TPP or EMIS computer systems and recorded as at risk of at least one potentially hazardous PINCER indicator between September 2019 and September 2021. Main outcome measureMonthly trends and between-practice variation for compliance with 13 PINCER measures between September 2019 and September 2021. ResultsThe indicators were successfully implemented across GP data in OpenSAFELY. Hazardous prescribing remained largely unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic, with only small reductions in achievement of the PINCER indicators. There were transient delays in blood test monitoring for some medications, particularly ACE inhibitors. All indicators exhibited substantial recovery by September 2021. We identified 1,813,058 patients at risk of at least one hazardous prescribing event. ConclusionGood performance was maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic across a diverse range of widely evaluated measures of safe prescribing. Summary box O_TEXTBOXWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPICO_LIPrimary care services were substantially disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. C_LIO_LIDisruption to safe prescribing during the pandemic has not previously been evaluated. C_LIO_LIPINCER is a nationally adopted programme of activities that aims to identify and correct hazardous prescribing in GP practices, by conducting manual audit on subgroups of practices. C_LI WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSO_LIFor the first time, we were able to successfully generate data on PINCER indicators for almost the whole population of England, in a single analysis. C_LIO_LIOur study is the most comprehensive assessment of medication safety during the COVID-19 pandemic in England, covering 95% of the population using well-validated measures. C_LIO_LIGood performance was maintained across many PINCER indicators throughout the pandemic. C_LIO_LIDelays in delivering some medication-related blood test monitoring were evident though considerable recovery was made by the end of the study period. C_LI C_TEXTBOX
RESUMEN
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is increasing in prevalence around the world. Accurate estimation of disease severity associated with Omicron is critical for pandemic planning. We found lower risk of accident and emergency (AE) attendance following SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron compared to Delta (HR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.30 - 0.51; P<.0001). For AE attendances that lead to hospital admission, Omicron was associated with an 85% lower hazard compared with Delta (HR: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.09 - 0.24; P<.0001)). Conflicts of InterestsNothing to declare. Funding statementThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1. TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data centre pro bono in the context of a national emergency. Rosalind Eggo is funded by HDR UK (grant: MR/S003975/1), MRC (grant: MC_PC 19065), NIHR (grant: NIHR200908).
RESUMEN
Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in wave 1 (01/02/2020-31/08/2020) and 2 731 427 in wave 2 (01/09/2020-31/01/2021). Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves (e.g. wave 2, 67+ living with 3 other generations vs 67+ year olds only: White HR 1{middle dot}61 95% CI 1{middle dot}38-1{middle dot}87, South Asian HR 1{middle dot}76 95% CI 1{middle dot}48-2{middle dot}10), with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in wave 2. Multigenerational living was associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics. FundingThis research was funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe rate at which COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes over time is crucial for vaccination policies, but is incompletely understood with conflicting results from different studies. MethodsThis cohort study, using the OpenSAFELY-TPP database and approved by NHS England, included individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection assigned to vaccines priority groups 2-12 defined by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We compared individuals who had received two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 with unvaccinated individuals during six 4-week comparison periods, separately for subgroups aged 65+ years; 16-64 years and clinically vulnerable; 40-64 years and 18-39 years. We used Cox regression, stratified by first dose eligibility and geographical region and controlled for calendar time, to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated individuals, and quantified waning vaccine effectiveness as ratios of aHRs per-4-week period. The outcomes were COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and non-COVID-19 death. FindingsThe BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 and unvaccinated groups comprised 1,773,970, 2,961,011 and 2,433,988 individuals, respectively. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was similar across outcomes and vaccine brands: e.g. in the 65+ years subgroup ratios of aHRs versus unvaccinated for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test ranged from 1.23 (95% CI 1.15-1.32) to 1.27 (1.20-1.34) for BNT162b2 and 1.16 (0.98-1.37) to 1.20 (1.14-1.27) for ChAdOx1. Despite waning, rates of COVID-19 hospitalisation and COVID-19 death were substantially lower among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to 26 weeks after second dose, with estimated aHRs <0.20 (>80% vaccine effectiveness) for BNT162b2, and <0.26 (>74%) for ChAdOx1. By weeks 23-26, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated individuals were similar to or higher than those in unvaccinated individuals: aHRs ranged from 0.85 (0.78-0.92) to 1.53 (1.07-2.18) for BNT162b2, and 1.21 (1.13-1.30) to 1.99 (1.94-2.05) for ChAdOx1. InterpretationThe rate at which estimated vaccine effectiveness waned was strikingly consistent for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and similar across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. If sustained to outcomes of infection with the Omicron variant and to booster vaccination, these findings will facilitate scheduling of booster vaccination doses.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesAscertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for COVID-19 in community settings in England. DesignCohort study, approved by NHS England. SettingRoutine clinical data from 23.4m people linked to data on COVID-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. ParticipantsNon-hospitalised COVID-19 patients at high-risk of severe outcomes. InterventionsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab or remdesivir, administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units. ResultsWe identified 102,170 non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between 11th December 2021 and 28th April 2022 at high-risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral and/or nMAB treatment. Of these patients, 18,210 (18%) received treatment; sotrovimab, 9,340 (51%); molnupiravir, 4,500 (25%); Paxlovid, 4,290 (24%); casirivimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 20 (<1%). The proportion of patients treated increased from 8% (180/2,380) in the first week of treatment availability to 22% (420/1870) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, lowest in those with Liver disease (12%; 95% CI 11 to 13); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir/Paxlovid in all but three high risk groups: Down syndrome (36%; 95% CI 31 to 40), Rare neurological conditions (46%; 95% CI 44 to 48), and Primary immune deficiencies (49%; 95% CI 48 to 51); by ethnicity, from Black (10%; 95% CI 9 to 11) to White (18%; 95% CI 18 to 19); by NHS Region, from 11% (95% CI 10 to 12) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 23% (95% CI 22 to 24) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, from 12% (95% CI 12 to 13) in the most deprived areas to 21% (95% CI 21 to 22) in the least deprived areas. There was also lower coverage among unvaccinated patients (5%; 95% CI 4 to 7), those with dementia (5%; 95% CI 4 to 6) and care home residents (6%; 95% CI 5 to 6). ConclusionsUsing the OpenSAFELY platform we were able to identify patients who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments amongst these patients. Targeted activity may be needed to address apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, socioeconomically deprived areas, and care homes. What is already known about this topicSince the emergence of COVID-19, a number of approaches to treatment have been tried and evaluated. These have mainly consisted of treatments such as dexamethasone, which were used in UK hospitals,from early on in the pandemic to prevent progression to severe disease. Until recently (December 2021), no treatments have been widely used in community settings across England. What this study addsFollowing the rollout of antiviral medicines and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMABs) as treatment for patients with COVID-19, we were able to identify patients who were potentially eligible to receive antivirals or nMABs and assess the coverage of these new treatments amongst these patients, in as close to real-time as the available data flows would support. While the proportion of the potentially eligible patients receiving treatment increased over time, rising from 8% (180/2,380) in the first week of the roll out to 22% (420/1870) in the last week of April 2022, there were variations in coverage between key clinical, geographic, and demographic subgroup. How this study might affect research, practice, or policyTargeted activity may therefore be needed to address lower treatment rates observed among certain geographic areas and key groups including ethnic minorities, people living in areas of higher deprivation, and in care homes.
RESUMEN
BackgroundWhile the vaccines against COVID-19 are considered to be highly effective, COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough is likely and a small number of people will still fall ill, be hospitalised, or die from COVID-19, despite being fully vaccinated. With the continued increase in numbers of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, describing the characters of individuals who have experienced a COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough could be hugely important in helping to determine who may be at greatest risk. MethodWith 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 a COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough. ResultsAs of 01st November 2021, a total of 15,436,455 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 577245 (<4%) individuals reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. For every 1000 years of patient follow-up time, the corresponding incidence rate was 98.02 (95% CI 97.9-98.15). There were 16,120 COVID-19-related hospital admissions, 1,100 COVID-19 critical care admission patients and 3,925 COVID-19-related deaths; corresponding incidence rates of 2.72 (95% C 2.7-2.74), 0.19 (95% C 0.18-0.19) and 0.66 (95% C 0.65-0.67), respectively. When broken down by the initial priority group, higher rates of hospitalisation and death were seen in those in care homes and those over 80 years of age. Comorbidities with the highest rates of breakthrough COVID-19 included chronic kidney disease, dialysis, transplant, haematological malignancy, and immunocompromised. ConclusionThe majority of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases in England were mild with relatively few fully vaccinated individuals being hospitalised or dying as a result. However, some concerning differences in rates of breakthrough cases were identified in several clinical and demographic 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 continued increase in numbers of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests are concerning. As numbers of fully vaccinated individuals increases and follow-up time lengthens, so too will the number of COVID-19 breakthrough cases. Additional analyses, aimed at identifying individuals at higher risk, are therefore required.
