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 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
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
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
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.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines against infection and COVID-19 disease in health and social care workers. DesignCohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial. SettingLinked primary care, hospital, and COVID-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform. Participants317,341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a GP practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable. InterventionsVaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Main outcome measuresRecorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or COVID-19 related Accident and Emergency attendance or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of vaccination. ResultsThe cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks post-vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 6 weeks after vaccination with BNT162b2 was 19.2 per 1000 people (95%CI 18.6 to 19.7) and with ChAdOx1 was 18.9 (95%CI 17.6 to 20.3), representing a difference of -0.24 per 1000 people (95%CI -1.71 to 1.22). The difference in the cumulative incidence per 1000 people of COVID-19 accident and emergency attendance at 6 weeks was 0.01 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.27 to 0.28). For COVID-19 hospital admission, this difference was 0.03 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.22 to 0.27). ConclusionsIn this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply after 3-4 weeks and there were very few COVID-19 hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine-induced immunity, and suggests strong protection against COVID-19 disease for both vaccines.
RESUMEN
BackgroundIt is unclear if people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) (joint, bowel and skin) and on immune modifying therapy have increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we conducted a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY, analysingroutinely-collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders) to estimate hazard ratios (HR) comparing risk of COVID-19-death, death/critical care admission, and hospitalisation (March to September 2020) in: 1) people with IMIDs compared to the general population; and 2) people with IMIDs on targeted immune modifying drugs (e.g., biologics) compared to standard systemic treatment (e.g., methotrexate). FindingsWe identified 17,672,065 adults; of 1,163,438 (7%) with IMIDs, 19,119 people received targeted immune modifying drugs, and 200,813 received standard systemics. We saw evidence of increased COVID-19-death (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27), and COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35) in individuals with IMIDs overall compared to individuals without IMIDs of the same age, sex, deprivation and smoking status. We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19 deaths with targeted compared to standard systemic treatments (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.80, 1.33). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in those prescribed TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23, IL7, IL-6 or JAK inhibitors compared to standard systemics. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19 death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56); however, this finding may relate to confounding. InterpretationCOVID-19 death and hospitalisation was higher in people with IMIDs. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune modifying drugs for IMIDs compared to standard systemics. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed on May 19th, 2021, using the terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2" and "rheumatoid arthritis", "psoriatic arthritis" "ankylosing spondylitis", "Crohns disease" "ulcerative colitis" "hidradenitis suppurativa" and "psoriasis", to identify primary research articles examining severe COVID-19 outcome risk in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and those on immune modifying therapy. The studies identified (including matched cohort studies and studies in disease-specific registries) were limited by small sample sizes and number of outcomes. Most studies did not show a signal of increased adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on targeted therapies, with the exception of rituximab. Additionally, disease-specific registries are subject to selection bias and lack denominator populations. Added value of the studyIn our large population-based study of 17 million individuals, including 1 million people with IMIDs and just under 200,000 receiving immune modifying medications, we saw evidence that people with IMIDs had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared to the general population after adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, deprivation, smoking status) (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27). We saw differences by IMID type, with COVID-19-related death being increased by the most in people with inflammatory joint disease (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.40, 1.54). We also saw some evidence that those with IMIDs were more likely, compared to the general population, to have COVID-19-related critical care admission/death (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.21, 1.28) and hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35). Compared to people with IMIDs taking standard systemics, we saw no evidence of differences in severe COVID-19-related outcomes with TNF inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors and JAK inhibitors. However, there was some evidence that rituximab was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56) and death/critical care admission (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.31, 2.81). We also saw evidence of an increase in COVID-19-related hospital admissions in people prescribed rituximab (HR 1.59, 95%CI 1.16, 2.18) or JAK inhibition (HR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09, 3.01) compared to those on standard systemics, although this could be related to worse underlying health rather than the drugs themselves, and numbers of events were small. This is the first study to our knowledge to use high-cost drug data on medicines supplied by hospitals at a national scale in England (to identify targeted therapies). The availability of these data fills an important gap in the medication record of those with more specialist conditions treated by hospitals creating an important opportunity to generate insights to these conditions and these medications Implications of all of the available evidenceOur study offers insights into future risk mitigation strategies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination priorities for individuals with IMIDs, as it highlights that those with IMIDs and those taking rituximab may be at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Critically, our study does not show a link between most targeted immune modifying medications compared to standard systemics and severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, the increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes that we saw in people with IMIDs and those treated with rituximab merits further study.
RESUMEN
BackgroundAll patients in England within vaccine priority groups were offered a COVID-19 vaccine by mid-April 2021. Clinical record systems contain codes to denote when such an offer has been declined by a patient (although these can in some cases be entered for a variety of other reasons including vaccination delay, or other administrative issues). We set out to describe the patterns of usage of codes for COVID-19 vaccines being declined. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England and using the full pseudonymised primary care records for 57.9 million NHS patients, we identified all patients in key vaccine priority groups: aged over 50, or over 16 and at increased risk from COVID-19 (Clinically Extremely Vulnerable [CEV] or otherwise "at risk"). We describe the proportion of patients recorded as declining a COVID-19 vaccination for each priority group, and by other clinical and demographic factors; whether patients recorded as "declined" subsequently went on to receive a vaccination; and the distribution of code usage across GP practices. ResultsOf 24.5 million patients in priority groups as of May 25th 2021, 89.2% had received a vaccine, 8.8% had neither a vaccination nor a decline recorded, and 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline code recorded. Of patients with a recorded decline, 125,587 (18.9%) were subsequently vaccinated. Subsequent vaccination was slightly more common in the South Asian population than other ethnicities (e.g. 32.3% vs 22.8%, over 65s). The proportion of declining-unvaccinated patients varied strongly with ethnicity (Black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, White 1.5% in over 80s); and was higher in patients from more deprived areas. COVID-19 vaccine decline codes were present in almost all practices (98.8%), but with wide variation between practices in rates of usage. Among all priority groups, declining-unvaccinated status was most common in CEV (3.3%). ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are widely used in English general practice. They are substantially more common among Black and South Asian patients, and patients from more deprived areas. There is a need for more detailed survey and/or qualitative research with patients and clinicians to determine the most common reasons for these recorded declines.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThere is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute 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 FindingsWorking on behalf of NHS-England, we used 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-December 2020), and (i) demographically-matched controls from the 2019 general population; (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017-19. We used Cox regression adjusted for personal and clinical characteristics. 24,673 post-discharge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls were followed for [≤]315 days. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (adjusted-HR 2.23, 2.14-2.31) but similar to the influenza group (adjusted-HR 0.94, 0.91-0.98). All-cause mortality (7439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (adjusted-HR 4.97, 4.58-5.40 vs general population controls and 1.73, 1.60-1.87 vs influenza controls). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than general population controls, and largely comparable between COVID-19 and influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted/die due to their initial infection/other lower respiratory tract infection (adjusted-HR 1.37, 1.22-1.54), and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission/death (adjusted-HR 1.36, 1.01-2.83); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with pre-existing dementia had higher risk of dementia death. One limitation of our study is that reasons for hospitalisation/death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes. ConclusionsPeople 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, readmissions/death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of post-discharge monitoring.
RESUMEN
BackgroundResidents in care homes have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe trends in risk of mortality among care home residents compared to residents in private homes in England. MethodsOn behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY-TPP, an analytics platform running across the linked electronic health records of approximately a third of the English population, to calculate monthly age-standardised risks of death due to all causes and COVID-19 among adults aged >=65 years between 1/2/2019 and 31/03/2021. Care home residents were identified using linkage to the Care and Quality Commission. FindingsWe included 4,329,078 people aged 65 years or older on the 1st of February 2019, 2.2% of whom were classified as residing in a care or nursing home. Age-standardised mortality risks were approximately 10 times higher among care home residents compared to non-residents in February 2019 residents (CMF = 10.59, 95%CI = 9.51, 11.81 among women, CMF = 10.82, 95%CI = 9.89, 11.84 among men). This increased to more than 17 times in April 2020 (CMF = 17.52, 95%CI = 16.38, 18.74 among women, CMF = 18.12, 95%CI = 17.17 - 19.12 among men) before returning to pre-pandemic levels in June 2020. CMFs did not increase during the second wave, despite a rise in the absolute age-standardised COVID-19 mortality risks. InterpretationThe first COVID-19 wave had a disproportionate impact on care home residents in England compared to older private home residents. A degree of immunity, improved protective measures or changes in the underlying frailty of the populations may explain the lack of an increase in the relative mortality risks during the second wave. The care home population should be prioritised for measures aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19. FundingMedical Research Council MR/V015737/1
RESUMEN
BackgroundLong COVID is a term to describe new or persistent symptoms at least four weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were released in November 2020 in the UK, but it is not known how these codes have been used in practice. MethodsWorking on behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY data encompassing 96% of the English population. We measured the proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID, overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system, and week. We also measured variation in recording amongst practices. ResultsLong COVID was recorded for 23,273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed amongst practices, with 26.7% of practices having not used the codes at all. Regional variation was high, ranging between 20.3 per 100,000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval 19.3-21.4) and 55.6 in London (95% CI 54.1-57.1). The rate was higher amongst women (52.1, 95% CI 51.3-52.9) compared to men (28.1, 95% CI 27.5-28.7), and higher amongst practices using EMIS software (53.7, 95% CI 52.9-54.4) compared to TPP software (20.9, 95% CI 20.3-21.4). ConclusionsLong COVID coding in primary care is low compared with early reports of long COVID prevalence. This may reflect under-coding, sub-optimal communication of clinical terms, under-diagnosis, a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians, or a combination of factors. We recommend increased awareness of diagnostic codes, to facilitate research and planning of services; and surveys of clinicians experiences, to complement ongoing patient surveys.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesWe investigated the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes, comparing current OAC use versus non-use in Study 1; and warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Study 2. DesignTwo cohort studies, on behalf of NHS England. SettingPrimary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. ParticipantsStudy 1: 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score of 2. Study 2: 372,746 people with non-valvular AF. Main outcome measuresTime to test for SARS-CoV-2, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 related hospital admission, COVID-19 deaths or non-COVID-19 deaths in Cox regression. ResultsIn Study 1, we included 52,416 current OAC users and 18,048 non-users. We observed no difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 associated with current use (adjusted HR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.05) versus non-use. We observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR, 0.73, 95%CI, 0.60 to 0.90), and COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.69, 95%CI, 0.49 to 0.97) associated with current use versus non-use. In Study 2, we included 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users. We observed a lower risk of COVID-19 deaths (adjusted HR, 0.79, 95%CI, 0.76 to 0.83) associated with warfarin versus DOACs. Similar associations were found for all other outcomes. ConclusionsAmong people with AF and a CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score of 2, those receiving OACs had a lower risk of receiving a positive COVID-19 test and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk. There was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs in people with non-valvular AF regardless of CHA{square}DS{square}-VASc score. Key pointsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LICurrent studies suggest that prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulant use, particularly low molecular weight heparin, lower the risk of pulmonary embolism and mortality during hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19. C_LIO_LIReduced vitamin K status has been reported to be correlated with severity of COVID-19. This could mean that warfarin, as a vitamin K antagonist, is associated with more severe COVID-19 disease than non-vitamin K anticoagulants. C_LI What this study addsO_LIIn 70,464 people with atrial fibrillation, at the threshold of being treated with an OAC based on risk of stroke, we observed a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 related deaths associated with routinely prescribed OACs, relative to non-use. C_LIO_LIThis might be explained by OACs preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes, or more cautious behaviours and environmental factors reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those taking OACs. C_LIO_LIIn 372,746 people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with warfarin compared with DOACs. C_LI
