Development and validation of a new algorithm for improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

QRISK algorithms use data from millions of people to help clinicians identify individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Here, we derive and externally validate a new algorithm, which we have named QR4, that incorporates novel risk factors to estimate 10-year CVD risk separately for men and women. Health data from 9.98 million and 6.79 million adults from the United Kingdom were used for derivation and validation of the algorithm, respectively. Cause-specific Cox models were used to develop models to predict CVD risk, and the performance of QR4 was compared with version 3 of QRISK, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk scores. We identified seven novel risk factors in models for both men and women (brain cancer, lung cancer, Down syndrome, blood cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, oral cancer and learning disability) and two additional novel risk factors in women (pre-eclampsia and postnatal depression). On external validation, QR4 had a higher C statistic than QRISK3 in both women (0.835 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.833-0.837) and 0.831 (95% CI, 0.829-0.832) for QR4 and QRISK3, respectively) and men (0.814 (95% CI, 0.812-0.816) and 0.812 (95% CI, 0.810-0.814) for QR4 and QRISK3, respectively). QR4 was also more accurate than the ASCVD and SCORE2 risk scores in both men and women. The QR4 risk score identifies new risk groups and provides superior CVD risk prediction in the United Kingdom compared with other international scoring systems for CVD risk.

Vaginal Estrogen Therapy Use and Survival in Females With Breast Cancer.

Importance: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause can be treated with vaginal estrogen therapy. However, there are concerns about the safety of vaginal estrogen therapy in patients with breast cancer. Objective: To determine whether the risk of breast cancer-specific mortality was higher in females with breast cancer who used vaginal estrogen therapy vs females with breast cancer who did not use hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed 2 large cohorts, one each in Scotland and Wales, of females aged 40 to 79 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer. These population-based cohorts were identified from national cancer registry records from 2010 to 2017 in Scotland and from 2000 to 2016 in Wales and were followed up for breast cancer-specific mortality until 2020. Females were excluded if they had a previous cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer). Data analysis was performed between August 2022 and August 2023. Exposure: Use of vaginal estrogen therapy, including vaginal tablets and creams, was ascertained from pharmacy dispensing records of the Prescribing Information System for the Scotland cohort and from general practice prescription records for the Wales cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to breast cancer-specific mortality, which was obtained from national mortality records. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for breast cancer-specific mortality, comparing vaginal estrogen therapy users with HRT nonusers and adjusting for confounders, including cancer stage and grade. Results: The 2 cohorts comprised 49 237 females with breast cancer (between 40 and 79 years of age) and 5795 breast cancer-specific deaths. Five percent of patients with breast cancer used vaginal estrogen therapy after breast cancer diagnosis. In vaginal estrogen therapy users compared with HRT nonusers, there was no evidence of a higher risk of breast cancer-specific mortality in the pooled fully adjusted model (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed no evidence of increased early breast cancer-specific mortality in patients who used vaginal estrogen therapy compared with patients who did not use HRT. This finding may provide some reassurance to prescribing clinicians and support the guidelines suggesting that vaginal estrogen therapy can be considered in patients with breast cancer and genitourinary symptoms.

Dynamic updating of clinical survival prediction models in a changing environment.

BACKGROUND: Over time, the performance of clinical prediction models may deteriorate due to changes in clinical management, data quality, disease risk and/or patient mix. Such prediction models must be updated in order to remain useful. In this study, we investigate dynamic model updating of clinical survival prediction models. In contrast to discrete or one-time updating, dynamic updating refers to a repeated process for updating a prediction model with new data. We aim to extend previous research which focused largely on binary outcome prediction models by concentrating on time-to-event outcomes. We were motivated by the rapidly changing environment seen during the COVID-19 pandemic where mortality rates changed over time and new treatments and vaccines were introduced. METHODS: We illustrate three methods for dynamic model updating: Bayesian dynamic updating, recalibration, and full refitting. We use a simulation study to compare performance in a range of scenarios including changing mortality rates, predictors with low prevalence and the introduction of a new treatment. Next, the updating strategies were applied to a model for predicting 70-day COVID-19-related mortality using patient data from QResearch, an electronic health records database from general practices in the UK. RESULTS: In simulated scenarios with mortality rates changing over time, all updating methods resulted in better calibration than not updating. Moreover, dynamic updating outperformed ad hoc updating. In the simulation scenario with a new predictor and a small updating dataset, Bayesian updating improved the C-index over not updating and refitting. In the motivating example with a rare outcome, no single updating method offered the best performance. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a dynamic updating process outperformed one-time discrete updating in the simulations. Bayesian updating offered good performance overall, even in scenarios with new predictors and few events. Intercept recalibration was effective in scenarios with smaller sample size and changing baseline hazard. Refitting performance depended on sample size and produced abrupt changes in hazard ratio estimates between periods.

Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. METHODS: We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period. RESULTS: Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.

Risk prediction of covid-19 related death or hospital admission in adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the omicron wave in England (QCOVID4): cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To derive and validate risk prediction algorithms (QCOVID4) to estimate the risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission in people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result during the period when the omicron variant of the virus was predominant in England, and to evaluate performance compared with a high risk cohort from NHS Digital. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: QResearch database linked to English national data on covid-19 vaccinations, SARS-CoV-2 test results, hospital admissions, and cancer and mortality data, 11 December 2021 to 31 March 2022, with follow-up to 30 June 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1.3 million adults in the derivation cohort and 0.15 million adults in the validation cohort, aged 18-100 years, with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was covid-19 related death and secondary outcome was hospital admission for covid-19. Risk equations with predictor variables were derived from models fitted in the derivation cohort. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort. RESULTS: Of 1 297 922 people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the derivation cohort, 18 756 (1.5%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission and 3878 (0.3%) had a covid-19 related death during follow-up. The final QCOVID4 models included age, deprivation score and a range of health and sociodemographic factors, number of covid-19 vaccinations, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk of death related to covid-19 was lower among those who had received a covid-19 vaccine, with evidence of a dose-response relation (42% risk reduction associated with one vaccine dose and 92% reduction with four or more doses in men). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a reduction in the risk of covid-19 related death (49% reduction in men). The QCOVID4 algorithm for covid-19 explained 76.0% (95% confidence interval 73.9% to 78.2%) of the variation in time to covid-19 related death in men with a D statistic of 3.65 (3.43 to 3.86) and Harrell's C statistic of 0.970 (0.962 to 0.979). Results were similar for women. QCOVID4 was well calibrated. QCOVID4 was substantially more efficient than the NHS Digital algorithm for correctly identifying patients at high risk of covid-19 related death. Of the 461 covid-19 related deaths in the validation cohort, 333 (72.2%) were in the QCOVID4 high risk group and 95 (20.6%) in the NHS Digital high risk group. CONCLUSION: The QCOVID4 risk algorithm, modelled from data during the period when the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was predominant in England, now includes vaccination dose and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and predicted covid-19 related death among people with a positive test result. QCOVID4 more accurately identified individuals at the highest levels of absolute risk for targeted interventions than the approach adopted by NHS Digital. QCOVID4 performed well and could be used for targeting treatments for covid-19 disease.

Disparities in care and outcomes for primary liver cancer in England during 2008-2018: a cohort study of 8.52 million primary care population using the QResearch database.

Background: Liver cancer has one of the fastest rising incidence and mortality rates among all cancers in the UK, but it receives little attention. This study aims to understand the disparities in epidemiology and clinical pathways of primary liver cancer and identify the gaps for early detection and diagnosis of liver cancer in England. Methods: This study used a dynamic English primary care cohort of 8.52 million individuals aged ≥25 years in the QResearch database during 2008-2018, followed up to June 2021. The crude and age-standardised incidence rates, and the observed survival duration were calculated by sex and three liver cancer subtypes, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and other specified/unspecified primary liver cancer. Regression models were used to investigate factors associated with an incident diagnosis of liver cancer, emergency presentation, late stage at diagnosis, receiving treatments, and survival duration after diagnosis by subtype. Findings: 7331 patients were diagnosed with primary liver cancer during follow-up. The age-standardised incidence rates increased over the study period, particularly for HCC in men (increased by 60%). Age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, and geographical regions were all significantly associated with liver cancer incidence in the English primary care population. People aged ≥80 years were more likely to be diagnosed through emergency presentation and in late stages, less likely to receive treatments and had poorer survival than those aged <60 years. Men had a higher risk of being diagnosed with liver cancer than women, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.9 (95% confidence interval 3.6-4.2) for HCC, 1.2 (1.1-1.3) for CCA, and 1.7 (1.5-2.0) for other specified/unspecified liver cancer. Compared with white British, Asians and Black Africans were more likely to be diagnosed with HCC. Patients with higher socioeconomic deprivation were more likely to be diagnosed through the emergency route. Survival rates were poor overall. Patients diagnosed with HCC had better survival rates (14.5% at 10-year survival, 13.1%-16.0%) compared to CCA (4.4%, 3.4%-5.6%) and other specified/unspecified liver cancer (12.5%, 10.1%-15.2%). For 62.7% of patients with missing/unknown stage in liver cancer, their survival outcomes were between those diagnosed in Stages III and IV. Interpretation: This study provides an overview of the current epidemiology and the disparities in clinical pathways of primary liver cancer in England between 2008 and 2018. A complex public health approach is needed to tackle the rapid increase in incidence and the poor survival of liver cancer. Further studies are urgently needed to address the gaps in early detection and diagnosis of liver cancer in England. Funding: The Early Detection of Hepatocellular Liver Cancer (DeLIVER) project is funded by Cancer Research UK (Early Detection Programme Award, grant reference: C30358/A29725).

Predicting the future risk of lung cancer: development, and internal and external validation of the CanPredict (lung) model in 19·67 million people and evaluation of model performance against seven other risk prediction models.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in incidence and the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Meanwhile, lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can reduce mortality. The UK National Screening Committee recommended targeted lung cancer screening on Sept 29, 2022, and asked for more modelling work to be done to help refine the recommendation. This study aims to develop and validate a risk prediction model-the CanPredict (lung) model-for lung cancer screening in the UK and compare the model performance against seven other risk prediction models. METHODS: For this retrospective, population-based, cohort study, we used linked electronic health records from two English primary care databases: QResearch (Jan 1, 2005-March 31, 2020) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Gold (Jan 1, 2004-Jan 1, 2015). The primary study outcome was an incident diagnosis of lung cancer. We used a Cox proportional-hazards model in the derivation cohort (12·99 million individuals aged 25-84 years from the QResearch database) to develop the CanPredict (lung) model in men and women. We used discrimination measures (Harrell's C statistic, D statistic, and the explained variation in time to diagnosis of lung cancer [R2D]) and calibration plots to evaluate model performance by sex and ethnicity, using data from QResearch (4·14 million people for internal validation) and CPRD (2·54 million for external validation). Seven models for predicting lung cancer risk (Liverpool Lung Project [LLP]v2, LLPv3, Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [LCRAT], Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO]M2012, PLCOM2014, Pittsburgh, and Bach) were selected to compare their model performance with the CanPredict (lung) model using two approaches: (1) in ever-smokers aged 55-74 years (the population recommended for lung cancer screening in the UK), and (2) in the populations for each model determined by that model's eligibility criteria. FINDINGS: There were 73 380 incident lung cancer cases in the QResearch derivation cohort, 22 838 cases in the QResearch internal validation cohort, and 16 145 cases in the CPRD external validation cohort during follow-up. The predictors in the final model included sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, Townsend score), lifestyle factors (BMI, smoking and alcohol status), comorbidities, family history of lung cancer, and personal history of other cancers. Some predictors were different between the models for women and men, but model performance was similar between sexes. The CanPredict (lung) model showed excellent discrimination and calibration in both internal and external validation of the full model, by sex and ethnicity. The model explained 65% of the variation in time to diagnosis of lung cancer R2D in both sexes in the QResearch validation cohort and 59% of the R2D in both sexes in the CPRD validation cohort. Harrell's C statistics were 0·90 in the QResearch (validation) cohort and 0·87 in the CPRD cohort, and the D statistics were 2·8 in the QResearch (validation) cohort and 2·4 in the CPRD cohort. Compared with seven other lung cancer prediction models, the CanPredict (lung) model had the best performance in discrimination, calibration, and net benefit across three prediction horizons (5, 6, and 10 years) in the two approaches. The CanPredict (lung) model also had higher sensitivity than the current UK recommended models (LLPv2 and PLCOM2012), as it identified more lung cancer cases than those models by screening the same amount of individuals at high risk. INTERPRETATION: The CanPredict (lung) model was developed, and internally and externally validated, using data from 19·67 million people from two English primary care databases. Our model has potential utility for risk stratification of the UK primary care population and selection of individuals at high risk of lung cancer for targeted screening. If our model is recommended to be implemented in primary care, each individual's risk can be calculated using information in the primary care electronic health records, and people at high risk can be identified for the lung cancer screening programme. FUNDING: Innovate UK (UK Research and Innovation). TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence of tics in children and young people: a population-based cohort study.

Background: Since the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, clinicians have reported an increase in presentations of sudden and new onset tics particularly affecting teenage girls. This population-based study aimed to describe and compare the incidence of tics in children and young people in primary care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Methods: We used information from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum dataset and included males and females aged 4-11 years and 12-18 years between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2021. We grouped the pre-pandemic period (2015-2019) and presented the pandemic years (2020, 2021) separately. We described the characteristics of children and young people with a first record of a motor or vocal tic in each time period. Incidence rates of tics by age-sex groups in 2015-2019, 2020, and 2021 were calculated. Negative binomial regression models were used to calculate incidence rate ratios. Findings: We included 3,867,709 males and females aged 4-18 years. Over 14,734,062 person-years of follow-up, 11,245 people had a first tic record during the whole study period. The characteristics of people with tics differed over time, with the proportion of females aged 12-18 years and the proportion with mental health conditions including anxiety increasing during the pandemic. Tic incidence rates per 10,000 person-years were highest for 4-11-year-old males in all three time periods (13.4 [95% confidence interval 13.0-13.8] in 2015-2019; 13.2 [12.3-14.1] in 2020; 15.1 [14.1-16.1] in 2021) but increased markedly during the pandemic in 12-18-year-old females, from 2.5 (2.3-2.7) in 2015-2019, to 10.3 (9.5-11.3) in 2020 and 13.1 (12.1-14.1) in 2021. There were smaller increases in incidence rates in 12-18-year-old males (4.6 [4.4-4.9] in 2015-2019; 4.7 [4.1-5.3] in 2020; 6.2 [5.5-6.9] in 2021) and 4-11-year-old females (4.9 [4.7-5.2] in 2015-2019; 5.7 [5.1-6.4] in 2020; 7.6 [6.9-8.3] in 2021). Incidence rate ratios comparing 2020 and 2021 with 2015-2019 were highest in the 12-18-year-old female subgroup (4.2 [3.6-4.8] in 2020; 5.3 [4.7-6.0] in 2021). Interpretation: The incidence of tics in children and young people increased across all age and sex groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a differentially large effect in teenage girls (a greater than four-fold increase). Furthermore, in those with tic symptoms, proportions with mental health disorders including anxiety increased during the pandemic. Further research is required on the social and contextual factors underpinning this rise in onset of tics in teenage girls. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre.

Preexisting Neuropsychiatric Conditions and Associated Risk of Severe COVID-19 Infection and Other Acute Respiratory Infections.

Importance: Evidence indicates that preexisting neuropsychiatric conditions confer increased risks of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection. It is unclear how this increased risk compares with risks associated with other severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs). Objective: To determine whether preexisting diagnosis of and/or treatment for a neuropsychiatric condition is associated with severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection and other SARIs and whether any observed association is similar between the 2 outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prepandemic (2015-2020) and contemporary (2020-2021) longitudinal cohorts were derived from the QResearch database of English primary care records. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 99% CIs were estimated in April 2022 using flexible parametric survival models clustered by primary care clinic. This study included a population-based sample, including all adults in the database who had been registered with a primary care clinic for at least 1 year. Analysis of routinely collected primary care electronic medical records was performed. Exposures: Diagnosis of and/or medication for anxiety, mood, or psychotic disorders and diagnosis of dementia, depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19-related mortality, or hospital or intensive care unit admission; SARI-related mortality, or hospital or intensive care unit admission. Results: The prepandemic cohort comprised 11 134 789 adults (223 569 SARI cases [2.0%]) with a median (IQR) age of 42 (29-58) years, of which 5 644 525 (50.7%) were female. The contemporary cohort comprised 8 388 956 adults (58 203 severe COVID-19 cases [0.7%]) with a median (IQR) age of 48 (34-63) years, of which 4 207 192 were male (50.2%). Diagnosis and/or treatment for neuropsychiatric conditions other than dementia was associated with an increased likelihood of a severe outcome from SARI (anxiety diagnosis: HR, 1.16; 99% CI, 1.13-1.18; psychotic disorder diagnosis and treatment: HR, 2.56; 99% CI, 2.40-2.72) and COVID-19 (anxiety diagnosis: HR, 1.16; 99% CI, 1.12-1.20; psychotic disorder treatment: HR, 2.37; 99% CI, 2.20-2.55). The effect estimate for severe outcome with dementia was higher for those with COVID-19 than SARI (HR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.71-3.00 vs HR, 2.13; 99% CI, 2.07-2.19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this longitudinal cohort study, UK patients with preexisting neuropsychiatric conditions and treatments were associated with similarly increased risks of severe outcome from COVID-19 infection and SARIs, except for dementia.

Helicobacter pylori eradication for primary prevention of peptic ulcer bleeding in older patients prescribed aspirin in primary care (HEAT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96. FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9-6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41-2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62-4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14-0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55-3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients). INTERPRETATION: H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment.

Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis is more common after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination, but the risks in younger people and after sequential vaccine doses are less certain. METHODS: A self-controlled case series study of people ages 13 years or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2021, evaluated the association between vaccination and myocarditis, stratified by age and sex. The incidence rate ratio and excess number of hospital admissions or deaths from myocarditis per million people were estimated for the 1 to 28 days after sequential doses of adenovirus (ChAdOx1) or mRNA-based (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) vaccines, or after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: In 42 842 345 people receiving at least 1 dose of vaccine, 21 242 629 received 3 doses, and 5 934 153 had SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination. Myocarditis occurred in 2861 (0.007%) people, with 617 events 1 to 28 days after vaccination. Risk of myocarditis was increased in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1 (incidence rate ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09-1.62]) and a first, second, and booster dose of BNT162b2 (1.52 [95% CI, 1.24-1.85]; 1.57 [95% CI, 1.28-1.92], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33-2.22], respectively) but was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64-14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54-7.87], respectively). The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25-19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25-5.58]). Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91-99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12-18]). In women younger than 40 years, the number of excess events per million was similar after a second dose of mRNA-1273 and a positive test (7 [95% CI, 1-9] versus 8 [95% CI, 6-8]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

Neuropsychiatric Ramifications of Severe COVID-19 and Other Severe Acute Respiratory Infections.

Importance: Individuals surviving severe COVID-19 may be at increased risk of neuropsychiatric sequelae. Robust assessment of these risks may help improve clinical understanding of the post-COVID syndrome, aid clinical care during the ongoing pandemic, and inform postpandemic planning. Objective: To quantify the risks of new-onset neuropsychiatric conditions and new neuropsychiatric medication prescriptions after discharge from a COVID-19-related hospitalization, and to compare these with risks after discharge from hospitalization for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, adults (≥18 years of age) were identified from QResearch primary care and linked electronic health record databases, including national SARS-CoV-2 testing, hospital episode statistics, intensive care admissions data, and mortality registers in England, from January 24, 2020, to July 7, 2021. Exposures: COVID-19-related or SARI-related hospital admission (including intensive care admission). Main Outcomes and Measures: New-onset diagnoses of neuropsychiatric conditions (anxiety, dementia, psychosis, depression, bipolar disorder) or first prescription for relevant medications (antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, antipsychotics) during 12 months of follow-up from hospital discharge. Maximally adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs were estimated using flexible parametric survival models. Results: In this cohort study of data from 8.38 million adults (4.18 million women, 4.20 million men; mean [SD] age 49.18 [18.45] years); 16 679 (0.02%) survived a hospital admission for SARI, and 32 525 (0.03%) survived a hospital admission for COVID-19. Compared with the remaining population, survivors of SARI and COVID-19 hospitalization had higher risks of subsequent neuropsychiatric diagnoses. For example, the HR for anxiety in survivors of SARI was 1.86 (95% CI, 1.56-2.21) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 2.36 (95% CI, 2.03-2.74); the HR for dementia for survivors of SARI was 2.55 (95% CI, 2.17-3.00) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 2.63 (95% CI, 2.21-3.14). Similar findings were observed for all medications analyzed; for example, the HR for first prescriptions of antidepressants in survivors of SARI was 2.55 (95% CI, 2.24-2.90) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 3.24 (95% CI, 2.91-3.61). There were no significant differences observed when directly comparing the COVID-19 group with the SARI group apart from a lower risk of antipsychotic prescriptions in the former (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the neuropsychiatric sequelae of severe COVID-19 infection were found to be similar to those for other SARI. This finding may inform postdischarge support for people surviving SARI.

Smoking and COVID-19 outcomes: an observational and Mendelian randomisation study using the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence has emerged regarding the relevance of smoking on risk of COVID-19 and its severity. METHODS: We undertook large-scale observational and Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses using UK Biobank. Most recent smoking status was determined from primary care records (70.8%) and UK Biobank questionnaire data (29.2%). COVID-19 outcomes were derived from Public Health England SARS-CoV-2 testing data, hospital admissions data, and death certificates (until 18 August 2020). Logistic regression was used to estimate associations between smoking status and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and COVID-19-related death. Inverse variance-weighted MR analyses using established genetic instruments for smoking initiation and smoking heaviness were undertaken (reported per SD increase). RESULTS: There were 421 469 eligible participants, 1649 confirmed infections, 968 COVID-19-related hospitalisations and 444 COVID-19-related deaths. Compared with never-smokers, current smokers had higher risks of hospitalisation (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.29) and mortality (smoking 1-9/day: OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.24; 10-19/day: OR 5.91, 95% CI 3.66 to 9.54; 20+/day: OR 6.11, 95% CI 3.59 to 10.42). In MR analyses of 281 105 White British participants, genetically predicted propensity to initiate smoking was associated with higher risks of infection (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.91) and hospitalisation (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.27). Genetically predicted higher number of cigarettes smoked per day was associated with higher risks of all outcomes (infection OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.24; hospitalisation OR 5.08, 95% CI 2.04 to 12.66; and death OR 10.02, 95% CI 2.53 to 39.72). INTERPRETATION: Congruent results from two analytical approaches support a causal effect of smoking on risk of severe COVID-19.

Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Although myocarditis and pericarditis were not observed as adverse events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine trials, there have been numerous reports of suspected cases following vaccination in the general population. We undertook a self-controlled case series study of people aged 16 or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 August 2021 to investigate hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias in the 1-28 days following adenovirus (ChAdOx1, n = 20,615,911) or messenger RNA-based (BNT162b2, n = 16,993,389; mRNA-1273, n = 1,006,191) vaccines or a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive test (n = 3,028,867). We found increased risks of myocarditis associated with the first dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines and the first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine over the 1-28 days postvaccination period, and after a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We also observed increased risks of pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Similar associations were not observed with any of the COVID-19 vaccines, apart from an increased risk of arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273. Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.

Neurological complications after first dose of COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Emerging reports of rare neurological complications associated with COVID-19 infection and vaccinations are leading to regulatory, clinical and public health concerns. We undertook a self-controlled case series study to investigate hospital admissions from neurological complications in the 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (n = 20,417,752) or BNT162b2 (n = 12,134,782), and after a SARS-CoV-2-positive test (n = 2,005,280). There was an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (incidence rate ratio (IRR), 2.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.15-3.92 at 15-21 days after vaccination) and Bell's palsy (IRR, 1.29; 95% CI: 1.08-1.56 at 15-21 days) with ChAdOx1nCoV-19. There was an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI: 1.12-1.71 at 15-21 days) with BNT162b2. An independent Scottish cohort provided further support for the association between ChAdOx1nCoV and Guillain-Barré syndrome (IRR, 2.32; 95% CI: 1.08-5.02 at 1-28 days). There was a substantially higher risk of all neurological outcomes in the 28 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test including Guillain-Barré syndrome (IRR, 5.25; 95% CI: 3.00-9.18). Overall, we estimated 38 excess cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome per 10 million people receiving ChAdOx1nCoV-19 and 145 excess cases per 10 million people after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In summary, although we find an increased risk of neurological complications in those who received COVID-19 vaccines, the risk of these complications is greater following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between covid-19 vaccines and risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events in England among adults. DESIGN: Self-controlled case series study using national data on covid-19 vaccination and hospital admissions. SETTING: Patient level data were obtained for approximately 30 million people vaccinated in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 April 2021. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics, SARS-CoV-2 positive test data, and hospital admission data from the United Kingdom's health service (NHS). PARTICIPANTS: 29 121 633 people were vaccinated with first doses (19 608 008 with Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and 9 513 625 with Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA)) and 1 758 095 people had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. People aged ≥16 years who had first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines and any outcome of interest were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were hospital admission or death associated with thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, and arterial thromboembolism within 28 days of three exposures: first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine; first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine; and a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Secondary outcomes were subsets of the primary outcomes: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other rare arterial thrombotic events. RESULTS: The study found increased risk of thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (incidence rate ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.47 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (5.27, 4.34 to 6.40 at 8-14 days); increased risk of venous thromboembolism after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.10, 1.02 to 1.18 at 8-14 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (13.86, 12.76 to 15.05 at 8-14 days); and increased risk of arterial thromboembolism after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.06, 1.01 to 1.10 at 15-21 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.02, 1.82 to 2.24 at 15-21 days). Secondary analyses found increased risk of CVST after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (4.01, 2.08 to 7.71 at 8-14 days), after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (3.58, 1.39 to 9.27 at 15-21 days), and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; increased risk of ischaemic stroke after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.12, 1.04 to 1.20 at 15-21 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; and increased risk of other rare arterial thrombotic events after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.21, 1.02 to 1.43 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. CONCLUSION: Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population.

Association between pre-existing respiratory disease and its treatment, and severe COVID-19: a population cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested that the prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 was lower than its prevalence in the general population. The aim of this study was to assess whether chronic lung disease or use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) affects the risk of contracting severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this population cohort study, records from 1205 general practices in England that contribute to the QResearch database were linked to Public Health England's database of SARS-CoV-2 testing and English hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths for COVID-19. All patients aged 20 years and older who were registered with one of the 1205 general practices on Jan 24, 2020, were included in this study. With Cox regression, we examined the risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation, admission to ICU, and death in relation to respiratory disease and use of ICS, adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic status and comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24 and April 30, 2020, 8 256 161 people were included in the cohort and observed, of whom 14 479 (0·2%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, 1542 (<0·1%) were admitted to ICU, and 5956 (0·1%) died. People with some respiratory diseases were at an increased risk of hospitalisation (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] hazard ratio [HR] 1·54 [95% CI 1·45-1·63], asthma 1·18 [1·13-1·24], severe asthma 1·29 [1·22-1·37; people on three or more current asthma medications], bronchiectasis 1·34 [1·20-1·50], sarcoidosis 1·36 [1·10-1·68], extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·35 [0·82-2·21], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·59 [1·30-1·95], other interstitial lung disease 1·66 [1·30-2·12], and lung cancer 2·24 [1·89-2·65]) and death (COPD 1·54 [1·42-1·67], asthma 0·99 [0·91-1·07], severe asthma 1·08 [0·98-1·19], bronchiectasis 1·12 [0·94-1·33], sarcoidosis 1·41 [0·99-1·99), extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·56 [0·78-3·13], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·47 [1·12-1·92], other interstitial lung disease 2·05 [1·49-2·81], and lung cancer 1·77 [1·37-2·29]) due to COVID-19 compared with those without these diseases. Admission to ICU was rare, but the HR for people with asthma was 1·08 (0·93-1·25) and severe asthma was 1·30 (1·08-1·58). In a post-hoc analysis, relative risks of severe COVID-19 in people with respiratory disease were similar before and after shielding was introduced on March 23, 2020. In another post-hoc analysis, people with two or more prescriptions for ICS in the 150 days before study start were at a slightly higher risk of severe COVID-19 compared with all other individuals (ie, no or one ICS prescription): HR 1·13 (1·03-1·23) for hospitalisation, 1·63 (1·18-2·24) for ICU admission, and 1·15 (1·01-1·31) for death. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe COVID-19 in people with asthma is relatively small. People with COPD and interstitial lung disease appear to have a modestly increased risk of severe disease, but their risk of death from COVID-19 at the height of the epidemic was mostly far lower than the ordinary risk of death from any cause. Use of inhaled steroids might be associated with a modestly increased risk of severe COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Wellcome Trust.