Target Trial Emulation: Does surgical versus non-surgical management of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs cause different outcomes?

Target trial emulation applies design principles from randomised controlled trials to the analysis of observational data for causal inference and is increasingly used within human epidemiology. Using anonymised veterinary clinical data from the VetCompass Programme, this study applied the target trial emulation framework to determine whether surgical (compared to non-surgical) management for cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) rupture in dogs causes improved short- and long-term lameness and analgesia outcomes. The emulated target trial included dogs diagnosed with CCL rupture between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 within the VetCompass database. Inclusion in the emulated trial required dogs aged ≥ 1.5 and < 12 years, first diagnosed with unilateral CCL rupture during 2019 and with no prior history of contralateral ligament rupture or stifle surgery. Dogs were retrospectively observed to have surgical or non-surgical management. Informed from a directed acyclic graph derived from expert opinion, data on the following variables were collected: age, breed, bodyweight, neuter status, insurance status, non-orthopaedic comorbidities, orthopaedic comorbidities and veterinary group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding, with weights calculated based on a binary logistic regression exposure model. Censored dogs were accounted for in the IPTW analysis using inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW). The IPCWs were combined with IPTWs and used to weight each dog's contribution to binary logistic regression outcome models. Standardized mean differences (SMD) examined the balance of covariate distribution between treatment groups. The emulated trial included 615 surgical CCL rupture cases and 200 non-surgical cases. The risk difference for short-term lameness in surgically managed cases (compared with non-surgically managed cases) was -25.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) -36.7% to -15.9%) and the risk difference for long-term lameness -31.7% (95% CI -37.9% to -18.1%). The study demonstrated the application of the target trial framework to veterinary observational data. The findings show that surgical management causes a reduction in short- and long-term lameness compared with non-surgical management in dogs.

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.

Target trial emulation: Do antimicrobials or gastrointestinal nutraceuticals prescribed at first presentation for acute diarrhoea cause a better clinical outcome in dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK?

Target trial emulation applies design principles from randomised controlled trials to the analysis of observational data for causal inference and is increasingly used within human epidemiology. Veterinary electronic clinical records represent a potentially valuable source of information to estimate real-world causal effects for companion animal species. This study employed the target trial framework to evaluate the usefulness on veterinary observational data. Acute diarrhoea in dogs was used as a clinical exemplar. Inclusion required dogs aged ≥ 3 months and < 10 years, presenting for veterinary primary care with acute diarrhoea during 2019. Treatment strategies were: 1. antimicrobial prescription compared to no antimicrobial prescription and 2. gastrointestinal nutraceutical prescription compared to no gastrointestinal nutraceutical prescription. The primary outcome was clinical resolution (defined as no revisit with ongoing diarrhoea within 30 days from the date of first presentation). Informed from a directed acyclic graph, data on the following covariates were collected: age, breed, bodyweight, insurance status, comorbidities, vomiting, reduced appetite, haematochezia, pyrexia, duration, additional treatment prescription and veterinary group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates between the treatment groups for each of the two target trials. The risk difference (RD) of 0.4% (95% CI -4.5% to 5.3%) was non-significant for clinical resolution in dogs treated with antimicrobials compared with dogs not treated with antimicrobials. The risk difference (RD) of 0.3% (95% CI -4.5% to 5.0%) was non-significant for clinical resolution in dogs treated with gastrointestinal nutraceuticals compared with dogs not treated with gastrointestinal nutraceuticals. This study successfully applied the target trial framework to veterinary observational data. The findings show that antimicrobial or gastrointestinal prescription at first presentation of acute diarrhoea in dogs causes no difference in clinical resolution. The findings support the recommendation for veterinary professionals to limit antimicrobial use for acute diarrhoea in dogs.

Estimating distribution of length of stay in a multi-state model conditional on the pathway, with an application to patients hospitalised with Covid-19.

Multi-state models are used to describe how individuals transition through different states over time. The distribution of the time spent in different states, referred to as 'length of stay', is often of interest. Methods for estimating expected length of stay in a given state are well established. The focus of this paper is on the distribution of the time spent in different states conditional on the complete pathway taken through the states, which we call 'conditional length of stay'. This work is motivated by questions about length of stay in hospital wards and intensive care units among patients hospitalised due to Covid-19. Conditional length of stay estimates are useful as a way of summarising individuals' transitions through the multi-state model, and also as inputs to mathematical models used in planning hospital capacity requirements. We describe non-parametric methods for estimating conditional length of stay distributions in a multi-state model in the presence of censoring, including conditional expected length of stay (CELOS). Methods are described for an illness-death model and then for the more complex motivating example. The methods are assessed using a simulation study and shown to give unbiased estimates of CELOS, whereas naive estimates of CELOS based on empirical averages are biased in the presence of censoring. The methods are applied to estimate conditional length of stay distributions for individuals hospitalised due to Covid-19 in the UK, using data on 42,980 individuals hospitalised from March to July 2020 from the COVID19 Clinical Information Network.

A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials.

Adjustment for baseline covariates in randomized trials has been shown to lead to gains in power and can protect against chance imbalances in covariates. For continuous covariates, there is a risk that the the form of the relationship between the covariate and outcome is misspecified when taking an adjusted approach. Using a simulation study focusing on individually randomized trials with small sample sizes, we explore whether a range of adjustment methods are robust to misspecification, either in the covariate-outcome relationship or through an omitted covariate-treatment interaction. Specifically, we aim to identify potential settings where G-computation, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), augmented inverse probability of treatment weighting (AIPTW) and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) offer improvement over the commonly used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Our simulations show that all adjustment methods are generally robust to model misspecification if adjusting for a few covariates, sample size is 100 or larger, and there are no covariate-treatment interactions. When there is a non-linear interaction of treatment with a skewed covariate and sample size is small, all adjustment methods can suffer from bias; however, methods that allow for interactions (such as G-computation with interaction and IPTW) show improved results compared to ANCOVA. When there are a high number of covariates to adjust for, ANCOVA retains good properties while other methods suffer from under- or over-coverage. An outstanding issue for G-computation, IPTW and AIPTW in small samples is that standard errors are underestimated; they should be used with caution without the availability of small-sample corrections, development of which is needed. These findings are relevant for covariate adjustment in interim analyses of larger trials.

A Machine-Learning Approach for Estimating Subgroup- and Individual-Level Treatment Effects: An Illustration Using the 65 Trial.

HIGHLIGHTS: This article examines a causal machine-learning approach, causal forests (CF), for exploring the heterogeneity of treatment effects, without prespecifying a specific functional form.The CF approach is considered in the reanalysis of the 65 Trial and was found to provide similar estimates of subgroup effects to using a fixed parametric model.The CF approach also provides estimates of individual-level treatment effects that suggest that for most patients in the 65 Trial, the intervention is expected to reduce 90-d mortality but with wide levels of statistical uncertainty.The study illustrates how individual-level treatment effect estimates can be analyzed to generate hypotheses for further research about those patients who are likely to benefit most from an intervention.

Comparison of methods for predicting COVID-19-related death in the general population using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining accurate estimates of the risk of COVID-19-related death in the general population is challenging in the context of changing levels of circulating infection. METHODS: We propose a modelling approach to predict 28-day COVID-19-related death which explicitly accounts for COVID-19 infection prevalence using a series of sub-studies from new landmark times incorporating time-updating proxy measures of COVID-19 infection prevalence. This was compared with an approach ignoring infection prevalence. The target population was adults registered at a general practice in England in March 2020. The outcome was 28-day COVID-19-related death. Predictors included demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Three proxies of local infection prevalence were used: model-based estimates, rate of COVID-19-related attendances in emergency care, and rate of suspected COVID-19 cases in primary care. We used data within the TPP SystmOne electronic health record system linked to Office for National Statistics mortality data, using the OpenSAFELY platform, working on behalf of NHS England. Prediction models were developed in case-cohort samples with a 100-day follow-up. Validation was undertaken in 28-day cohorts from the target population. We considered predictive performance (discrimination and calibration) in geographical and temporal subsets of data not used in developing the risk prediction models. Simple models were contrasted to models including a full range of predictors. RESULTS: Prediction models were developed on 11,972,947 individuals, of whom 7999 experienced COVID-19-related death. All models discriminated well between individuals who did and did not experience the outcome, including simple models adjusting only for basic demographics and number of comorbidities: C-statistics 0.92-0.94. However, absolute risk estimates were substantially miscalibrated when infection prevalence was not explicitly modelled. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed models allow absolute risk estimation in the context of changing infection prevalence but predictive performance is sensitive to the proxy for infection prevalence. Simple models can provide excellent discrimination and may simplify implementation of risk prediction tools.

Projecting the impact of triple CFTR modulator therapy on intravenous antibiotic requirements in cystic fibrosis using patient registry data combined with treatment effects from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-threatening genetic disease, affecting around 10 500 people in the UK. Precision medicines have been developed to treat specific CF-gene mutations. The newest, elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ELEX/TEZ/IVA), has been found to be highly effective in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and became available to a large proportion of UK CF patients in 2020. Understanding the potential health economic impacts of ELEX/TEZ/IVA is vital to planning service provision. METHODS: We combined observational UK CF Registry data with RCT results to project the impact of ELEX/TEZ/IVA on total days of intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment at a population level. Registry data from 2015 to 2017 were used to develop prediction models for IV days over a 1-year period using several predictors, and to estimate 1-year population total IV days based on standards of care pre-ELEX/TEZ/IVA. We considered two approaches to imposing the impact of ELEX/TEZ/IVA on projected outcomes using effect estimates from RCTs: approach 1 based on effect estimates on FEV1% and approach 2 based on effect estimates on exacerbation rate. RESULTS: ELEX/TEZ/IVA is expected to result in significant reductions in population-level requirements for IV antibiotics of 16.1% (~17 800 days) using approach 1 and 43.6% (~39 500 days) using approach 2. The two approaches require different assumptions. Increased understanding of the mechanisms through which ELEX/TEZ/IVA acts on these outcomes would enable further refinements to our projections. CONCLUSIONS: This work contributes to increased understanding of the changing healthcare needs of people with CF and illustrates how Registry data can be used in combination with RCT evidence to estimate population-level treatment impacts.

Identifying adults at high-risk for change in weight and BMI in England: a longitudinal, large-scale, population-based cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Targeted obesity prevention policies would benefit from the identification of population groups with the highest risk of weight gain. The relative importance of adult age, sex, ethnicity, geographical region, and degree of social deprivation on weight gain is not known. We aimed to identify high-risk groups for changes in weight and BMI using electronic health records (EHR). METHODS: In this longitudinal, population-based cohort study we used linked EHR data from 400 primary care practices (via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink) in England, accessed via the CALIBER programme. Eligible participants were aged 18-74 years, were registered at a general practice clinic, and had BMI and weight measurements recorded between Jan 1, 1998, and June 30, 2016, during the period when they had eligible linked data with at least 1 year of follow-up time. We calculated longitudinal changes in BMI over 1, 5, and 10 years, and investigated the absolute risk and odds ratios (ORs) of transitioning between BMI categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obesity class 1 and 2, and severe obesity [class 3]), as defined by WHO. The associations of demographic factors with BMI transitions were estimated by use of logistic regression analysis, adjusting for baseline BMI, family history of cardiovascular disease, use of diuretics, and prevalent chronic conditions. FINDINGS: We included 2 092 260 eligible individuals with more than 9 million BMI measurements in our study. Young adult age was the strongest risk factor for weight gain at 1, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Compared with the oldest age group (65-74 years), adults in the youngest age group (18-24 years) had the highest OR (4·22 [95% CI 3·86-4·62]) and greatest absolute risk (37% vs 24%) of transitioning from normal weight to overweight or obesity at 10 years. Likewise, adults in the youngest age group with overweight or obesity at baseline were also at highest risk to transition to a higher BMI category; OR 4·60 (4·06-5·22) and absolute risk (42% vs 18%) of transitioning from overweight to class 1 and 2 obesity, and OR 5·87 (5·23-6·59) and absolute risk (22% vs 5%) of transitioning from class 1 and 2 obesity to class 3 obesity. Other demographic factors were consistently less strongly associated with these transitions; for example, the OR of transitioning from normal weight to overweight or obesity in people living in the most socially deprived versus least deprived areas was 1·23 (1·18-1·27), for men versus women was 1·12 (1·08-1·16), and for Black individuals versus White individuals was 1·13 (1·04-1·24). We provide an open access online risk calculator, and present high-resolution obesity risk charts over a 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: A radical shift in policy is required to focus on individuals at the highest risk of weight gain (ie, young adults aged 18-24 years) for individual-level and population-level prevention of obesity and its long-term consequences for health and health care. FUNDING: The British Hearth Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the UK Medical Research Council, and the National Institute for Health Research.

Risk prediction of covid-19 related death and hospital admission in adults after covid-19 vaccination: national prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To derive and validate risk prediction algorithms to estimate the risk of covid-19 related mortality and hospital admission in UK adults after one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination. DESIGN: Prospective, population based cohort study using the QResearch database linked to data on covid-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 results, hospital admissions, systemic anticancer treatment, radiotherapy, and the national death and cancer registries. SETTINGS: Adults aged 19-100 years with one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was covid-19 related death. Secondary outcome was covid-19 related hospital admission. Outcomes were assessed from 14 days after each vaccination dose. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort of general practices. RESULTS: Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. Of 2031 covid-19 deaths and 1929 covid-19 hospital admissions, 81 deaths (4.0%) and 71 admissions (3.7%) occurred 14 days or more after the second vaccine dose. The risk algorithms included age, sex, ethnic origin, deprivation, body mass index, a range of comorbidities, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. Incidence of covid-19 mortality increased with age and deprivation, male sex, and Indian and Pakistani ethnic origin. Cause specific hazard ratios were highest for patients with Down's syndrome (12.7-fold increase), kidney transplantation (8.1-fold), sickle cell disease (7.7-fold), care home residency (4.1-fold), chemotherapy (4.3-fold), HIV/AIDS (3.3-fold), liver cirrhosis (3.0-fold), neurological conditions (2.6-fold), recent bone marrow transplantation or a solid organ transplantation ever (2.5-fold), dementia (2.2-fold), and Parkinson's disease (2.2-fold). Other conditions with increased risk (ranging from 1.2-fold to 2.0-fold increases) included chronic kidney disease, blood cancer, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, thromboembolism, peripheral vascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. A similar pattern of associations was seen for covid-19 related hospital admissions. No evidence indicated that associations differed after the second dose, although absolute risks were reduced. The risk algorithm explained 74.1% (95% confidence interval 71.1% to 77.0%) of the variation in time to covid-19 death in the validation cohort. Discrimination was high, with a D statistic of 3.46 (95% confidence interval 3.19 to 3.73) and C statistic of 92.5. Performance was similar after each vaccine dose. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted covid-19 mortality risk, sensitivity for identifying covid-19 deaths within 70 days was 78.7%. CONCLUSION: This population based risk algorithm performed well showing high levels of discrimination for identifying those patients at highest risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission after vaccination.

Weight Change and the Onset of Cardiovascular Diseases: Emulating Trials Using Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional measures of body mass index (BMI) are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence, but less is known about whether weight change affects the risk of CVD. METHODS: We estimated the effect of 2-y weight change interventions on 7-y risk of CVD (CVD death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization from coronary heart disease, and heart failure) by emulating hypothetical interventions using electronic health records. We identified 138,567 individuals with 45-69 years of age without chronic disease in England from 1998 to 2016. We performed pooled logistic regression, using inverse-probability weighting to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounders. We categorized each individual into a weight loss, maintenance, or gain group. RESULTS: Among those of normal weight, both weight loss [risk difference (RD) vs. weight maintenance = 1.5% (0.3% to 3.0%)] and gain [RD = 1.3% (0.5% to 2.2%)] were associated with increased risk for CVD compared with weight maintenance. Among overweight individuals, we observed moderately higher risk of CVD in both the weight loss [RD = 0.7% (-0.2% to 1.7%)] and the weight gain group [RD = 0.7% (-0.1% to 1.7%)], compared with maintenance. In the obese, those losing weight showed lower risk of coronary heart disease [RD = -1.4% (-2.4% to -0.6%)] but not of stroke. When we assumed that chronic disease occurred 1-3 years before the recorded date, estimates for weight loss and gain were attenuated among overweight individuals; estimates for loss were lower among obese individuals. CONCLUSION: Among individuals with obesity, the weight-loss group had a lower risk of coronary heart disease but not of stroke. Weight gain was associated with increased risk of CVD across BMI groups. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B838.

Importance of patient bed pathways and length of stay differences in predicting COVID-19 hospital bed occupancy in England.

BACKGROUND: Predicting bed occupancy for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requires understanding of length of stay (LoS) in particular bed types. LoS can vary depending on the patient's "bed pathway" - the sequence of transfers of individual patients between bed types during a hospital stay. In this study, we characterise these pathways, and their impact on predicted hospital bed occupancy. METHODS: We obtained data from University College Hospital (UCH) and the ISARIC4C COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) on hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required care in general ward or critical care (CC) beds to determine possible bed pathways and LoS. We developed a discrete-time model to examine the implications of using either bed pathways or only average LoS by bed type to forecast bed occupancy. We compared model-predicted bed occupancy to publicly available bed occupancy data on COVID-19 in England between March and August 2020. RESULTS: In both the UCH and CO-CIN datasets, 82% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 only received care in general ward beds. We identified four other bed pathways, present in both datasets: "Ward, CC, Ward", "Ward, CC", "CC" and "CC, Ward". Mean LoS varied by bed type, pathway, and dataset, between 1.78 and 13.53 days. For UCH, we found that using bed pathways improved the accuracy of bed occupancy predictions, while only using an average LoS for each bed type underestimated true bed occupancy. However, using the CO-CIN LoS dataset we were not able to replicate past data on bed occupancy in England, suggesting regional LoS heterogeneities. CONCLUSIONS: We identified five bed pathways, with substantial variation in LoS by bed type, pathway, and geography. This might be caused by local differences in patient characteristics, clinical care strategies, or resource availability, and suggests that national LoS averages may not be appropriate for local forecasts of bed occupancy for COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study ISRCTN66726260 was retrospectively registered on 21/04/2020 and designated an Urgent Public Health Research Study by NIHR.

Robust Inference for Mediated Effects in Partially Linear Models.

We consider mediated effects of an exposure, X on an outcome, Y, via a mediator, M, under no unmeasured confounding assumptions in the setting where models for the conditional expectation of the mediator and outcome are partially linear. We propose G-estimators for the direct and indirect effects and demonstrate consistent asymptotic normality for indirect effects when models for the conditional means of M, or X and Y are correctly specified, and for direct effects, when models for the conditional means of Y, or X and M are correct. This marks an improvement, in this particular setting, over previous 'triple' robust methods, which do not assume partially linear mean models. Testing of the no-mediation hypothesis is inherently problematic due to the composite nature of the test (either X has no effect on M or M no effect on Y), leading to low power when both effect sizes are small. We use generalized methods of moments (GMM) results to construct a new score testing framework, which includes as special cases the no-mediation and the no-direct-effect hypotheses. The proposed tests rely on an orthogonal estimation strategy for estimating nuisance parameters. Simulations show that the GMM-based tests perform better in terms of power and small sample performance compared with traditional tests in the partially linear setting, with drastic improvement under model misspecification. New methods are illustrated in a mediation analysis of data from the COPERS trial, a randomized trial investigating the effect of a non-pharmacological intervention of patients suffering from chronic pain. An accompanying R package implementing these methods can be found at github.com/ohines/plmed.

Changes in in-hospital mortality in the first wave of COVID-19: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study using the WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the UK appeared to decline during the first wave of the pandemic. We aimed to quantify potential drivers of this change and identify groups of patients who remain at high risk of dying in hospital. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK recruited a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 247 acute hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales during the first wave of the pandemic (between March 9 and Aug 2, 2020). We included all patients aged 18 years and older with clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19 (by RT-PCR test) from assumed community-acquired infection. We did a three-way decomposition mediation analysis using natural effects models to explore associations between week of admission and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for confounders (demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness) and quantifying potential mediators (level of respiratory support and steroid treatment). The primary outcome was weekly in-hospital mortality at 28 days, defined as the proportion of patients who had died within 28 days of admission of all patients admitted in the observed week, and it was assessed in all patients with an outcome. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between March 9, and Aug 2, 2020, we recruited 80 713 patients, of whom 63 972 were eligible and included in the study. Unadjusted weekly in-hospital mortality declined from 32·3% (95% CI 31·8-32·7) in March 9 to April 26, 2020, to 16·4% (15·0-17·8) in June 15 to Aug 2, 2020. Reductions in mortality were observed in all age groups, in all ethnic groups, for both sexes, and in patients with and without comorbidities. After adjustment, there was a 32% reduction in the risk of mortality per 7-week period (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·65-0·71]). The higher proportions of patients with severe disease and comorbidities earlier in the first wave (March and April) than in June and July accounted for 10·2% of this reduction. The use of respiratory support changed during the first wave, with gradually increased use of non-invasive ventilation over the first wave. Changes in respiratory support and use of steroids accounted for 22·2%, OR 0·95 (0·94-0·95) of the reduction in in-hospital mortality. INTERPRETATION: The reduction in in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in the UK was partly accounted for by changes in the case-mix and illness severity. A significant reduction in in-hospital mortality was associated with differences in respiratory support and critical care use, which could partly reflect accrual of clinical knowledge. The remaining improvement in in-hospital mortality is not explained by these factors, and could be associated with changes in community behaviour, inoculum dose, and hospital capacity strain. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council.

Increased mortality in community-tested cases of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7.

SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7, a variant that was first detected in the UK in September 20201, has spread to multiple countries worldwide. Several studies have established that B.1.1.7 is more transmissible than pre-existing variants, but have not identified whether it leads to any change in disease severity2. Here we analyse a dataset that links 2,245,263 positive SARS-CoV-2 community tests and 17,452 deaths associated with COVID-19 in England from 1 November 2020 to 14 February 2021. For 1,146,534 (51%) of these tests, the presence or absence of B.1.1.7 can be identified because mutations in this lineage prevent PCR amplification of the spike (S) gene target (known as S gene target failure (SGTF)1). On the basis of 4,945 deaths with known SGTF status, we estimate that the hazard of death associated with SGTF is 55% (95% confidence interval, 39-72%) higher than in cases without SGTF after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, residence in a care home, the local authority of residence and test date. This corresponds to the absolute risk of death for a 55-69-year-old man increasing from 0.6% to 0.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.0%) within 28 days of a positive test in the community. Correcting for misclassification of SGTF and missingness in SGTF status, we estimate that the hazard of death associated with B.1.1.7 is 61% (42-82%) higher than with pre-existing variants. Our analysis suggests that B.1.1.7 is not only more transmissible than pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 variants, but may also cause more severe illness.

Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England.

A severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant, VOC 202012/01 (lineage B.1.1.7), emerged in southeast England in September 2020 and is rapidly spreading toward fixation. Using a variety of statistical and dynamic modeling approaches, we estimate that this variant has a 43 to 90% (range of 95% credible intervals, 38 to 130%) higher reproduction number than preexisting variants. A fitted two-strain dynamic transmission model shows that VOC 202012/01 will lead to large resurgences of COVID-19 cases. Without stringent control measures, including limited closure of educational institutions and a greatly accelerated vaccine rollout, COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths across England in the first 6 months of 2021 were projected to exceed those in 2020. VOC 202012/01 has spread globally and exhibits a similar transmission increase (59 to 74%) in Denmark, Switzerland, and the United States.

Increased mortality in community-tested cases of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7.

SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7, a variant first detected in the United Kingdom in September 20201, has spread to multiple countries worldwide. Several studies have established that B.1.1.7 is more transmissible than preexisting variants, but have not identified whether it leads to any change in disease severity2. We analyse a dataset linking 2,245,263 positive SARS-CoV-2 community tests and 17,452 COVID-19 deaths in England from 1 September 2020 to 14 February 2021. For 1,146,534 (51%) of these tests, the presence or absence of B.1.1.7 can be identified because of mutations in this lineage preventing PCR amplification of the spike gene target (S gene target failure, SGTF1). Based on 4,945 deaths with known SGTF status, we estimate that the hazard of death associated with SGTF is 55% (95% CI 39-72%) higher after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, care home residence, local authority of residence and test date. This corresponds to the absolute risk of death for a 55-69-year-old male increasing from 0.6% to 0.9% (95% CI 0.8-1.0%) within 28 days after a positive test in the community. Correcting for misclassification of SGTF and missingness in SGTF status, we estimate a 61% (42-82%) higher hazard of death associated with B.1.1.7. Our analysis suggests that B.1.1.7 is not only more transmissible than preexisting SARS-CoV-2 variants, but may also cause more severe illness.

Invited Commentary: Treatment Drop-in-Making the Case for Causal Prediction.

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are often used to guide treatment initiation, with individuals at high risk offered treatment. This implicitly assumes that the probability quoted from a CPM represents the risk to an individual of an adverse outcome in absence of treatment. However, for a CPM to correctly target this estimand requires careful causal thinking. One problem that needs to be overcome is treatment drop-in: where individuals in the development data commence treatment after the time of prediction but before the outcome occurs. In this issue of the Journal, Xu et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(10):2000-2014) use causal estimates from external data sources, such as clinical trials, to adjust CPMs for treatment drop-in. This represents a pragmatic and promising approach to address this issue, and it illustrates the value of utilizing causal inference in prediction. Building causality into the prediction pipeline can also bring other benefits. These include the ability to make and compare hypothetical predictions under different interventions, to make CPMs more explainable and transparent, and to improve model generalizability. Enriching CPMs with causal inference therefore has the potential to add considerable value to the role of prediction in healthcare.

Informative presence and observation in routine health data: A review of methodology for clinical risk prediction.

OBJECTIVE: Informative presence (IP) is the phenomenon whereby the presence or absence of patient data is potentially informative with respect to their health condition, with informative observation (IO) being the longitudinal equivalent. These phenomena predominantly exist within routinely collected healthcare data, in which data collection is driven by the clinical requirements of patients and clinicians. The extent to which IP and IO are considered when using such data to develop clinical prediction models (CPMs) is unknown, as is the existing methodology aiming at handling these issues. This review aims to synthesize such existing methodology, thereby helping identify an agenda for future methodological work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using prespecified keywords. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were included. We categorized the methods presented within as derived predictors (including some representation of the measurement process as a predictor in the model), modeling under IP, and latent structures. Including missing indicators or summary measures as predictors is the most commonly presented approach amongst the included studies (24 of 36 articles). DISCUSSION: This is the first review to collate the literature in this area under a prediction framework. A considerable body relevant of literature exists, and we present ways in which the described methods could be developed further. Guidance is required for specifying the conditions under which each method should be used to enable applied prediction modelers to use these methods. CONCLUSIONS: A growing recognition of IP and IO exists within the literature, and methodology is increasingly becoming available to leverage these phenomena for prediction purposes. IP and IO should be approached differently in a prediction context than when the primary goal is explanation. The work included in this review has demonstrated theoretical and empirical benefits of incorporating IP and IO, and therefore we recommend that applied health researchers consider incorporating these methods in their work.