Identification of patients undergoing chronic kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data: validation study based on OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry.

Objective: To validate primary and secondary care codes in electronic health records to identify people receiving chronic kidney replacement therapy based on gold standard registry data. Design: Validation study using data from OpenSAFELY and the UK Renal Registry, with the approval of NHS England. Setting: Primary and secondary care electronic health records from people registered at 45% of general practices in England on 1 January 2020, linked to data from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, part of the NHS England OpenSAFELY covid-19 service. Participants: 38 745 prevalent patients (recorded as receiving kidney replacement therapy on 1 January 2020 in UKRR data, or primary or secondary care data) and 10 730 incident patients (starting kidney replacement therapy during 2020), from a population of 19 million people alive and registered with a general practice in England on 1 January 2020. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity and positive predictive values of primary and secondary care code lists for identifying prevalent and incident kidney replacement therapy cohorts compared with the gold standard UKRR data on chronic kidney replacement therapy. Agreement across the data sources overall, and by treatment modality (transplantation or dialysis) and personal characteristics. Results: Primary and secondary care code lists were sensitive for identifying the UKRR prevalent cohort (91.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.8% to 91.6%) and 92.0% (91.6% to 92.4%), respectively), but not the incident cohort (52.3% (50.3% to 54.3%) and 67.9% (66.1% to 69.7%)). Positive predictive values were low (77.7% (77.2% to 78.2%) for primary care data and 64.7% (64.1% to 65.3%) for secondary care data), particularly for chronic dialysis (53.7% (52.9% to 54.5%) for primary care data and 49.1% (48.0% to 50.2%) for secondary care data). Sensitivity decreased with age and index of multiple deprivation in primary care data, but the opposite was true in secondary care data. Agreement was lower in children, with 30% (295/980) featuring in all three datasets. Half (1165/2315) of the incident patients receiving dialysis in UKRR data had a kidney replacement therapy code in the primary care data within three months of the start date of the kidney replacement therapy. No codes existed whose exclusion would substantially improve the positive predictive value without a decrease in sensitivity. Conclusions: Codes used in primary and secondary care data failed to identify a small proportion of prevalent patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. Codes also identified many patients who were not recipients of chronic kidney replacement therapy in UKRR data, particularly dialysis codes. Linkage with UKRR kidney replacement therapy data facilitated more accurate identification of incident and prevalent kidney replacement therapy cohorts for research into this vulnerable population. Poor coding has implications for any patient care (including eligibility for vaccination, resourcing, and health policy responses in future pandemics) that relies on accurate reporting of kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR and SRR databases.

Background: Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK. Methods: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR). Results: Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 1852) or molnupiravir (n = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.71]; P = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13-1.21); P = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P > .05). Conclusions: In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves.

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups. Findings: A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033). Interpretation: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Forgotten but not gone in rural South Africa: Urinary schistosomiasis and implications for chronic kidney disease screening in endemic countries.

Background: Urinary schistosomiasis caused by infection with Schistosoma haematobium ( S. haematobium) remains endemic in Africa and is associated with haematuria and albuminuria/proteinuria. Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes clinical guidelines recommend evaluating proteinuria/albuminuria and glomerular filtration rate for chronic kidney disease (CKD) diagnosis. The guidelines are informed by population data outside of Africa but have been adopted in many African countries with little validation. Our study aimed to characterise the burden of urinary schistosomiasis in rural South Africa (SA) and evaluate its relationship with markers of kidney dysfunction with implications for CKD screening. Methods: In this population-based cohort study, we recruited 2021 adults aged 20 - 79 years in the Mpumalanga Province, SA. Sociodemographic data were recorded, urinalysis performed, and serum creatinine and urine albumin and creatinine measured. Kidney dysfunction was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60ml/min/1.73m 2 and/or urine albumin-creatinine ratio >3.0mg/mmol. S . haematobium infection was determined by urine microscopy. Multivariable analyses were performed to determine relationships between S. haematobium and markers of kidney dysfunction. Results: Data were available for 1226 of 2021 participants. 717 (58.5%) were female and the median age was 35 years (IQR 27 - 47). Prevalence of kidney dysfunction and S. haematobium was 20.2% and 5.1% respectively. S. haematobium was strongly associated with kidney dysfunction (OR 8.66; 95% CI 4.10 - 18.3) and related to albuminuria alone (OR 8.69; 95% CI 4.11 - 18.8), with no evidence of an association with eGFR <90ml/min/1.73m 2 (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.05 - 3.59). Discussion: The strong association between urinary schistosomiasis and albuminuria requires careful consideration when screening for CKD. Screening for, and treatment of, schistosomiasis should be a routine part of initial work-up for CKD in S. haematobium endemic areas. Urinary schistosomiasis, a neglected tropical disease, remains a public health concern in the Mpumulanga province of SA.

The risk of acute kidney injury in colorectal cancer survivors: an english population-based matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer survival has improved in recent decades but there are concerns that survivors may develop kidney problems due to adverse effects of cancer treatment or complications of the cancer itself. We quantified the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in colorectal cancer survivors compared to people with no prior cancer. METHODS: Retrospective matched cohort study using electronic health record primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD linked to hospital data in England (HES-APC). Individuals with colorectal cancer between 1997-2018 were individually matched on age, sex, and GP practice to people with no prior cancer. We used Cox models to estimate hazard ratios for an incident hospital diagnosis of AKI in colorectal cancer survivors compared to individuals without cancer, overall and stratified by time since diagnosis adjusted for other individual-level factors (adj-HR). RESULTS: Twenty thousand three hundred forty colorectal cancer survivors were matched to 100,058 cancer-free individuals. Colorectal cancer survivors were at increased risk of developing AKI compared to people without cancer (adj-HR = 2.16; 95%CI 2.05-2.27). The HR was highest in the year after diagnosis (adj-HR 7.47, 6.66-8.37), and attenuated over time, but there was still increased AKI risk > 5 years after diagnosis (adj-HR = 1.26, 1.17-1.37). The association between colorectal cancer and AKI was greater for younger people, men, and those with pre-existing chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer survivors were at increased risk of AKI for several years after cancer diagnosis, suggesting a need to prioritise monitoring, prevention, and management of kidney problems in this group of cancer survivors.

Seasonality of acute kidney injury phenotypes in England: an unsupervised machine learning classification study of electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is a multifactorial condition which presents a substantial burden to healthcare systems. There is limited evidence on whether it is seasonal. We sought to investigate the seasonality of AKI hospitalisations in England and use unsupervised machine learning to explore clustering of underlying comorbidities, to gain insights for future intervention. METHODS: We used Hospital Episodes Statistics linked to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to describe the overall incidence of AKI admissions between 2015 and 2019 weekly by demographic and admission characteristics. We carried out dimension reduction on 850 diagnosis codes using multiple correspondence analysis and applied k-means clustering to classify patients. We phenotype each group based on the dominant characteristics and describe the seasonality of AKI admissions by these different phenotypes. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, weekly AKI admissions peaked in winter, with additional summer peaks related to periods of extreme heat. Winter seasonality was more evident in those diagnosed with AKI on admission. From the cluster classification we describe six phenotypes of people admitted to hospital with AKI. Among these, seasonality of AKI admissions was observed among people who we described as having a multimorbid phenotype, established risk factor phenotype, and general AKI phenotype. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate winter seasonality of AKI admissions in England, particularly among those with AKI diagnosed on admission, suggestive of community triggers. Differences in seasonality between phenotypes suggests some groups may be more likely to develop AKI as a result of these factors. This may be driven by underlying comorbidity profiles or reflect differences in uptake of seasonal interventions such as vaccines.

Living alone and mental health: parallel analyses in UK longitudinal population surveys and electronic health records prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: People who live alone experience greater levels of mental illness; however, it is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic had a disproportionately negative impact on this demographic. OBJECTIVE: To describe the mental health gap between those who live alone and with others in the UK prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Self-reported psychological distress and life satisfaction in 10 prospective longitudinal population surveys (LPSs) assessed in the nearest pre-pandemic sweep and three periods during the pandemic. Recorded diagnosis of common and severe mental illnesses between March 2018 and January 2022 in electronic healthcare records (EHRs) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP. FINDINGS: In 37 544 LPS participants, pooled models showed greater psychological distress (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04; 0.14); relative risk: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.12; 1.39)) and lower life satisfaction (SMD: -0.22 (95% CI: -0.30; -0.15)) for those living alone pre-pandemic. This gap did not change during the pandemic. In the EHR analysis of c.16 million records, mental health conditions were more common in those who lived alone (eg, depression 26 (95% CI: 18 to 33) and severe mental illness 58 (95% CI: 54 to 62) more cases more per 100 000). For common mental health disorders, the gap in recorded cases in EHRs narrowed during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: People living alone have poorer mental health and lower life satisfaction. During the pandemic, this gap in self-reported distress remained; however, there was a narrowing of the gap in service use. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Greater mental health need and potentially greater barriers to mental healthcare access for those who live alone need to be considered in healthcare planning.

Ethnic differences in the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical monitoring and hospitalisations for non-COVID conditions in England: a population-based, observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England. Methods: In this population-based, observational cohort study we used primary care electronic health record data with linkage to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data within OpenSAFELY, a data analytics platform created, with approval of NHS England, to address urgent COVID-19 research questions. We included adults aged 18 years and over registered with a TPP practice between March 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. We excluded those with missing age, sex, geographic region, or Index of Multiple Deprivation. We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, Asian, Black, Other, and Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (blood pressure and Hba1c measurements, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma annual reviews) before and after March 23, 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after March 23, 2020. Findings: Of 33,510,937 registered with a GP as of 1st January 2020, 19,064,019 were adults, alive and registered for at least 3 months, 3,010,751 met the exclusion criteria and 1,122,912 were missing ethnicity. This resulted in 14,930,356 adults with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to the White ethnic group (Pre-pandemic hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41, 0.60, Pandemic HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in those of White ethnicity (heart failure risk difference: 5.4). Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian (Pre-pandemic HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.49, 1.64, Pandemic HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19, 1.29) and Black ethnicity (Pre-pandemic HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.53, Pandemic HR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09, 1.25) compared with White ethnicity. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences. Interpretation: Our study suggests that ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes. Funding: LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912).

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

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

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study.

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK.

Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

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

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

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY.

Objective: To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England. Design: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England. Setting: Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants: Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes. Interventions: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. Results: 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%). Conclusions: Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

Organ Transplants From Deceased Donors With Primary Brain Tumors and Risk of Cancer Transmission.

Importance: Cancer transmission is a known risk for recipients of organ transplants. Many people wait a long time for a suitable transplant; some never receive one. Although patients with brain tumors may donate their organs, opinions vary on the risks involved. Objective: To determine the risk of cancer transmission associated with organ transplants from deceased donors with primary brain tumors. Key secondary objectives were to investigate the association that donor brain tumors have with organ usage and posttransplant survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study in England and Scotland, conducted from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016, with follow-up to December 31, 2020. This study used linked data on deceased donors and solid organ transplant recipients with valid national patient identifier numbers from the UK Transplant Registry, the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (England), and the Scottish Cancer Registry. For secondary analyses, comparators were matched on factors that may influence the likelihood of organ usage or transplant failure. Statistical analysis of study data took place from October 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Exposures: A history of primary brain tumor in the organ donor, identified from all 3 data sources using disease codes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Transmission of brain tumor from the organ donor into the transplant recipient. Secondary outcomes were organ utilization (ie, transplant of an offered organ) and survival of kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplants and their recipients. Key covariates in donors with brain tumors were tumor grade and treatment history. Results: This study included a total of 282 donors (median [IQR] age, 42 [33-54] years; 154 females [55%]) with primary brain tumors and 887 transplants from them, 778 (88%) of which were analyzed for the primary outcome. There were 262 transplants from donors with high-grade tumors and 494 from donors with prior neurosurgical intervention or radiotherapy. Median (IQR) recipient age was 48 (35-58) years, and 476 (61%) were male. Among 83 posttransplant malignancies (excluding NMSC) that occurred over a median (IQR) of 6 (3-9) years in 79 recipients of transplants from donors with brain tumors, none were of a histological type matching the donor brain tumor. Transplant survival was equivalent to that of matched controls. Kidney, liver, and lung utilization were lower in donors with high-grade brain tumors compared with matched controls. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that the risk of cancer transmission in transplants from deceased donors with primary brain tumors was lower than previously thought, even in the context of donors that are considered as higher risk. Long-term transplant outcomes are favorable. These results suggest that it may be possible to safely expand organ usage from this donor group.

Characterising the burden of chronic kidney disease among people with type 2 diabetes in England: a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To describe prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and rates of cardiovascular and renal complications for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated in routine clinical care. DESIGN: Repeat cross-sectional study (6 monthly cross-sections) and cohort study from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019. SETTING: Primary care data from English practices contributing to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality data. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with T2D aged >18 years, at least one year of registration data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcome was prevalence of CKD defined as chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and/or urinary albumin creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol in the past 24 months. Secondary outcomes were prescriptions of medications of interest and clinical and demographic characteristics in the past 3 months.In the cohort study rates of renal and cardiovascular complications, all-cause mortality and hospitalisations over the study period were compared among those with and without CKD. RESULTS: There were 574 190 eligible patients with T2D as of 1 January 2017 and 664 296 as of 31 December 2019. Estimated prevalence of CKD across the study period was stable at approximately 30%. Medication use was stable over time in people with CKD and T2D, with low use of steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (approximately 4.5% across all time points) and a low use but steady increase in use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (from 2.6% to 6.2%). Rates of all complications were higher in those with CKD at the start of the study period, with increasing rates, with increased severity of CKD, heart failure and albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of CKD in patients with T2D is high and associated with substantially increased rates of complications particularly in those with comorbid heart failure.

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

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

Ethnic differences in hypertension management, medication use and blood pressure control in UK primary care, 2006-2019: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: In the UK, previous work suggests ethnic inequalities in hypertension management. We studied ethnic differences in hypertension management and their contribution to blood pressure (BP) control. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of antihypertensive-naïve individuals of European, South Asian and African/African Caribbean ethnicity with a new raised BP reading in UK primary care from 2006 to 2019, using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We studied differences in: BP re-measurement after an initial hypertensive BP, antihypertensive initiation, BP monitoring, antihypertensive intensification, antihypertensive persistence/adherence and BP control one year after antihypertensive initiation. Models adjusted for socio-demographics, BP, comorbidity, healthcare usage and polypharmacy (plus antihypertensive class, BP monitoring, intensification, persistence and adherence for BP control models). Findings: A total of 731,506 (93.5%), 30,379 (3.9%) and 20,256 (2.6%) people of European, South Asian and African/African Caribbean ethnicity were studied. Hypertension management indicators were similar or more favourable for South Asian than European groups (OR/HR [95% CI] in fully-adjusted models of BP re-measurement: 1.16 [1.09, 1.24]), antihypertensive initiation: 1.49 [1.37, 1.62], BP monitoring: 0.97 [0.94, 1.00] and antihypertensive intensification: 1.10 [1.04, 1.16]). For people of African/African Caribbean ethnicity, BP re-measurement rates were similar to those of European ethnicity (0.98 [0.91, 1.05]), and antihypertensive initiation rates greater (1.48 [1.32, 1.66]), but BP monitoring (0.91 [0.87, 0.95]) and intensification rates lower (0.93 [0.87, 1.00]). Persistence and adherence were lower in South Asian (0.48 [0.45, 0.51] and 0.51 [0.47, 0.56]) and African/African Caribbean (0.38 [0.35, 0.42] and 0.39 [0.36, 0.43]) than European groups. BP control was similar in South Asian and less likely in African/African Caribbean than European groups (0.98 [0.90, 1.06] and 0.81 [0.74, 0.89] in age, gender and BP adjusted models). The latter difference attenuated after adjustment for persistence (0.91 [0.82, 0.99]) or adherence (0.92 [0.83, 1.01]), and was absent for antihypertensive-adherent people (0.99 [0.88, 1.10]). Interpretation: We demonstrate that antihypertensive initiation does not vary by ethnicity, but subsequent BP control was notably lower among people of African/African Caribbean ethnicity, potentially associated with being less likely to remain on regular treatment. A nationwide strategy to understand and address differences in ongoing management of people on antihypertensives is imperative. Funding: Diabetes UK.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.