Healthcare utilisation in people with long COVID: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. METHODS: This study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. RESULTS: We identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.29, 95% CI: 7.74-8.87), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.48-1.51). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58-29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73-16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.66, 95% CI = 7.20-8.15), with costs being 44% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.39-1.50). The long COVID group costs approximately £2500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: £2562.50, 95% CI: £2335.60-£2819.22), and the comparator group costs £1500 (predicted mean cost: £1527.43, 95% CI: £1404.33-1664.45). Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

Primary prevention of acute cardiovascular events by influenza vaccination: an observational study.

AIMS: Previous studies show a reduced incidence of first myocardial infarction and stroke 1-3 months after influenza vaccination, but it is unclear how underlying cardiovascular risk impacts the association. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study used linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care and Office for National Statistics mortality data from England between 1 September 2008 and 31 August 2019. From the data, individuals aged 40-84 years with a first acute cardiovascular event and influenza vaccination occurring within 12 months of each September were selected. Using a self-controlled case series analysis, season-adjusted cardiovascular risk stratified incidence ratios (IRs) for cardiovascular events after vaccination compared with baseline time before and >120 days after vaccination were generated. 193 900 individuals with a first acute cardiovascular event and influenza vaccine were included. 105 539 had hypertension and 172 050 had a QRISK2 score ≥10%. In main analysis, acute cardiovascular event risk was reduced in the 15-28 days after vaccination [IR 0.72 (95% CI 0.70-0.74)] and, while the effect size tapered, remained reduced to 91-120 days after vaccination [0.83 (0.81-0.88)]. Reduced cardiovascular events were seen after vaccination among individuals of all age groups and with raised and low cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine may offer cardiovascular benefit among individuals at varying cardiovascular risk. Further studies are needed to characterize the populations who could derive the most cardiovascular benefits from vaccination.

Eligibility and subsequent burden of cardiovascular disease of four strategies for blood pressure-lowering treatment: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide treatment recommendations for lowering blood pressure continue to be guided predominantly by blood pressure thresholds, despite strong evidence that the benefits of blood pressure reduction are observed in patients across the blood pressure spectrum. In this study, we aimed to investigate the implications of alternative strategies for offering blood pressure treatment, using the UK as an illustrative example. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study in primary care patients aged 30-79 years without cardiovascular disease, using data from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality. We assessed and compared four different strategies to determine eligibility for treatment: using 2011 UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, or proposed 2019 NICE guideline, or blood pressure alone (threshold ≥140/90 mm Hg), or predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk alone (QRISK2 score ≥10%). Patients were followed up until the earliest occurrence of a cardiovascular disease diagnosis, death, or end of follow-up period (March 31, 2016). For each strategy, we estimated the proportion of patients eligible for treatment and number of cardiovascular events that could be prevented with treatment. We then estimated eligibility and number of events that would occur during 10 years in the UK general population. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1 222 670 patients in the cohort were followed up for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 2·5-5·2). 271 963 (22·2%) patients were eligible for treatment under the 2011 NICE guideline, 327 429 (26·8%) under the proposed 2019 NICE guideline, 481 859 (39·4%) on the basis of a blood pressure threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or higher, and 357 840 (29·3%) on the basis of a QRISK2 threshold of 10% or higher. During follow-up, 32 183 patients were diagnosed with cardiovascular disease (overall rate 7·1 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 7·0-7·2). Cardiovascular event rates in patients eligible for each strategy were 15·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 15·0-15·5) under the 2011 NICE guideline, 14·9 (14·7-15·1) under the proposed 2019 NICE guideline, 11·4 (11·3-11·6) with blood pressure threshold alone, and 16·9 (16·7-17·1) with QRISK2 threshold alone. Scaled to the UK population, we estimated that 233 152 events would be avoided under the 2011 NICE guideline (28 patients needed to treat for 10 years to avoid one event), 270 233 under the 2019 NICE guideline (29 patients), 301 523 using a blood pressure threshold (38 patients), and 322 921 using QRISK2 threshold (27 patients). INTERPRETATION: A cardiovascular risk-based strategy (QRISK2 ≥10%) could prevent over a third more cardiovascular disease events than the 2011 NICE guideline and a fifth more than the 2019 NICE guideline, with similar efficiency regarding number treated per event avoided. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

How Does Cardiovascular Disease First Present in Women and Men? Incidence of 12 Cardiovascular Diseases in a Contemporary Cohort of 1,937,360 People.

BACKGROUND: Given the recent declines in heart attack and stroke incidence, it is unclear how women and men differ in first lifetime presentations of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). We compared the incidence of 12 cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular diseases in women and men at different ages. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 1 937 360 people, aged ≥ 30 years and free from diagnosed CVD at baseline (51% women), using linked electronic health records covering primary care, hospital admissions, acute coronary syndrome registry, and mortality (Cardiovascular Research Using LInked Bespoke Studies and Electronic Records [CALIBER] research platform). During 6 years median follow-up between 1997 and 2010, 114 859 people experienced an incident cardiovascular diagnosis, the majority (66%) of which were neither myocardial infarction nor ischemic stroke. Associations of male sex with initial diagnoses of CVD, however, varied from strong (age-adjusted hazard ratios, 3.6-5.0) for abdominal aortic aneurysm, myocardial infarction, and unheralded coronary death (particularly >60 years), through modest (hazard ratio, 1.5-2.0) for stable angina, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, heart failure, and cardiac arrest, to weak (hazard ratio <1.5) for transient ischemic attack, intracerebral hemorrhage, and unstable angina, and inverse (0.69) for subarachnoid hemorrhage (all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of initial presentations of CVD are neither myocardial infarction nor ischemic stroke, yet most primary prevention studies focus on these presentations. Sex has differing associations with different CVDs, with implications for risk prediction and management strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01164371.

Comparability of the age and sex distribution of the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the total Dutch population.

PURPOSE: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is increasingly being used by Dutch researchers in epidemiology and pharmacoepidemiology. It is however unclear if the UK CPRD is representative of the Dutch population and whether study results would apply to the Dutch population. Therefore, as first step, our objective was to compare the age and sex distribution of the CPRD with the total Dutch population. METHODS: As a measure of representativeness, the age and sex distribution of the UK CPRD were visually and numerically compared with Dutch census data from the StatLine database of the Dutch National Bureau of Statistics in 2011. RESULTS: The age distribution of men and women in the CPRD population was comparable to the Dutch male and female population. Differences of more than 10% only occurred in older age categories (75+ in men and 80+ in women). CONCLUSIONS: Results from observational studies that have used CPRD data are applicable to the Dutch population, and a useful resource for decision making in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, differences in drug exposure likelihood between countries should be kept in mind, as these could still cause variations in the actual population studied, thereby decreasing its generalizability. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Association between clinical presentations before myocardial infarction and coronary mortality: a prospective population-based study using linked electronic records.

BACKGROUND: Ischaemia in different arterial territories before acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may influence post-AMI outcomes. No studies have evaluated prospectively collected information on ischaemia and its effect on short- and long-term coronary mortality. The objective of this study was to compare patients with and without prospectively measured ischaemic presentations before AMI in terms of infarct characteristics and coronary mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: As part of the CALIBER programme, we linked data from primary care, hospital admissions, the national acute coronary syndrome registry and cause-specific mortality to identify patients with first AMI (n = 16,439). We analysed time from AMI to coronary mortality (n = 5283 deaths) using Cox regression (median 2.6 years follow-up), comparing patients with and without recent ischaemic presentations. Patients with ischaemic presentations in the 90 days before AMI experienced lower coronary mortality in the first 7 days after AMI compared with those with no prior ischaemic presentations, after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure and cardiovascular medications [HR: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.57-0.73) P < 0.001], but subsequent mortality was higher [HR: 1.42 (1.13-1.77) P = 0.001]. Patients with ischaemic presentations closer in time to AMI had the lowest seven day mortality (P-trend = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the first large prospective study of ischaemic presentations prior to AMI, we have shown that those occurring closest to AMI are associated with lower short-term coronary mortality following AMI, which could represent a natural ischaemic preconditioning effect, observed in a clinical setting. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01604486.

Impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life: an OpenSAFELY population cohort study using patient-reported outcome measures (OpenPROMPT).

Background: Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. We aimed to evaluate and estimate the differences in health impacts of long COVID across sociodemographic categories and quantify this in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), widely used measures across health systems. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we utilised OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Findings: The total OpenPROMPT cohort consisted of 7575 individuals who consented to data collection, with which we used data from 6070 participants who completed a baseline research questionnaire where 24.6% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a higher likelihood or odds of reporting loss in quality-of-life (Odds Ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% CI: 3.72-5.93) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 10.37-30.33) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Interpretation: We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

Clinical coding of long COVID in primary care 2020-2023 in a cohort of 19 million adults: an OpenSAFELY analysis.

Background: Long COVID is the patient-coined term for the persistent symptoms of COVID-19 illness for weeks, months or years following the acute infection. There is a large burden of long COVID globally from self-reported data, but the epidemiology, causes and treatments remain poorly understood. Primary care is used to help identify and treat patients with long COVID and therefore Electronic Health Records (EHRs) of past COVID-19 patients could be used to help fill these knowledge gaps. We aimed to describe the incidence and differences in demographic and clinical characteristics in recorded long COVID in primary care records in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from over 19 million adults in England linked to SARS-COV-2 test result, hospitalisation and vaccination data to describe trends in the recording of 16 clinical codes related to long COVID between November 2020 and January 2023. Using OpenSAFELY, we calculated rates per 100,000 person-years and plotted how these changed over time. We compared crude and adjusted (for age, sex, 9 NHS regions of England, and the dominant variant circulating) rates of recorded long COVID in patient records between different key demographic and vaccination characteristics using negative binomial models. Findings: We identified a total of 55,465 people recorded to have long COVID over the study period, which included 20,025 diagnoses codes and 35,440 codes for further assessment. The incidence of new long COVID records increased steadily over 2021, and declined over 2022. The overall rate per 100,000 person-years was 177.5 cases in women (95% CI: 175.5-179) and 100.5 in men (99.5-102). The majority of those with a long COVID record did not have a recorded positive SARS-COV-2 test 12 or more weeks before the long COVID record. Interpretation: In this descriptive study, EHR recorded long COVID was very low between 2020 and 2023, and incident records of long COVID declined over 2022. Using EHR diagnostic or referral codes unfortunately has major limitations in identifying and ascertaining true cases and timing of long COVID. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

Acute Cardiovascular Events After COVID-19 in England in 2020: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

Purpose: To assess the risk of incident cardiovascular outcomes after COVID-19 by level of cardiovascular risk in waves one and two of the pandemic in England in 2020. Patients and methods: We conducted a self-controlled case-series study among adults aged 40-84 years with no pre-existing cardiovascular disease using linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We generated season-adjusted incidence ratios (IRs) for first acute cardiovascular event after SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with baseline time before and >91 days after infection. We used composite and individual acute cardiovascular event outcomes including myocardial infarction, major ventricular arrhythmia, left ventricular heart failure, and ischemic stroke. We stratified by cardiovascular risk, using diagnosed hypertension and QRISK3 predicted risk, and by wave one and two of the pandemic. Results: We included 1762 individuals, 76.6% had a QRISK3 score ≥10% and 59.4% had hypertension. The risk of any cardiovascular event was elevated in the 1-7 days after infection (IR 7.14 [95% CI 6.06-8.41]) and, while the effect size tapered, the risk remained for 15-28 days after infection (1.74 [1.33-2.26]). Risks were similar for individual event type, differing by level of cardiovascular risk, and in wave one and two of the pandemic. . Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with early elevations in the risk of first acute cardiovascular event, across cardiovascular risk levels and in both wave one and two of the pandemic. Prevention of COVID-19 is important to avert cardiovascular complications.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes by cardiovascular risk profile in England in 2020: a population-based cohort study.

Background: While cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, the association between predicted cardiovascular risk and severe COVID-19 among people without diagnosed CVD is unclear. Methods: We carried out historical, population-based cohort studies among adults aged 40-84 years in England using linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Individuals were categorized into: existing CVD, raised cardiovascular risk (defined using QRISK3 score ≥10%) and low risk (QRISK3 score <10%) at 12/03/2020. We described incidence and severe outcomes of COVID-19 (deaths, intensive care unit [ICU] admissions, hospitalisations, major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) for each group. Among those with a COVID-19 record to 31/12/2020, we re-classified cardiovascular risk at infection and assessed the risk of severe outcomes using multivariable Cox regression with complete case analysis. We repeated analyses using hypertension to define raised cardiovascular risk. Findings: Among 6,059,055 individuals, 741,913 (12.2%) had established CVD, 1,929,627 (31.8%) had a QRISK3 score ≥10% and 3,387,515 (55.9%) had a QRISK3 score <10%. Marked gradients were seen in the incidence of all severe COVID-19 outcomes by cardiovascular risk profile. Among those with COVID-19 (N = 146,760), there was a strong association between raised QRISK3 score and death: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 8.77 (7.62-10.10), N = 97,725, which remained present, though attenuated in age-stratified results. Risks of other outcomes were also higher among those with raised QRISK3 score: aHR 3.66 (3.18-4.21) for ICU admissions, 3.38 (3.22-3.56) for hospitalisations, 5.43 (4.44-6.64) for MACE. When raised cardiovascular risk was redefined by hypertension status, only the association with MACE remained: aHR 1.49 (1.20-1.85), N = 57,264. Interpretation: Individuals without pre-existing CVD but with raised cardiovascular risk (by QRISK3 score) were more likely to experience severe COVID-19 outcomes and should be prioritised for prevention and treatment. Addressing cardiovascular risk factors could improve COVID-19 outcomes. Funding: BMA Foundation for Medical Research/Rosetrees Trust, Wellcome, BHF.

Cancer history as a predictor in cardiovascular risk scores: a primary care cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risks are raised in cancer survivors but cancer history is not included in cardiovascular risk scores that inform preventive decisions. AIM: To assess whether cancer diagnosis should be included in cardiovascular risk scores. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study using data from English general practices linked to hospital, cancer registration, and death registration data from 1990 to 2015. METHOD: Adults alive 1 year after a first cancer diagnosis and age, sex, general practice, and calendar- time matched cancer-free individuals were included. Individuals with <2 years of follow-up before index, recent statin prescriptions, or pre-existing coronary heart or cerebrovascular disease were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models used to develop QRISK3 scores were replicated with added cancer history variables. Whether independent hazard ratios for these variables met thresholds for inclusion in QRISK3 (>10% relative difference with P<0.01) was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 81 420 cancer survivors and 413 547 cancer-free individuals were followed for a median 5.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.8- 9.1) and 6.3 years (IQR 3.5-10.2), respectively. Including a 1-year cancer survivorship variable in a QRISK3-based model met the threshold for inclusion for males (independent hazard ratio [iHR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.20, P<0.001) but not females (iHR 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.14, P = 0.02). When including cancer type, the threshold was met for both sexes with history of haematological cancer (males: iHR 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.40, P <0.001; females: iHR 1.59, 95% CI = 1.32 to 1.91, P<0.001) and for males but not females with history of solid cancers (males: iHR 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.18, P <0.001; females: iHR 1.04, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.10, P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Developers should consider including cancer history variables in future cardiovascular risk models.

Determining the optimal diagnostic and risk stratification approaches for people with hypertension in two rural populations in Kenya and The Gambia: a study protocol for IHCoR-Africa Work Package 2.

Background: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has one of the highest prevalences of hypertension worldwide. The impact of hypertension is of particular concern in rural SSA, where access to clinics and hospitals is limited. Improvements in the management of people with hypertension in rural SSA could be achieved by sharing diagnosis and care tasks between the clinic and the community. To develop such a community-centred programme we need optimal approaches to identify and risk stratify patients with elevated blood pressure. The aim of the study is to improve the evidence base for diagnosis and risk estimation for a community-centred hypertension programme in two rural settings in SSA. Methods: We will conduct a cross-sectional study of 1250 adult participants in Kilifi, Kenya and Kiang West, The Gambia. The study has five objectives which will determine the: (1) accuracy of three blood pressure (BP) measurement methods performed by community health workers in identifying people with hypertension in rural SSA, compared to the reference standard method; (2) relationship between systolic BP and cardiovascular risk factors; (3) prevalence of hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD); (4) accuracy of innovative point-of-care (POC) technologies to identify patients with HMOD; and (5) cost-effectiveness of different combinations of BP and HMOD measurements for directing hypertension treatment initiation. Expected findings: This study will determine the accuracy of three methods for community BP measurement and POC technologies for HMOD assessment. Using the optimal methods in this setting it will estimate the prevalence of hypertension and provide the best estimate to date of HMOD prevalence in SSA populations. The cost-effectiveness of decision-making approaches for initiating treatment of hypertension will be modelled. These results will inform the development of a community-centred programme to improve care for hypertensive patients living in rural SSA. Existing community engagement networks will be used to disseminated within the research setting.

Many people live with high blood pressure in sub-Saharan Africa. In this region, the proportion of people with high blood pressure is one of the highest in the world. However, few people with high blood pressure are treated and this can lead to serious medical issues and even death. This is particularly true in rural areas where treatment and understanding of blood pressure is lower than in cities. There are many reasons why high blood pressure is a major health problem in rural sub-Saharan Africa, such as a lack of clear symptoms; less access to healthcare; and limited time to travel to clinics for care. One option for improving the management of blood pressure is to use a community-centred approach, where care is brought into the community making it easier to access. To bring care into the community, we need to find out what is the best way for community health workers to identify who needs to be treated. Standard techniques may not be useful in a rural community and could require too many resources to make them practical. This study aims to determine what is the best way to identify high blood pressure and related health complications in a community setting. The study will take place across two sites: one in Kilifi, Kenya and the other in Kiang West, The Gambia. We will enrol 1250 participants, with 625 in each country. The people living in these areas have been involved in the design of this study through community engagement and have helped identify the need for improving how blood pressure is treated in a rural areas. Throughout this study, we will continue to meet with the communities. Once the study is completed, we will use our strong links with the communities, healthcare providers and policymakers to share the results.

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 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).

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.

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.

Alcohol use recording in adults with depression in English primary care: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate alcohol use recording in people with newly diagnosed depression in English primary care and individual characteristics associated with the recording of alcohol use. DESIGN: A population-based cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care data from English practices contributing to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. PARTICIPANTS: We included adults (18+ years) diagnosed with depression between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2017 without previous antidepressant use and at least 1 year of registration before diagnosis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We described the proportion of individuals with alcohol use and level of alcohol use recorded at four time points (the date of depression diagnosis, 3 months before or after depression diagnosis, 12 months before or after depression diagnosis and any point pre or postdepression diagnosis). We used logistic regression to investigate individual characteristics associated with alcohol use recording in the 3 months before or after depression diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 36 424 adults with depression. 538 (2%) had alcohol use recorded in the 3 months before or after depression diagnosis using formal validated methods such as the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and its abbreviated versions. At each time point, most individuals with alcohol use recorded were low risk drinkers. Alcohol use recording in the 3 months before or after depression diagnosis was associated with male sex (OR=1.38, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.48) and several other individual-level factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows low levels of alcohol use recording in the 3 months before or after depression diagnosis. Levels of alcohol use recording varied depending on individual characteristics. Incentivised recording of alcohol use will increase completeness, which could improve clinical management and reduce missed opportunities for care in people with depression.

The importance of blood pressure thresholds versus predicted cardiovascular risk on subsequent rates of cardiovascular disease: a cohort study in English primary care.

BACKGROUND: For five decades, blood pressure lowering treatment has been recommended for patients with hypertension (currently defined as blood pressure of ≥140/90 mm Hg). In the past 20 years, guidelines for treatment began incorporating predicted absolute cardiovascular disease risk (predicted risk) and reducing blood pressure thresholds. The blood pressure threshold at which to start treatment has become a secondary consideration in some countries. We aimed to provide descriptive data to assess the relative importance of blood pressure thresholds versus predicted risk on the subsequent rate of cardiovascular disease to inform treatment decisions. METHODS: In this English population-based cohort study, we used linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, and the Office for National Statistics mortality data, and area-based deprivation indices (Townsend scores). Eligible patients were aged 30-79 years on Jan 1, 2011 (cohort entry date) and could be linked to hospital, mortality, and deprivation data. Patients were followed up until death, end of CPRD follow-up, or Nov 31, 2018. We examined three outcomes: cardiovascular disease, markers of potential target organ damage, and incident dementia without a known cause. The rate of each outcome was estimated and stratified by systolic blood pressure and predicted 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (QRISK2 algorithm). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Nov 31, 2018, 1 098 991 patients were included in the cohort and followed up for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 2·6-6·0; total follow-up of 4·6 million person-years). Median age at entry was 52 years (IQR 42-62) and 629 711 (57·3%) patients were female. There were 51 996 cardiovascular disease events and the overall rate of cardiovascular disease was 11·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 11·1-11·3). Median QRISK2 10-year predicted risk was 4·6% (IQR 1·4-12·0) and mean systolic blood pressure before cohort entry was 129·1 mm Hg (SD 15·7). Within strata of predicted risk, the effect of increasing systolic blood pressure on outcomes was small. For example, in the group with 10·0-19·9% predicted risk, rates of all cardiovascular disease rose from 20·1 to 23·6 per 1000 person-years between systolic blood pressures less than 110 mm Hg and 180 and higher mm Hg. But among patients with systolic blood pressure 140·0-149·9 mm Hg, rates rose from 6·9 to 52·3 per 1000 person-years between those with less than 10·0% risk and those with 30·0% or higher predicted risk. INTERPRETATION: For a wide range of blood pressures, the rate of cardiovascular disease and effectiveness of blood pressure drug treatment was mainly determined by predicted risk, with blood pressure thresholds 140/90 mm Hg or 160/100 mm Hg-ubiquitous in most countries-adding little useful information. When medium-term predicted risk is low, there is no urgency to initiate drug treatment, allowing time to attempt non-pharmacological blood pressure reduction. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Association between household composition and severe COVID-19 outcomes in older people by ethnicity: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of age-based generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in Wave 1 (1 February 2020-31 August 2020) and 2 731 427 in Wave 2 (1 September 2020-31 January 2021). RESULTS: Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves [e.g. Wave 2, 67+ living with three other generations vs 67+-year-olds only: White hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 95% CI 1.38-1.87, South Asian HR 1.76 95% CI 1.48-2.10], with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in Wave 2. There was also an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in Wave 1 associated with living alone for White (HR 1.35 95% CI 1.30-1.41), South Asian (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.18-1.84) and Other (HR 1.72 95% CI 0.99-2.97) ethnicities, an effect that persisted for White older people in Wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both multigenerational living and living alone were associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings, whereas a substantial proportion of White older people live alone. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics.