Search

Background: COVID-19 pandemic restrictions may have influenced behaviours related to weight., Aim: To describe patterns of weight change among adults living in England with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and/or hypertension during the pandemic., Design and Setting: An observational cohort study using the routinely collected health data of approximately 40% of adults living in England, accessed through the OpenSAFELY service inside TPP., Method: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with rapid weight gain (>0.5 kg/m 2 /year) were investigated using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Data were extracted on adults with T2D ( n = 1 231 455, 43.9% female, and 76.0% White British) or hypertension ( n = 3 558 405, 49.7% female, and 84.3% White British). Adults with T2D lost weight overall (median δ = -0.1 kg/m 2 /year [interquartile range {IQR} -0.7-0.4]). However, rapid weight gain was common (20.7%) and associated with the following: sex (male versus female: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.77 to 0.79]); age (older age reduced odds, for example, aged 60-69 years versus 18-29 years: aOR 0.66 [95% CI = 0.61 to 0.71]); deprivation (least deprived Index of Multiple Deprivation [IMD] quintile versus most deprived IMD quintile: aOR 0.87 [95% CI = 0.85 to 0.89]); White ethnicity (Black versus White: aOR 0.95 [95% CI = 0.92 to 0.98]); mental health conditions (for example, depression: aOR 1.13 [95% CI = 1.12 to 1.15]); and diabetes treatment (non-insulin treatment versus no pharmacological treatment: aOR 0.68 [95% CI = 0.67 to 0.69]). Adults with hypertension maintained stable weight overall (median δ = 0.0 kg/m 2 /year [IQR -0.6-0.5]); however, rapid weight gain was common (24.7%) and associated with similar characteristics as in T2D., Conclusion: Among adults living in England with T2D and/or hypertension, rapid pandemic weight gain was more common among females, younger adults, those living in more deprived areas, and those with mental health conditions., (© The Authors.)

Background: Health-seeking behavior and health care access (HSB/HCA) are recognized confounders in many observational studies but are not directly measurable in electronic health records. We used proxy markers of HSB/HCA to quantify and adjust for confounding in observational studies of influenza and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE)., Methods: This cohort study used primary care data prelinked to secondary care and death data in England. We included individuals aged ≥66 years on 1 September 2019 and assessed influenza VE in the 2019-2020 season and early COVID-19 VE (December 2020-March 2021). VE was estimated with sequential adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and 14 markers of HSB/HCA. Influenza vaccination in the 2019-2020 season was also considered a negative control exposure against COVID-19 before COVID-19 vaccine rollout., Results: We included 1 991 284, 1 796 667, and 1 946 943 individuals in the influenza, COVID-19, and negative control exposure populations, respectively. Markers of HSB/HCA were positively correlated with influenza and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. For influenza, adjusting for HSB/HCA markers in addition to demographics and comorbidities increased VE against influenza-like illness from -1.5% (95% CI, -3.2% to .1%) to 7.1% (95% CI, 5.4%-8.7%) with a less apparent trend for more severe outcomes. For COVID-19, adjusting for HSB/HCA markers did not change VE estimates against infection or severe disease (eg, 2 doses of BNT162b2 against infection: 82.8% [95% CI, 78.4%-86.3%] to 83.1% [95% CI, 78.7%-86.5%]). Adjusting for HSB/HCA markers removed bias in the negative control exposure analysis (-7.5% [95% CI, -10.6% to -4.5%] vs -2.1% [95% CI, -6.0% to 1.7%] before vs after adjusting for HSB/HCA markers)., Conclusions: Markers of HSB/HCA can be used to quantify and account for confounding in observational vaccine studies., Competing Interests: Potential conflict of interests: S. G. is a part-time salaried employee of Evidera, which is a business unit of Pharmaceutical Product Development, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Ethnicity is known to be an important correlate of health outcomes, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, where some ethnic groups were shown to be at higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes. The recording of patients' ethnic groups in primary care can support research and efforts to achieve equity in service provision and outcomes; however, the coding of ethnicity is known to present complex challenges. We therefore set out to describe ethnicity coding in detail with a view to supporting the use of this data in a wide range of settings, as part of wider efforts to robustly describe and define methods of using administrative data., Methods: We describe the completeness and consistency of primary care ethnicity recording in the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, containing linked primary care and hospital records in > 25 million patients in England. We also compared the ethnic breakdown in OpenSAFELY-TPP with that of the 2021 UK census., Results: 78.2% of patients registered in OpenSAFELY-TPP on 1 January 2022 had their ethnicity recorded in primary care records, rising to 92.5% when supplemented with hospital data. The completeness of ethnicity recording was higher for women than for men. The rate of primary care ethnicity recording ranged from 77% in the South East of England to 82.2% in the West Midlands. Ethnicity recording rates were higher in patients with chronic or other serious health conditions. For each of the five broad ethnicity groups, primary care recorded ethnicity was within 2.9 percentage points of the population rate as recorded in the 2021 Census for England as a whole. For patients with multiple ethnicity records, 98.7% of the latest recorded ethnicities matched the most frequently coded ethnicity. Patients whose latest recorded ethnicity was categorised as Other were most likely to have a discordant ethnicity recording (32.2%)., Conclusions: Primary care ethnicity data in OpenSAFELY is present for over three quarters of all patients, and combined with data from other sources can achieve a high level of completeness. The overall distribution of ethnicities across all English OpenSAFELY-TPP practices was similar to the 2021 Census, with some regional variation. This report identifies the best available codelist for use in OpenSAFELY and similar electronic health record data., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The UK delivered its first "booster" COVID-19 vaccine doses in September 2021, initially to individuals at high risk of severe disease, then to all adults. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, then also Moderna mRNA-1273., Methods: With the approval of the National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses. We matched each booster recipient with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior COVID-19 immunization. We adjusted for additional factors in Cox models, estimating hazard ratios up to 182 days (6 months) following booster dose. We estimated hazard ratios overall and within the following periods: 1-14, 15-42, 43-69, 70-97, 98-126, 127-152, and 155-182 days. Outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 death, non-COVID-19 death, and fracture., Results: We matched 8,198,643 booster recipients with unboosted controls. Adjusted hazard ratios over 6-month follow-up were: positive SARS-CoV-2 test 0.75 (0.74, 0.75); COVID-19 hospitalization 0.30 (0.29, 0.31); COVID-19 death 0.11 (0.10, 0.14); non-COVID-19 death 0.22 (0.21, 0.23); and fracture 0.77 (0.75, 0.78). Estimated effectiveness of booster vaccines against severe COVID-19-related outcomes peaked during the first 3 months following the booster dose. By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals., Conclusions: We estimate that COVID-19 booster vaccination, compared with no booster vaccination, provided substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death but only limited protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Lower rates of fracture in boosted than unboosted individuals may suggest unmeasured confounding. Observational studies should report estimated vaccine effectiveness against nontarget and negative control outcomes., Competing Interests: Disclosure: B.G. has received research funding from the Bennett Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organization, UKRI, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies program; he receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science; he is also a non-executive director of NHS Digital; A.M. is on the NHS Digital Professional Advisory Group (representing the Royal College of General Practitioners), advising on the use of general practice data for COVID-19 related research and planning; until September 2019 he was interim chief medical officer of NHS Digital. The other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity ensuring safety and appropriateness of prescribing. A disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care. Using routinely collected data, our aim was first to describe codes used to record medication review activity and then to report the impact of COVID-19 on the rates of medication reviews., Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 20 million adult patient records in general practice, in-situ using the OpenSAFELY platform. For each month, between April 2019 and March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months with breakdowns by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and those prescribed high-risk medications., Results: In April 2019, 32.3% of patients had a medication review coded in the previous 12 months. During the first COVID-19 lockdown, monthly activity decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the 12-month rate was not substantially impacted (-10.5% March 2021). The rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high-risk groups (care home residents 34.1%, age 90+ years 13.1%, high-risk medications 10.2%). The most used medication review code was Medication review done 314530002 (59.5%)., Conclusions: There was a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period. Structured medication reviews were prioritized for high-risk patients., (© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health-care delivery, including difficulty accessing in-person care, which could have increased the need for strong pharmacological pain relief. Due to the risks associated with overprescribing of opioids, especially to vulnerable populations, we aimed to quantify changes to measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, overall, and by key subgroups., Methods: For this interrupted time-series analysis study conducted in England, with National Health Service England approval, we used routine clinical data from more than 20 million general practice adult patients in OpenSAFELY-TPP, which is a a secure software platform for analysis of electronic health records. We included all adults registered with a primary care practice using TPP-SystmOne software. Using interrupted time-series analysis, we quantified prevalent and new opioid prescribing before the COVID-19 pandemic (January, 2018-February, 2020), during the lockdown (March, 2020-March, 2021), and recovery periods (April, 2021-June, 2022), overall and stratified by demographics (age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, and geographical region) and in people in care homes identified via an address-matching algorithm., Findings: There was little change in prevalent prescribing during the pandemic, except for a temporary increase in March, 2020. We observed a 9·8% (95% CI -14·5 to -6·5) reduction in new opioid prescribing from March, 2020, with a levelling of the downward trend, and rebounding slightly after April, 2021 (4·1%, 95% CI -0·9 to 9·4). Opioid prescribing rates varied by demographics, but we found a reduction in new prescribing for all subgroups except people aged 80 years or older. Among care home residents, in April, 2020, parenteral opioid prescribing increased by 186·3% (153·1 to 223·9)., Interpretation: Opioid prescribing increased temporarily among older people and care home residents, likely reflecting use to treat end-of-life COVID-19 symptoms. Despite vulnerable populations being more affected by health-care disruptions, disparities in opioid prescribing by most demographic subgroups did not widen during the pandemic. Further research is needed to understand what is driving the changes in new opioid prescribing and its relation to changes to health-care provision during the pandemic., Funding: The Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, The National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK Research and Innovation, and Health Data Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BG has received research funding from the Bennett Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the National Health Service (NHS), The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn–Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, WHO, UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; has previously been a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; and has received personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BM is employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and is clinical lead for primary care medicines data. AM has represented the Royal College of General Practitioners in the health informatics group and the Profession Advisory Group that advises on access to GP Data for Pandemic Planning and Research, of which the latter was a paid role. AM is a former employee and interim Chief Medical Officer of NHS Digital; and has consulted for health-care vendors, the last time being in 2022. The companies consulted in the last 3 years have no relationship to OpenSAFELY., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented pressure on healthcare services. This study investigates whether disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) safety monitoring was affected during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: A population-based cohort study was conducted using the OpenSAFELY platform to access electronic health record data from 24.2 million patients registered at general practices using TPP's SystmOne software. Patients were included for further analysis if prescribed azathioprine, leflunomide or methotrexate between November 2019 and July 2022. Outcomes were assessed as monthly trends and variation between various sociodemographic and clinical groups for adherence with standard safety monitoring recommendations., Results: An acute increase in the rate of missed monitoring occurred across the study population (+12.4 percentage points) when lockdown measures were implemented in March 2020. This increase was more pronounced for some patient groups (70-79 year-olds: +13.7 percentage points; females: +12.8 percentage points), regions (North West: +17.0 percentage points), medications (leflunomide: +20.7 percentage points) and monitoring tests (blood pressure: +24.5 percentage points). Missed monitoring rates decreased substantially for all groups by July 2022. Consistent differences were observed in overall missed monitoring rates between several groups throughout the study., Conclusion: DMARD monitoring rates temporarily deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deterioration coincided with the onset of lockdown measures, with monitoring rates recovering rapidly as lockdown measures were eased. Differences observed in monitoring rates between medications, tests, regions and patient groups highlight opportunities to tackle potential inequalities in the provision or uptake of monitoring services. Further research should evaluate the causes of the differences identified between groups., (© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

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., Competing Interests: BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data. AM is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group, and received consulting fee from Induction Healthcare. SJWE was paid for attendance at meetings of Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) Meta–Data Safety Monitoring Board. IJD has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca and holds shares in GSK. LAT has received research funding from MRC, Wellcome, NIHR and GSK, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of 4 non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and MHRA Expert advisory group (Women’s Health). ELH received NIHR post doctoral fellowship. REC has shares in AstraZeneca. VM received grant from NIHR. VS received speaker fees from Bayer AG. JP is employed by TPP SystmOne in the role of Clinical Director. RME received research grants from NIHR, HDR UK, IMI2, New Ventures Fund. JT received AstraZeneca grant for unrelated COVID-19 research. Other authors declared no conflict of interest., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: B.G. has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn–Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a non-executive director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. B.M.K. is employed by NHS England, working on medicines policy and a clinical lead for primary care medicines data. A.M. is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group, and received consulting fee from Induction Healthcare. E.P. was a consultant for WHO SAGE COVID-19 Vaccines Working Group. I.J.D. has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca and holds shares in GSK. J.T. was funded by an unrestricted grant from GSK for methodological research unrelated to this work. S.L. received remuneration for medical writing from Kidney Care UK, UK Kidney Association and GORE; support for attending meeting from UK Kidney Association; and is Chair of Patients Council of UK Kidney Association, and Secretary and Trustee of Guy's & St Thomas' Kidney Patients' Association. V.M. received grant from National Institute for Health and Care Research. E.C. is a member of UK Kidney Association Infection Prevention & Control committee. F.L. received grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and payment to institution from AstraZeneca for scientific events. S.B. received consulting fees from GSK and AstraZeneca. D.N. received grants from National Institute for Health and Care Research, MRC and GSK Open Lab, unrelated to this work; and is the UKKA Director of Informatics Research. L.A.T. has received research funding from MRC, Wellcome, NIHR and GSK, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of 4 non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and MHRA Expert advisory group (Women's Health). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data., (Copyright: © 2023 Hopcroft LE et al.)

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., Competing Interests: EPKP has been employed as a consultant by the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines. WJH and VM have received research funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). EJC has received research funding (paid to the institution) form Kidney Research UK and partner charities and patient associations. FL is employed as Policy Director of Kidney Care UK, which has received funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and GSK, and honoraria (paid to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and University College London for invited talks and meeting attendance. FL is Lay Chair of the West Herts Hospital Organ Donation committee; Vice Chair of the Lister Hospital Kidney Patients’ Association; and member of the International Society for Nephrology patient liaison advisory group. SL has received medical writing fees from the UK Kidney Association and Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland; freelance employment as Deputy Editor for Kidney Care UK's Kidney Matters magazine; and support for conference attendance from the UK Kidney Association. SL is Chair of the UK Kidney Association Patient Council and member of the Guy’s and St Thomas’ Kidney Patients’ Association. BMK is also employed by NHS England as a specialist pharmacist adviser. AM has received consultancy fees from Induction Healthcare and is a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group. BG’s work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG’s grants on this work. BG is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital. DN is the UK Kidney Association's Director of Informatics Research. LAT has received research funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Wellcome, and NIHR; has consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid); is a member of four non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid); and is a member of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert advisory group (Women’s Health). The authors disclose no other competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BG has received personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science and has been a non-executive director of NHS Digital. EJW has received payment for providing training for AstraZeneca (unrelated to the submitted work). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M21-4269.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity across a broad range of clinical services. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible., Aim: To describe changes in the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice across six clinical areas: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental health, female and reproductive health, screening and related procedures, and processes related to medication., Design and Setting: With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in situ using OpenSAFELY., Method: Common primary care activities were analysed using Clinical Terms Version 3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 to December 2020, presenting median and deciles of code usage across practices per month., Results: Substantial and widespread changes in clinical activity in primary care were identified since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with generally good recovery by December 2020. A few exceptions showed poor recovery and warrant further investigation, such as mental health (for example, for 'Depression interim review' the median occurrences across practices in December 2020 was down by 41.6% compared with December 2019)., Conclusion: Granular NHS general practice data at population-scale can be used to monitor disruptions to healthcare services and guide the development of mitigation strategies. The authors are now developing real-time monitoring dashboards for the key measures identified in this study, as well as further studies using primary care data to monitor and mitigate the indirect health impacts of COVID-19 on the NHS., (© The Authors.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) covid-19 vaccines during the booster programme in England., Design: Matched cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial., Setting: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants were dominant., Participants: 3 237 918 adults who received a booster dose of either vaccine between 29 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 as part of the national booster programme in England and who received a primary course of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1., Intervention: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster vaccine dose., Main Outcome Measures: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and non-covid-19 related death at 20 weeks after receipt of the booster dose., Results: 1 618 959 people were matched in each vaccine group, contributing a total 64 546 391 person weeks of follow-up. The 20 week risks per 1000 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 164.2 (95% confidence interval 163.3 to 165.1) for BNT162b2 and 159.9 (159.0 to 160.8) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.96). The 20 week risks per 1000 for hospital admission with covid-19 were 0.75 (0.71 to 0.79) for BNT162b2 and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.69) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.82 to 0.95). Covid-19 related deaths were rare: the 20 week risks per 1000 were 0.028 (0.021 to 0.037) for BNT162b2 and 0.024 (0.018 to 0.033) for mRNA-1273; hazard ratio 0.83 (0.58 to 1.19). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical vulnerability. Relative benefit was similar when vaccines were compared separately in the delta and omicron variant eras., Conclusions: This matched observational study of adults estimated a modest benefit of booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 in preventing positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and hospital admission with covid-19 20 weeks after vaccination, during a period of delta followed by omicron variant dominance., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BG’s work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG's grants on this work. BG is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital. EJW holds grants from MRC., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Wellcome Trust, MRC, NIHR, and Health Data Research UK for the submitted work. BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NHS NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UK Research and Innovation, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation, and Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). JT is employed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) on a fellowship sponsored by an unrestricted GSK grant. NJD received research funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) with molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe outcomes of covid-19 in adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community and at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19., Design: Observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform., Setting: With the approval of NHS England, a real world cohort study was conducted with the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (a secure, transparent, open source software platform for analysis of NHS electronic health records), and patient level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatments, hospital admission, and death, over a period when both drug treatments were frequently prescribed in community settings., Participants: Adult patients with covid-19 in the community at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir from 16 December 2021., Interventions: Sotrovimab or molnupiravir given in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units., Main Outcome Measures: Admission to hospital with covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the primary diagnosis) or death from covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the underlying or contributing cause of death) within 28 days of the start of treatment., Results: Between 16 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively, with no substantial differences in baseline characteristics. Mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (standard deviation 16) years; 59% were women, 89% were white, and 88% had received three or more covid-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days of the start of treatment, 87 (1.4%) patients were admitted to hospital or died of infection from SARS-CoV-2 (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographic information, high risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index, and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). Consistent results were found from propensity score weighted Cox models (0.50, 0.31 to 0.81, P=0.005) and when restricted to people who were fully vaccinated (0.53, 0.31 to 0.90, P=0.02). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction >0.10). The findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between 16 February and 1 May 2022 when omicron BA.2 was the predominant variant in England., Conclusions: In routine care of adult patients in England with covid-19 in the community, at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe outcomes of covid-19 than those treated with molnupiravir., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Asthma UK-British Lung Foundation (BLF) for the submitted work; BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NHS NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation, and Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; BG is a non-executive director at NHS Digital; BG also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science; IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); LAT has received funding from Medical Research Council (MRC), Wellcome, NIHR, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of four non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) expert advisory group (Women’s Health); NJD has received funding for covid meta-research from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany); JT is funded at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) through an unrestricted grant from GSK; AM was a former employee and interim chief medical officer of NHS Digital and is a member of Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group; AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK; VM has received funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR301535); RME has received funding from HDR UK (MR/S003975/1); no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

BackgroundPriority patients in England were offered COVID-19 vaccination by mid-April 2021. Codes in clinical record systems can denote the vaccine being declined.AimWe describe records of COVID-19 vaccines being declined, according to clinical and demographic factors.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study between 8 December 2020 and 25 May 2021 with primary care records for 57.9 million patients using OpenSAFELY, a secure health analytics platform. COVID-19 vaccination priority patients were those aged ≥ 50 years or ≥ 16 years clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) or 'at risk'. We describe the proportion recorded as declining vaccination for each group and stratified by clinical and demographic subgroups, subsequent vaccination and distribution of clinical code usage across general practices.ResultsOf 24.5 million priority patients, 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline recorded, while 2,155,076 (8.8%) had neither a vaccine nor decline recorded. Those recorded as declining, who were subsequently vaccinated (n = 125,587; 18.9%) were overrepresented in the South Asian population (32.3% vs 22.8% for other ethnicities aged ≥ 65 years). The proportion of declining unvaccinated patients was highest in CEV (3.3%), varied strongly with ethnicity (black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, white 1.5% for ≥ 80 years) and correlated positively with increasing deprivation.ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are commonly used in England, but substantially more common among black and South Asian people, and in more deprived areas. Qualitative research is needed to determine typical reasons for recorded declines, including to what extent they reflect patients actively declining.

Introduction: We investigated the potential association of COVID-19 vaccination with three acute neurological events: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy., Methods: With the approval of NHS England we analysed primary care data from >17 million patients in England linked to emergency care, hospital admission and mortality records in the OpenSAFELY platform. Separately for each vaccine brand, we used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the incidence rate ratio for each outcome in the period following vaccination (4-42 days for GBS, 4-28 days for transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy) compared to a within-person baseline, using conditional Poisson regression., Results: Among 7,783,441 ChAdOx1 vaccinees, there was an increased rate of GBS (N = 517; incidence rate ratio 2·85; 95% CI2·33-3·47) and Bell's palsy (N = 5,350; 1·39; 1·27-1·53) following a first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine, corresponding to 11.0 additional cases of GBS and 17.9 cases of Bell's palsy per 1 million vaccinees if causal. For GBS this applied to the first, but not the second, dose. There was no clear evidence of an association of ChAdOx1 vaccination with transverse myelitis (N = 199; 1·51; 0·96-2·37). Among 5,729,152 BNT162b2 vaccinees, there was no evidence of any association with GBS (N = 283; 1·09; 0·75-1·57), transverse myelitis (N = 109; 1·62; 0·86-3·03) or Bell's palsy (N = 3,609; 0·89; 0·76-1·03). Among 255,446 mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients there was no evidence of an association with Bell's palsy (N = 78; 0·88, 0·32-2·42)., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines save lives, but it is important to understand rare adverse events. We observed a short-term increased rate of Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell's palsy after first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. The absolute risk, assuming a causal effect attributable to vaccination, was low., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [JLW, NA and HIM are funded by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, a partnership between UK Health Security Agency and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. JLW and HIM have been occasional invited experts to the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Surveillance Methodologies Expert Working Group. BS received a grant from the Medical Research Council, via the UKRI/NIHR Global Effort on COVID-19 Research to study neurological disease in relation to COVID-19, and is an unpaid case management consultant to WHO-South-East Asia Region for the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccination against the infection is not the focus in either case. KD is employed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) which is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health and Social Care and is the UK Licensing Authority. The MHRA has statutory responsibility to monitor the safety of medicinal products, including vaccines, on the UK market. EW has received payments from AZ for providing training, unrelated to the submitted work. TS was Chair/Co-Chair of the United Kingdom Research and Innovation / National Institute for Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Response and Rolling Funding Initiatives, was an Advisor to the UK COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel and is a member of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group. IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organization; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science.]., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate waning of covid-19 vaccine effectiveness over six months after second dose., Design: Cohort study, approved by NHS England., Setting: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 records within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database., Participants: Adults without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible, excluding care home residents and healthcare professionals., Exposures: People who had received two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (administered during the national vaccine rollout) were compared with unvaccinated people during six consecutive comparison periods, each of four weeks., Main Outcome Measures: Adjusted hazard ratios for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and non-covid-19 related death comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated people. Waning vaccine effectiveness was quantified as ratios of adjusted hazard ratios per four week period, separately for subgroups aged ≥65 years, 18-64 years and clinically vulnerable, 40-64 years, and 18-39 years., Results: 1 951 866 and 3 219 349 eligible adults received two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, respectively, and 2 422 980 remained unvaccinated. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was estimated to be similar across outcomes and vaccine brands. In the ≥65 years subgroup, ratios of adjusted hazard ratios for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test ranged from 1.19 (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.24)to 1.34 (1.09 to 1.64) per four weeks. Despite waning vaccine effectiveness, rates of covid-19 related hospital admission and death were substantially lower among vaccinated than unvaccinated adults up to 26 weeks after the second dose, with estimated vaccine effectiveness ≥80% for BNT162b2, and ≥75% for ChAdOx1. By weeks 23-26, rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 test in vaccinated people were similar to or higher than in unvaccinated people (adjusted hazard ratios up to 1.72 (1.11 to 2.68) for BNT162b2 and 1.86 (1.79 to 1.93) for ChAdOx1)., Conclusions: The rate at which estimated vaccine effectiveness waned was consistent for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test and was similar across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. If sustained to outcomes of infection with the omicron variant and to booster vaccination, these findings will facilitate scheduling of booster vaccination., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: funding for this work from the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing COVID-19 National Core Study, Asthma UK, and the NIHR; BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organization, UKRI, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science; he is also a non-executive director of NHS Digital; AM is on the NHS Digital Professional Advisory Group (representing the Royal College of General Practitioners), advising on the use of general practice data for covid-19 related research and planning; until September 2019 he was interim chief medical officer of NHS Digital., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) covid-19 vaccines against infection and covid-19 disease in health and social care workers., Design: Cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial, on behalf of NHS England., Setting: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was dominant., Participants: 317 341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a general practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable., Interventions: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national covid-19 vaccine roll-out., Main Outcome Measures: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or covid-19 related attendance at an accident and emergency (A&E) department or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of receipt of the first vaccine dose., Results: Over the duration of 118 771 person-years of follow-up there were 6962 positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, 282 covid-19 related A&E attendances, and 166 covid-19 related hospital admissions. The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks after vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 20 weeks after first-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 was 21.7 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 20.9 to 22.4) and with ChAdOx1 was 23.7 (21.8 to 25.6), representing a difference of 2.04 per 1000 people (0.04 to 4.04). The difference in the cumulative incidence per 1000 people of covid-19 related A&E attendance at 20 weeks was 0.06 per 1000 people (95% CI -0.31 to 0.43). For covid-19 related hospital admission, this difference was 0.11 per 1000 people (-0.22 to 0.44)., Conclusions: In this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or covid-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply at 3-4 weeks after vaccination, and there were few covid-19 related hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine induced immunity and suggests strong protection against Alpha variant covid-19 disease for both vaccines in this relatively young and healthy population of healthcare workers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare the following: BG has received research funding from Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients surviving hospitalisation for COVID-19 are thought to be at high risk of cardiometabolic and pulmonary complications, but quantification of that risk is limited. We aimed to describe the overall burden of these complications in people after discharge from hospital with COVID-19.   Methods:  Working on behalf of NHS England, we used linked primary care records, death certificate and hospital data from the OpenSAFELY platform. We constructed three cohorts: patients discharged following hospitalisation with COVID-19, patients discharged following pre-pandemic hospitalisation with pneumonia, and a frequency-matched cohort from the general population in 2019. We studied seven outcomes: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, AKI and new type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) diagnosis. Absolute rates were measured in each cohort and Fine and Gray models were used to estimate age/sex adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios comparing outcome risk between discharged COVID-19 patients and the two comparator cohorts. Results:  Amongst the population of 77,347 patients discharged following hospitalisation with COVID-19, rates for the majority of outcomes peaked in the first month post-discharge, then declined over the following four months. Patients in the COVID-19 population had markedly higher risk of all outcomes compared to matched controls from the 2019 general population. Across the whole study period, the risk of outcomes was more similar when comparing patients discharged with COVID-19 to those discharged with pneumonia in 2019, although COVID-19 patients had higher risk of T2DM (15.2 versus 37.2 [rate per 1,000-person-years for COVID-19 versus pneumonia, respectively]; SHR, 1.46 [95% CI: 1.31 - 1.63]).  Conclusions:  Risk of cardiometabolic and pulmonary adverse outcomes is markedly raised following discharge from hospitalisation with COVID-19 compared to the general population. However, excess risks were similar to those seen following discharge post-pneumonia. Overall, this suggests a large additional burden on healthcare resources., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK), the Good Thinking Foundation, the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)., (Copyright: © 2022 The OpenSAFELY Collaborative et al.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: There is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation., Methods and Findings: With the approval of NHS-England, we conducted a cohort study, using linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February to December 2020) and surviving at least 1 week, and (i) demographically matched controls from the 2019 general population; and (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017 to 2019. We used Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidities considered potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. We included 24,673 postdischarge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls, followed for ≤315 days. COVID-19 patients had median age of 66 years, 13,733 (56%) were male, and 19,061 (77%) were of white ethnicity. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30,968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.22, 2.14 to 2.30, p < 0.001) but slightly lower than the influenza group (aHR 0.95, 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.004). All-cause mortality (7,439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (aHR 4.82, 4.48 to 5.19 versus general population controls [p < 0.001] and 1.74, 1.61 to 1.88 versus influenza controls [p < 0.001]). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than in general population controls and largely similar or lower in COVID-19 compared with influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted or die due to their initial infection or other lower respiratory tract infection (aHR 1.37, 1.22 to 1.54, p < 0.001) and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission or death (aHR 1.37, 1.02 to 1.84, p = 0.039); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with preexisting dementia had higher risk of dementia hospitalisation or death (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2.47, 1.37 to 4.44, p = 0.002). Limitations of our study were that reasons for hospitalisation or death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes, and we did not have data to distinguish COVID-19 variants., Conclusions: In this study, we observed that people discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations, but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmission or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of postdischarge monitoring., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests. The authors declare that: AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. CWG is supported by a Wellcome Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (201440/Z/16/Z), and also holds grants from the Alzheimer’s Society, the British Heart Foundation and the Rosetrees Trust for unrelated work. RM has received consulting fees from AMGEN unrelated to the submitted work. ID has received grants from and holds shares in GSK. HIM is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Vaccines and Immunisation, a partnership between Public Health England and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. JP is an employee of TPP (Leeds) Ltd who own SystmOne. BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible., Aim: To describe the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice, taking respiratory disease and laboratory procedures as examples., Design and Setting: Working on behalf of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in situ using OpenSAFELY., Method: Activity using Clinical Terms Version 3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 to September 2020 are described., Results: Activity recorded in general practice declined during the pandemic, but largely recovered by September. There was a large drop in coded activity for laboratory tests, with broad recovery to pre-pandemic levels by September. One exception was the international normalised ratio test, with a smaller reduction (median tests per 1000 patients in 2020: February 8.0; April 6.2; September 6.9). The pattern of recording for respiratory symptoms was less affected, following an expected seasonal pattern and classified as 'no change'. Respiratory infections exhibited a sustained drop, not returning to pre-pandemic levels by September. Asthma reviews experienced a small drop but recovered, whereas chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reviews remained below baseline., Conclusion: An open-source software framework was delivered to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. The COVD-19 pandemic led to a substantial change in healthcare activity. Most laboratory tests showed substantial reduction, largely recovering to near-normal levels by September, with some important tests less affected and recording of respiratory disease codes was mixed., (© The Authors.)

Background: Long COVID describes new or persistent symptoms at least 4 weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were recently created., Aim: To describe the use of long-COVID codes, and variation of use by general practice, demographic variables, and over time., Design and Setting: Population-based cohort study in English primary care., Method: Working on behalf of NHS England, OpenSAFELY data were used encompassing 96% of the English population between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021. The proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID was measured overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system (EMIS or TPP), and week., Results: Long COVID was recorded for 23 273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed among practices, with 26.7% of practices having never used the codes. Regional variation ranged between 20.3 per 100 000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.3 to 21.4) and 55.6 per 100 000 people in London (95% CI = 54.1 to 57.1). Coding was higher among females (52.1, 95% CI = 51.3 to 52.9) than males (28.1, 95% CI = 27.5 to 28.7), and higher among practices using EMIS (53.7, 95% CI = 52.9 to 54.4) than those using TPP (20.9, 95% CI = 20.3 to 21.4)., Conclusion: Current recording of long COVID in primary care is very low, and variable between practices. This may reflect patients not presenting; clinicians and patients holding different diagnostic thresholds; or challenges with the design and communication of diagnostic codes. Increased awareness of diagnostic codes is recommended to facilitate research and planning of services, and also surveys with qualitative work to better evaluate clinicians' understanding of the diagnosis., (© The Authors.)

Background: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England., Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region., Findings: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories., Interpretation: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination., Funding: Medical Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BG has received research funding from Health Data Research UK, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Health Foundation, and WHO; and receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD has received unrestricted research grants from and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline. KK is the director for the University of Leicester Centre for BME Health, Trustee of the South Asian Health Foundation, the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration lead for Ethnicity and Diversity, and a member of the Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and chair for the SAGE Ethnicity Subgroup. RM, BG, and RME are members of the SAGE Ethnicity Subgroup. RM reports personal fees from AMGEN. AS is employed by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) on a fellowship sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Wearable and mobile technology provides new opportunities to manage health conditions remotely and unobtrusively. For example, healthcare providers can repeatedly sample a person's condition to monitor progression of symptoms and intervene if necessary. There is usually a utility-tolerability trade-off between collecting information at sufficient frequencies and quantities to be useful, and over-burdening the user or the underlying technology, particularly when active input is required from the user. Selecting the next sampling time adaptively using previous responses, so that people are only sampled at high frequency when necessary, can help to manage this trade-off. We present a novel approach to adaptive sampling using clustered continuous-time hidden Markov models. The model predicts, at any given sampling time, the probability of moving to an 'alert' state, and the next sample time is scheduled when this probability has exceeded a given threshold. The clusters, each representing a distinct sub-model, allow heterogeneity in states and state transitions. The work is illustrated using longitudinal mental-health symptom data in 49 people collected using ClinTouch, a mobile app designed to monitor people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Using these data, we show how the adaptive sampling scheme behaves under different model parameters and risk thresholds, and how the average sampling can be substantially reduced whilst maintaining a high sampling frequency during high-risk periods.

Background: Care home residents have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic Health Records (EHR) hold significant potential for studying the healthcare needs of this vulnerable population; however, identifying care home residents in EHR is not straightforward. We describe and compare three different methods for identifying care home residents in the newly created OpenSAFELY-TPP data analytics platform.  Methods: Working on behalf of NHS England, we identified individuals aged 65 years or older potentially living in a care home on the 1st of February 2020 using (1) a complex address linkage, in which cleaned GP registered addresses were matched to old age care home addresses using data from the Care and Quality Commission (CQC); (2) coded events in the EHR; (3) household identifiers, age and household size to identify households with more than 3 individuals aged 65 years or older as potential care home residents. Raw addresses were not available to the investigators. Results: Of 4,437,286 individuals aged 65 years or older, 2.27% were identified as potential care home residents using the complex address linkage, 1.96% using coded events, 3.13% using household size and age and 3.74% using either of these methods. 53,210 individuals (32.0% of all potential care home residents) were classified as care home residents using all three methods. Address linkage had the largest overlap with the other methods; 93.3% of individuals identified as care home residents using the address linkage were also identified as such using either coded events or household age and size.  Conclusion: We have described the partial overlap between three methods for identifying care home residents in EHR, and provide detailed instructions for how to implement these in OpenSAFELY-TPP to support research into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care home residents., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data centre pro bono in the context of a national emergency. BG’s work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the MohnWestlake Foundation, NHS England, and the Health Foundation; all DataLab staff are supported by BG’s grants on this work. AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. LS reports grants from Wellcome, MRC, NIHR, UKRI, British Council, GSK, British Heart Foundation, and Diabetes UK outside this work. HIM is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation, a partnership between Public Health England and LSHTM. AYSW holds a fellowship from BHF. EW holds grants from MRC. IJD holds shares in and has received unrestricted grants from GSK grants, as well as grants from NIHR. HF holds a UKRI fellowship., (Copyright: © 2021 Schultze A et al.)

Background: Whether HIV infection is associated with risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear. We aimed to investigate this association in a large-scale population-based study in England., Methods: We did a retrospective cohort study. Working on behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse routinely collected electronic primary care data linked to national death registrations. We included all adults (aged ≥18 years) alive and in follow-up on Feb 1, 2020, and with at least 1 year of continuous registration with a general practitioner before this date. People with a primary care record for HIV infection were compared with people without HIV. The outcome was COVID-19 death, defined as the presence of International Classification of Diseases 10 codes U07.1 or U07.2 anywhere on the death certificate. Cox regression models were used to estimate the association between HIV infection and COVID-19 death; they were initially adjusted for age and sex, then we added adjustment for index of multiple deprivation and ethnicity, and then for a broad range of comorbidities. Interaction terms were added to assess effect modification by age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities, and calendar time., Results: 17 282 905 adults were included, of whom 27 480 (0·16%) had HIV recorded. People living with HIV were more likely to be male, of Black ethnicity, and from a more deprived geographical area than the general population. 14 882 COVID-19 deaths occurred during the study period, with 25 among people with HIV. People living with HIV had higher risk of COVID-19 death than those without HIV after adjusting for age and sex: hazard ratio (HR) 2·90 (95% CI 1·96-4·30; p<0·0001). The association was attenuated, but risk remained high, after adjustment for deprivation, ethnicity, smoking and obesity: adjusted HR 2·59 (95% CI 1·74-3·84; p<0·0001). There was some evidence that the association was larger among people of Black ethnicity: HR 4·31 (95% CI 2·42-7·65) versus 1·84 (1·03-3·26) in non-Black individuals (p-interaction=0·044)., Interpretation: People with HIV in the UK seem to be at increased risk of COVID-19 mortality. Targeted policies should be considered to address this raised risk as the pandemic response evolves., Funding: Wellcome, Royal Society, National Institute for Health Research, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into epithelial cells in vitro, but clinical studies found no evidence of reduced mortality when treating patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality, as opposed to treatment for the disease., Methods: We did a prespecified observational, population-based cohort study using national primary care data and linked death registrations in the OpenSAFELY platform, which covers approximately 40% of the general population in England, UK. We included all adults aged 18 years and older registered with a general practice for 1 year or more on March 1, 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use before the COVID-19 outbreak in England (considered as March 1, 2020) compared with non-users of hydroxychloroquine and risk of COVID-19 mortality among people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus. Model adjustment was informed by a directed acyclic graph., Findings: Between Sept 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020, of 194 637 people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, 30 569 (15·7%) received two or more prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine. Between March 1 and July 13, 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0·23% (95% CI 0·18 to 0·29) among users and 0·22% (0·20 to 0·25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0·008% (-0·051 to 0·066). After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunosuppressive drugs, and geographical region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80 to 1·33). We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressive drugs. Quantitative bias analyses indicated that our observed associations were robust to missing information for additional biologic treatments for rheumatological disease. We observed similar associations with the negative control outcome of non-COVID-19 mortality., Interpretation: We found no evidence of a difference in COVID-19 mortality among people who received hydroxychloroquine for treatment of rheumatological disease before the COVID-19 outbreak in England. Therefore, completion of randomised trials investigating pre-exposure prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe outcomes from COVID-19 are warranted., Funding: Medical Research Council., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)