Search

Elizabeth I Adesanya,1 Alasdair D Henderson,1 Julian Matthewman,1 Ketaki Bhate,1 Joseph F Hayes,2 Amy Mulick,1 Rohini Mathur,1 Catherine Smith,3 Helena Carreira,1 Sujit D Rathod,4 Sinéad M Langan,1 Kathryn E Mansfield1 1Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; 2Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK; 3St John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guys and St Thomas’ Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, UK; 4Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UKCorrespondence: Elizabeth I Adesanya, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK, Email elizabeth.adesanya@lshtm.ac.ukBackground: Existing research exploring associations between atopic eczema (AE) or psoriasis, and severe mental illness (SMI – ie, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, other psychoses) is limited, with longitudinal evidence particularly scarce. Therefore, temporal directions of associations are unclear. We aimed to investigate associations between AE or psoriasis and incident SMI among adults.Methods: We conducted matched cohort studies using primary care electronic health records (January 1997 to January 2020) from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD. We identified two cohorts: 1) adults (≥ 18 years) with and without AE and 2) adults with and without psoriasis. We matched (on age, sex, general practice) adults with AE or psoriasis with up to five adults without. We used Cox regression, stratified by matched set, to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) comparing incident SMI among adults with and without AE or psoriasis.Results: We identified 1,023,232 adults with AE and 4,908,059 without, and 363,210 with psoriasis and 1,801,875 without. After adjusting for matching variables (age, sex, general practice) and potential confounders (deprivation, calendar period) both AE and psoriasis were associated with at least a 17% increased hazard of SMI (AE: HR=1.17,95% CI=1.12– 1.22; psoriasis: HR=1.26,95% CI=1.18– 1.35). After additionally adjusting for potential mediators (comorbidity burden, harmful alcohol use, smoking status, body mass index, and, in AE only, sleep problems and high-dose glucocorticoids), associations with SMI did not persist for AE (HR=0.98,95% CI=0.93– 1.04), and were attenuated for psoriasis (HR=1.14,95% CI=1.05– 1.23).Conclusion: Our findings suggest adults with AE or psoriasis are at increased risk of SMI compared to matched comparators. After adjusting for potential mediators, associations with SMI did not persist for AE, and were attenuated for psoriasis, suggesting that the increased risk may be explained by mediating factors (eg, sleep problems). Our research highlights the importance of monitoring mental health in adults with AE or psoriasis.Keywords: epidemiology, dermatology, psychology

Background: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and on immune-modifying drugs might not be fully mediated by comorbidities and might vary by factors such as ethnicity. We aimed to assess the risk of severe COVID-19 in adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and in those on immune-modifying therapies. Methods: We did a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY (an analytics platform for electronic health records) and TPP (a software provider for general practitioners), analysing routinely collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death, and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We included people aged 18 years or older on March 1, 2020, who were registered with TPP practices with at least 12 months of primary care records before March, 2020. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders and mediators) to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) comparing the risk of COVID-19-related death, critical care admission or death, and hospital admission (from March 1 to Sept 30, 2020) in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with the general population, and in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on targeted immune-modifying drugs (eg, biologics) compared with those on standard systemic treatment (eg, methotrexate). Findings: We identified 17 672 065 adults; 1 163 438 adults (640 164 [55·0%] women and 523 274 [45·0%] men, and 827 457 [71·1%] of White ethnicity) had immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and 16 508 627 people (8 215 020 [49·8%] women and 8 293 607 [50·2%] men, and 10 614 096 [64·3%] of White ethnicity) were included as the general population. Of 1 163 438 adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, 19 119 (1·6%) received targeted immune-modifying therapy and 181 694 (15·6%) received standard systemic therapy. Compared with the general population, adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, and smoking status; HR 1·23, 95% CI 1·20-1·27) and further adjusting for mediators (body-mass index [BMI], cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and current glucocorticoid use; 1·15, 1·11-1·18). Adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases also had an increased risk of COVID-19-related critical care admission or death (confounder-adjusted HR 1·24, 95% CI 1·21-1·28; mediator-adjusted 1·16, 1·12-1·19) and hospital admission (confounder-adjusted 1·32, 1·29-1·35; mediator-adjusted 1·20, 1·17-1·23). In post-hoc analyses, the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases was higher in non-White ethnic groups than in White ethnic groups (as it was in the general population). We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults on targeted, compared with those on standard systemic, therapy after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, BMI, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [bowel, joint, and skin], cardiovascular disease, cancer [excluding non-melanoma skin cancer], stroke, and diabetes (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80-1·33), and after additionally adjusting for current glucocorticoid use (1·01, 0·78-1·30). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults prescribed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-12/IL‑23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, or Janus kinase inhibitors compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19-related death (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·11-2·56), with some attenuation after excluding people with haematological malignancies or organ transplants (1·54, 0·95-2·49). Interpretation: COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions were higher in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune-modifying drugs for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Funding: UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, and Wellcome Trust.

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, “high-cost drugs” (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed; drug name; and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

BackgroundIt is unclear if people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) (joint, bowel and skin) and on immune modifying therapy have increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we conducted a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY, analysingroutinely-collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders) to estimate hazard ratios (HR) comparing risk of COVID-19-death, death/critical care admission, and hospitalisation (March to September 2020) in: 1) people with IMIDs compared to the general population; and 2) people with IMIDs on targeted immune modifying drugs (e.g., biologics) compared to standard systemic treatment (e.g., methotrexate).FindingsWe identified 17,672,065 adults; of 1,163,438 (7%) with IMIDs, 19,119 people received targeted immune modifying drugs, and 200,813 received standard systemics. We saw evidence of increased COVID-19-death (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27), and COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35) in individuals with IMIDs overall compared to individuals without IMIDs of the same age, sex, deprivation and smoking status. We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19 deaths with targeted compared to standard systemic treatments (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.80, 1.33). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in those prescribed TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23, IL7, IL-6 or JAK inhibitors compared to standard systemics. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19 death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56); however, this finding may relate to confounding.InterpretationCOVID-19 death and hospitalisation was higher in people with IMIDs. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune modifying drugs for IMIDs compared to standard systemics.RESEARCH IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed on May 19th, 2021, using the terms “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2” and “rheumatoid arthritis”, “psoriatic arthritis” “ankylosing spondylitis”, “Crohn’s disease” “ulcerative colitis” “hidradenitis suppurativa” and “psoriasis”, to identify primary research articles examining severe COVID-19 outcome risk in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and those on immune modifying therapy. The studies identified (including matched cohort studies and studies in disease-specific registries) were limited by small sample sizes and number of outcomes. Most studies did not show a signal of increased adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on targeted therapies, with the exception of rituximab. Additionally, disease-specific registries are subject to selection bias and lack denominator populations.Added value of the studyIn our large population-based study of 17 million individuals, including 1 million people with IMIDs and just under 200,000 receiving immune modifying medications, we saw evidence that people with IMIDs had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared to the general population after adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, deprivation, smoking status) (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27). We saw differences by IMID type, with COVID-19-related death being increased by the most in people with inflammatory joint disease (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.40, 1.54). We also saw some evidence that those with IMIDs were more likely, compared to the general population, to have COVID-19-related critical care admission/death (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.21, 1.28) and hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35).Compared to people with IMIDs taking standard systemics, we saw no evidence of differences in severe COVID-19-related outcomes with TNF inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors and JAK inhibitors. However, there was some evidence that rituximab was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56) and death/critical care admission (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.31, 2.81). We also saw evidence of an increase in COVID-19-related hospital admissions in people prescribed rituximab (HR 1.59, 95%CI 1.16, 2.18) or JAK inhibition (HR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09, 3.01) compared to those on standard systemics, although this could be related to worse underlying health rather than the drugs themselves, and numbers of events were small.This is the first study to our knowledge to use high-cost drug data on medicines supplied by hospitals at a national scale in England (to identify targeted therapies). The availability of these data fills an important gap in the medication record of those with more specialist conditions treated by hospitals creating an important opportunity to generate insights to these conditions and these medicationsImplications of all of the available evidenceOur study offers insights into future risk mitigation strategies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination priorities for individuals with IMIDs, as it highlights that those with IMIDs and those taking rituximab may be at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Critically, our study does not show a link between most targeted immune modifying medications compared to standard systemics and severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, the increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes that we saw in people with IMIDs and those treated with rituximab merits further study.

Background: Evidence suggests adults with atopic eczema have increased fracture risk. However, it is unclear whether oral corticosteroids explain the association. Objective: To assess to what extent oral corticosteroids mediate the relationship between atopic eczema and fractures. Methods: We conducted a cohort study using English primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and hospital admissions (Hospital Episode Statistics) records (1998-2016) including adults (18+) with atopic eczema matched (age, sex, and general practice) with up to five adults without atopic eczema. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for specific major osteoporotic fractures (hip, spine, pelvis, wrist) and for any-site fracture comparing individuals with atopic eczema to those without, adjusting for six different definitions of time-updated oral corticosteroid use (ever any prescription, ever high dose, and recent, cumulative, current or peak dose). Results: We identified 526,808 individuals with atopic eczema and 2,569,030 without. We saw evidence of an association between atopic eczema and major osteoporotic fractures (e.g., spine HR 1.15 99%CI 1.08–1.22; hip HR 1.11 99%CI 1.08–1.15) that remained after additionally adjusting for oral corticosteroids (e.g., cumulative corticosteroid dose: spine HR 1.09 99%CI 1.03–1.16; hip HR 1.09 99%CI 1.06–1.12). Fracture rates were higher in people with severe atopic eczema compared to people without even after adjusting for oral corticosteroids (e.g., spine HR [99%CI]: confounder adjusted 2.31 [1.91–2.81]; additionally adjusted for cumulative dose 1.71 [1.40–2.09]). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that little of the association between atopic eczema and major osteoporotic fractures is explained by oral corticosteroid use.

Background Malaria remains a public health issue, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa with special features of seriousness in young children and pregnant women. Adolescents and adults are reported to have acquired a semi-immune status and, therefore, present with low parasitaemia. Children are understood to present with a much higher parasitaemia and severe malaria. It is a concern that effective malaria control programmes targeting young children may lead to a delay in the acquisition of acquired immunity and, therefore, causing a shift in the epidemiology of malaria. Prevalence and parasitaemia were explored in adolescents and adults with Plasmodium falciparum infections compared to young children in the area of Lambaréné, Gabon as an indicator for semi-immunity. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Centre de Recherches Médicales de Lambaréné (CERMEL) during a 6-month period in 2018. Symptomatic patients, of all ages were screened for malaria at health facilities in Lambaréné and Fougamou and their respective surrounding villages in the central region of Gabon. Plasmodium falciparum infections were determined either by rapid diagnostic test (RDT) or by microscopy. Descriptive analysis of data on parasite densities, anaemia, and fever are presented. Results 1589 individuals screened were included in this analysis, including 731 (46%) adolescents and adults. Out of 1377 assessed, the proportion of P. falciparum positive RDTs was high among adolescents (68%) and adults (44%), compared to young children (55%) and school children (72%). Out of 274 participants assessed for malaria by microscopy, 45 (16%) had a parasite count above 10,000/µl of which 9 (20%) were adults. Conclusion This study shows a high rate of P. falciparum infections in adolescents and adults associated with high-level parasitaemia similar to that of young children. Adolescents and adults seem to be an at-risk population, suggesting that malaria programmes should consider adolescents and adults during the implementation of malaria prevention and case management programmes with continuous care, since they also act as reservoirs for P. falciparum.