Search

Background/Aims During the COVID-19 pandemic rheumatology services were advised to limit face to face contact, with remote telemedicine used instead. Although suitable for some people, issues have been highlighted with telemedicine. The frequency and proportion of remote appointments during the pandemic has not been described, or the socio-demographic characteristics of those accessing remote or in-person rheumatology care. This study aims to describe rheumatology healthcare utilisation and mode of appointment (remote/in-person) in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), prior to, and during the pandemic in England. Methods A retrospective prevalent cohort study of people with RA, identified using a validated algorithm, as of 1st April 2019 using electronic health record data (OpenSAFELY). Outpatient rheumatology appointments between 1st April 2019 and 31st March 2022 were identified. For each year, the number of outpatient appointments, mode of appointment (remote/in-person) and patient socio-demographic characteristics were described. Results 130,884 people with RA were identified. Since the start of the pandemic, the proportion of people without any appointments in a 12-month period increased from 28.5% in 2019/20 to 33.3% in 2020/21 and has not recovered. Older people were most frequently not seen (51% of people >80 years in 2020/21 and 2021/22). Of appointments where mode was known, 54.4% of people with appointments in the year from April 2020 were only seen remotely, reducing to 35.1% in the year from April 2021 (Table 1). The proportion with all remote appointments increased with increasing age, comprising 62% of people >80 years in 2020. This age gradient persisted in 2021, though proportions of those >80 years with all-remote appointments was lower (44%). Compared to urban dwellers, a higher proportion of those living in rural areas had all remote appointments in 2020 (58% vs 53%) and 2021 (38% vs 34%). Conclusion During the pandemic, one third of people with RA were not seen at all over a 12-month period and these were more frequently older people. Over half of people were only seen remotely in 2020, decreasing to one-third in 2021. Given the limitations of remote appointments it is unknown whether this increased frequency of remote appointments will impact long-term outcomes. Disclosure R.E. Costello: Shareholder/stock ownership; AstraZeneca. R.J. Hollick: None. M. Parker: None. J. Kennedy: None. B. Mackenna: None. S. Brophy: None. L. Tomlinson: None. J.H. Humphreys: None.

Background: Treatment for hypertension improves cardiovascular outcomes. Frailty may be present in older people treated for hypertension, but associates with adverse drug effects, potentially including falls resulting in fractures. We aimed to determine the association between baseline frailty and fractures in patients initiated on antihypertensive treatment. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using United Kingdom primary care data, including new users of first-line antihypertensives aged 65 years or over. We reported degree of frailty (fit, mild, moderate, severe) at antihypertensive initiation using the Electronic Frailty Index. We examined the association of frailty with fractures using multivariable Poisson regression, and assessed for interaction between antihypertensive class and frailty. Results: Of 113,779 patients aged 65 years or over who initiated on first-line antihypertensives, 49,634 patients (44%) were mildly or more frail. Over 4.1 years mean follow-up, 6567 (5.8%) experienced a fracture, with 3832 (58%) of these fractures occurring in frail people. Among those with severe frailty, doubling of fracture risk was observed after antihypertensive initiation, compared with fit people [adjusted rate ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93–2.65]. Secondary analyses indicate this pattern was replicated for hip and arm fractures, and strongest for spine fractures, and the association between different types of antihypertensives and fractures varied by frailty (p = 0.004), being lower in moderately frail users of renin-angiotensin blockers compared with calcium channel blockers [rate ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.71–0.94]. Conclusions: Frailty is common among older patients initiating first-line antihypertensive treatment, and was associated with an increased fracture rate. Awareness of this is important to encourage clinicians to consider risk of falls and fractures when treating hypertension.

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), compared in the ONTARGET trial, each prevent CVD. However, trial populations may not be representative of the general population.MethodsUsing trial replication methods within routine-care data, we explored replicability of the ONTARGET trial. For people prescribed an ACEi and/or an ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink CPRD GOLD from 1/1/2001-31/7/2019, we applied trial criteria and propensity-score methods to create an ONTARGET trial-eligible cohort. Comparing ARB to ACEi, using Cox-proportional hazards models, we estimated hazard ratios for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure), as well as secondary outcomes. As the pre-specified criteria were met confirming trial replicability, we then explored treatment effect heterogeneity of ACEi and ARB among three trial-underrepresented subgroups: females, those aged ≥75 years and those with chronic kidney disease.FindingsIn the trial-eligible population (n=137,155), results for the primary outcome met pre-specified criteria for similarity to the ONTARGET trial and demonstrated similar effects of ARB and ACEi, (HR 0.97 [95% CI: 0.93, 1.01]). When extending to trial-underrepresented groups, similar treatment effects of ARB and ACEi were observed by sex (P=0.09), age (P=0.70) and chronic kidney disease status (P=0.10).InterpretationWe were able to replicate the results of the ONTARGET trial using routinely-collected healthcare data. Results suggest that trial findings were generalisable to population subgroups underrepresented in the trial.FundingGlaxoSmithKlineResearch in ContextEvidence before this studyTrial replication is an important methodology increasingly used to validate findings from observational studies against target trials. Unlike many naïve observational comparisons, a previous study demonstrated replicability of the ONTARGET trial using United States insurance claims data. However, it is unknown whether trial replicability can be extended to UK routinely-collected healthcare data. In addition, little work has been done to extend findings of comparative effectiveness among trial-underrepresented subgroups such as women, the elderly and those with chronic kidney disease despite high rates of prescribing of ACE Inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among these groups in routine-care.Added value of this studyWith access to the individual patient data from the ONTARGET study and using propensity-score methods to address confounding, we demonstrated trial replicability using routinely-collected primary care data, representative of a large proportion of the UK population. We were then able to leverage the large sample size of the trial-eligible cohort to extend findings to trial-underrepresented groups and demonstrated similar comparative effectiveness for subgroups of patients treated with ARB and ACEi among women, those aged ≥75 years and those with chronic kidney disease.Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings support similar effectiveness for cardiovascular and renal outcomes for patients receiving an ARB compared to an ACEi in a trial-eligible cohort and subgroups for which there is currently a lack of evidence of treatment effectiveness. Trial-replication methodology can be used to provide evidence for populations underrepresented in clinical trials.

Background Priority patients in England were offered COVID-19 vaccination by mid-April 2021. Codes in clinical record systems can denote the vaccine being declined. Aim We describe records of COVID-19 vaccines being declined, according to clinical and demographic factors. Methods With 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. Results Of 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. Conclusions Clinical 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.

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

BackgroundSince its inception in March 2020, data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP electronic health record platform has been used for more than 50 studies relating to the global COVID-19 emergency. OpenSAFELY-TPP data is derived from practices in England using SystmOne software, and has been used for the majority of these studies. We set out to investigate the representativeness of OpenSAFELY-TPP data by comparing it to national population estimates.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we describe the age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation and ethnicity of the OpenSAFELY-TPP population compared to national estimates from the Office for National Statistics. The five leading causes of death occurring between the 1st January 2020 and the 31st December 2020 were also compared to deaths registered in England during the same period.ResultsDespite regional variations, TPP is largely representative of the general population of England in terms of IMD (all within 1.1 percentage points), age, sex (within 0.1 percentage points), ethnicity and causes of death. The proportion of the five leading causes of death is broadly similar to those reported by ONS (all within 1 percentage point).ConclusionsData made available via OpenSAFELY-TPP is broadly representative of the English population.SummaryUsers of OpenSAFELY must consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research. Although the coverage of TPP practices varies regionally across England, TPP registered patients are generally representative of the English population as a whole in terms of key demographic characteristics.Key messagesThere is regional variability across England in terms of key population characteristicsUsers of OpenSAFELY should carefully consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research.TPP registered patients are a representative sub-sample of the English population as a whole in terms of age, sex, IMD and ethnicity.The proportions of the five leading causes of death in TPP in 2020 are broadly similar to those reported by ONS.

BackgroundThe UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered its first “booster” doses in September 2021, initially in groups at high risk of severe disease then across the adult population. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, with Moderna mRNA-1273 subsequently also used.MethodsWe used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of English primary care practices and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses between 16 September and 16 December 2021 when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Follow up was for up to 10 weeks. Each booster recipient was matched with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior immunisation. Additional factors were adjusted for in Cox models estimating hazard ratios (HRs). Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and non-COVID-9 death. Booster vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1−HR.ResultsAmong 4,352,417 BNT162b2 booster recipients matched with unboosted controls, estimated effectiveness of a booster dose compared with two doses only was 50.7% (95% CI 50.1-51.3) for positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 80.1% (78.3-81.8) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, 88.5% (85.0-91.1) for COVID-19 death, and 80.3% (79.0-81.5) for non-COVID-19 death.Estimated effectiveness was similar among those who had received a BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S two-dose primary vaccination course, but effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was slightly lower in those classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (76.3% (73.1-79.1) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, and 85.1% (79.6-89.1) for COVID-19 death). Estimated effectiveness against each outcome was lower in those aged 18-65 years than in those aged 65 and over.ConclusionOur findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is increasing in prevalence around the world. Accurate estimation of disease severity associated with Omicron is critical for pandemic planning. We found lower risk of accident and emergency (AE) attendance following SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron compared to Delta (HR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.30 – 0.51; PConflicts of InterestsNothing to declare.Funding statementThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1. TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data centre pro bono in the context of a national emergency. Rosalind Eggo is funded by HDR UK (grant: MR/S003975/1), MRC (grant: MC_PC 19065), NIHR (grant: NIHR200908).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The risk–benefit ratio of continuing with renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) after an episode of acute kidney injury (AKI) is unclear. While stopping RASi may prevent recurrent AKI or hyperkalaemia, it may deprive patients of the cardiovascular benefits of using RASi. METHOD We analysed outcomes of long-term RASi users experiencing AKI (stage 2 or 3, or clinically coded) during hospitalization in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2007–2018. We compared stopping RASi within 3 months after discharge with continuing. The primary study outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. Recurrent AKI was our secondary outcome, and we considered hyperkalaemia as a positive control outcome. Propensity score overlap weighted Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios, balancing 75 confounders. Weighted absolute risk differences (ARD) were also determined. RESULTS We included 10 165 individuals, of whom 4429 stopped and 5736 continued RASi, with a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Median age was 78 years, 45% were women, and median kidney function before the index episode of AKI was 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. After weighting, those who stopped had an increased risk [HR, 95% confidence interval (95% CI)] of the composite of death, myocardial infarction and stroke (1.13, 1.07–1.19; ARD 3.7, 95% CI 2.6–4.8) compared with those who continued, a similar risk of recurrent AKI (0.94, 0.84–1.05), and a decreased risk of hyperkalaemia (0.79, 0.71–0.88). CONCLUSION Stopping RASi use among survivors of moderate-to-severe AKI was associated with a similar risk of recurrent AKI, but higher risk of the composite of death, myocardial infarction and stroke.

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.

BackgroundEarly evidence has shown that anticoagulant reduces the risk of thrombotic events in those infected with COVID-19. However, evidence of the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes is limited.AimTo investigate the association between OACs and COVID-19 outcomes in those with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2.Design and settingOn behalf of NHS England, a population-based cohort study was conducted.MethodThe study used primary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19 outcomes comparing people with current OAC use versus non-use, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications, deprivation, and general practice.ResultsOf 71 103 people with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, there were 52 832 current OAC users and 18 271 non-users. No difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with current use (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.04) versus non-use. A lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and a marginally lower risk of COVID-19-related death (aHR, 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04) were associated with current use versus non-use.ConclusionAmong those at low baseline stroke risk, people receiving OACs had a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or unmeasured confounding, including more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk.

The risk-benefit ratio of continuing with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) after an episode of acute kidney injury (AKI) is unclear. While stopping RASi may prevent recurrent AKI or hyperkalaemia, it may deprive patients of the cardiovascular benefits of using RASi.We analysed outcomes of long-term RASi users experiencing AKI (stage 2 or 3, or clinically coded) during hospitalization in Stockholm and Sweden during 2007-18. We compared stopping RASi within 3 months after discharge with continuing RASi. The primary study outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Recurrent AKI was our secondary outcome and we considered hyperkalaemia as a positive control outcome. Propensity score overlap weighted Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), balancing 75 confounders. Weighted absolute risk differences (ARDs) were also determined.We included 10 165 individuals, of whom 4429 stopped and 5736 continued RASi, with a median follow-up of 2.3 years. The median age was 78 years; 45% were women and median kidney function before the index episode of AKI was 55 mL/min/1.73 mStopping RASi use among survivors of moderate-to-severe AKI was associated with a similar risk of recurrent AKI, but higher risk of the composite of death, MI and stroke.

The burden of kidney disease in many African countries is unknown. Equations used to estimate kidney function from serum creatinine have limited regional validation. We sought to determine the most accurate way to measure kidney function and thus estimate the prevalence of impaired kidney function in African populations.We measured serum creatinine, cystatin C, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using the slope-intercept method for iohexol plasma clearance (mGFR) in population cohorts from Malawi, Uganda, and South Africa. We compared performance of creatinine and cystatin C-based estimating equations to mGFR, modelled and validated a new creatinine-based equation, and developed a multiple imputation model trained on the mGFR sample using age, sex, and creatinine as the variables to predict the population prevalence of impaired kidney function in west, east, and southern Africa.Of 3025 people who underwent measured GFR testing (Malawi n=1020, South Africa n=986, and Uganda n=1019), we analysed data for 2578 participants who had complete data and adequate quality measurements. Among 2578 included participants, creatinine-based equations overestimated kidney function compared with mGFR, worsened by use of ethnicity coefficients. The greatest bias occurred at low kidney function, such that the proportion with GFR of less than 60 mL/min per 1·73 mEstimating GFR using serum creatinine substantially underestimates the individual and population-level burden of impaired kidney function in Africa with implications for understanding disease progression and complications, clinical care, and service provision. Scalable and affordable ways to accurately identify impaired kidney function in Africa are urgently needed.The GSK Africa Non-Communicable Disease Open Lab.For the Luganda, Chichewa and Xitsonga translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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., Krishnan Bhaskaran and co-workers study health outcomes after admission with COVID-19 and subsequent discharge., Author summary Why was this study done? - Early studies have suggested that some people infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be at risk of developing health problems in the months after their initial infection. Given high rates of infection in many countries, this is a significant public health concern, but there is currently limited evidence to inform policy. - The aim of this study was to systematically quantify the extent to which people who have been in hospital with COVID-19 may be at higher risk of dying or being readmitted to hospital, either overall or for specific illnesses, compared with people in the general population, and people who have been hospitalised with influenza. What did the researchers do and find? - We used a cohort study design to compare risks of hospitalisation and death, overall and for a range of specific causes, between people who had hospitalised with COVID-19 (n = 24,673), people with similar demographic characteristics in the 2019 general population (n = 123,362), and people who had been hospitalised with influenza in 2017 to 2019 (n = 16,058). - Compared with people in the general population, people who had had a COVID-19 hospitalisation were more than twice as likely to be rehospitalised or die more than a week after discharge, with higher risks overall and for a range of specific causes. - COVID-19 patients had broadly similar or lower risk of several outcomes compared with influenza patients, but risk of death overall, readmissions or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death were higher in COVID-19 patients. What do these findings mean? - Large numbers of people have been hospitalised with COVID-19 during the pandemic, and the raised risks of death and readmission to hospital that we observed in these individuals could significantly impact public health and resources. - Risks might be minimised or mitigated by increasing monitoring of patients in the months following hospital discharge, and greater awareness among patients and clinicians of potential problems.

IntroductionCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally, responsible for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide in 2017. Medications to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events are prescribed based upon evidence from clinical trials which explore treatment effects in an indicated sample of the general population. However, these results may not be fully generalisable because of trial eligibility criteria that generally restrict to younger patients with fewer comorbidities. Therefore, evidence of effectiveness of medications for groups underrepresented in clinical trials such as those over 75 years, from ethnic minority backgrounds or with low kidney function may be limited.The ONTARGET trial studied the effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) separately and in combination on cardiovascular event reduction. Using individual anonymised data from this study, in collaboration with the original trial investigators, we aim to investigate clinical trial replicability within routinely-collected patient data. If the original trial results are replicable, we will assess treatment effects and risk in groups underrepresented and excluded from the original clinical trial.Methods and analysisWe will develop a cohort analogous to the ONTARGET trial within CPRD between 1 January 2001 to 31 July 2019 using the trial eligibility criteria and propensity score matching. The primary outcome, as in the trial, is a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and hospitalisation for congestive heart-failure, examined in a time-to-event analysis. If results from the cohort study fall within pre-specified limits, we will expand the cohort to include those with advanced kidney dysfunction and increase the proportion of elderly participants and those from ethnicity minority backgrounds.We will then compare the risk of adverse events and association with long-term outcomes in the clinical trial, with that seen in a directly comparable sample of those attending NHS primary care.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONSStrengthsLarge cohort study giving power to look at effects within subgroups underrepresented in the clinical trialAccess to individual patient level data from a landmark trial to support creation of a trial-analogous cohortNovelty of studying treatment effects of dual therapy in real-world settingsLimitationsThere may be differences between the trial population and the observational cohort due to the level of detail on inclusion/exclusion criteria provided by the trialDrug-specific effects are unlikely to be able to be investigated due to small numbers in the dual-therapy arm: class-specific effects will be studied insteadMisclassification by primary care coding may lead to inaccurate replication of trial inclusion and exclusion criteria.

This OpenSAFELY report is a routine update of our peer-review paper published in the British Journal of General Practice on the Clinical coding of long COVID in English primary care: a federated analysis of 58 million patient records in situ using OpenSAFELY. It is a routine update of the analysis described in the paper. The data requires careful interpretation and there are a number of caveats. Please read the full detail about our methods and discussionis and the full analytical methods on this routine report are available on GitHub. OpenSAFELY is a new secure analytics platform for electronic patient records built on behalf of NHS England to deliver urgent academic and operational research during the pandemic. You can read more about OpenSAFELY on our website.

Background Many patients receiving dialysis in the USA share the socioeconomic characteristics of underserved communities, and undergo routine monthly laboratory testing, facilitating a practical, unbiased, and repeatable assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence. Methods For this cross-sectional study, in partnership with a central laboratory that receives samples from approximately 1300 dialysis facilities across the USA, we tested the remainder plasma of 28 503 randomly selected adult patients receiving dialysis in July, 2020, using a spike protein receptor binding domain total antibody chemiluminescence assay (100% sensitivity, 99·8% specificity). We extracted data on age, sex, race and ethnicity, and residence and facility ZIP codes from the anonymised electronic health records, linking patient-level residence data with cumulative and daily cases and deaths per 100 000 population and with nasal swab test positivity rates. We standardised prevalence estimates according to the overall US dialysis and adult population, and present estimates for four prespecified strata (age, sex, region, and race and ethnicity). Findings The sampled population had similar age, sex, and race and ethnicity distribution to the US dialysis population, with a higher proportion of older people, men, and people living in majority Black and Hispanic neighbourhoods than in the US adult population. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 8·0% (95% CI 7·7–8·4) in the sample, 8·3% (8·0–8·6) when standardised to the US dialysis population, and 9·3% (8·8–9·9) when standardised to the US adult population. When standardised to the US dialysis population, seroprevalence ranged from 3·5% (3·1–3·9) in the west to 27·2% (25·9–28·5) in the northeast. Comparing seroprevalent and case counts per 100 000 population, we found that 9·2% (8·7–9·8) of seropositive patients were diagnosed. When compared with other measures of SARS-CoV-2 spread, seroprevalence correlated best with deaths per 100 000 population (Spearman's ρ=0·77). Residents of non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic neighbourhoods experienced higher odds of seropositivity (odds ratio 3·9 [95% CI 3·4–4·6] and 2·3 [1·9–2·6], respectively) compared with residents of predominantly non-Hispanic white neighbourhoods. Residents of neighbourhoods in the highest population density quintile experienced increased odds of seropositivity (10·3 [8·7–12·2]) compared with residents of the lowest density quintile. County mobility restrictions that reduced workplace visits by at least 5% in early March, 2020, were associated with lower odds of seropositivity in July, 2020 (0·4 [0·3–0·5]) when compared with a reduction of less than 5%. Interpretation During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer than 10% of the US adult population formed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and fewer than 10% of those with antibodies were diagnosed. Public health efforts to limit SARS-CoV-2 spread need to especially target racial and ethnic minority and densely populated communities. Funding Ascend Clinical Laboratories.

In high-income settings, body mass index (BMI) and measures of central adiposity, such as waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) are associated with cardiometabolic risk, but evidence from low-income settings, particularly sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), is limited. We assessed whether there are differences between central and general adiposity in their associations with fasting glucose, diabetes, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and hypertension, and whether these associations differ with gender or rural/urban setting in Malawi.We used data from a population-based study of 27 880 Malawian adults aged ≥18 years, from both rural and urban areas. We used age-standardized z-scores of the means of BMI and WHR to directly compare their associations with glycaemic and blood pressure outcomes.Mean fasting glucose and blood pressure values and odds of hypertension increased linearly across fifths of BMI and WHR, with stronger associations with BMI. For both BMI and WHR, the associations with outcomes were stronger in urban versus rural residents. The association with diabetes was stronger in women than men, whereas for blood-pressure related outcomes a stronger association was seen in men.BMI is more strongly associated with cardiometabolic risk in SSA, and might be a more useful measure than WHR, in this population. The greater positive association of adiposity with cardiometabolic outcomes in urban residents (where rates of overweight/obesity are already high) highlights the particular importance of addressing obesity within urban SSA populations.

Background Lowering of LDL cholesterol reduces major vascular events, but whether more intensive therapy safely produces extra benefits is uncertain. We aimed to establish efficacy and safety of more intensive statin treatment in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Methods We undertook a double-blind randomised trial in 12 064 men and women aged 18–80 years with a history of myocardial infarction. Participants were either currently on or had clear indication for statin therapy, and had a total cholesterol concentration of at least 3·5 mmol/L if already on a statin or 4·5 mmol/L if not. Randomisation to either 80 mg or 20 mg simvastatin daily was done centrally using a minimisation algorithm. Participants were assessed at 2, 4, 8, and 12 months after randomisation and then every 6 months until final follow-up. The primary endpoint was major vascular events, defined as coronary death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74348595. Findings 6031 participants were allocated 80 mg simvastatin daily, and 6033 allocated 20 mg simvastatin daily. During a mean follow-up of 6·7 (SD 1·5) years, allocation to 80 mg simvastatin produced an average 0·35 (SE 0·01) mmol/L greater reduction in LDL cholesterol compared with allocation to 20 mg. Major vascular events occurred in 1477 (24·5%) participants allocated 80 mg simvastatin versus 1553 (25·7%) of those allocated 20 mg, corresponding to a 6% proportional reduction (risk ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·88–1·01; p=0·10). There were no apparent differences in numbers of haemorrhagic strokes (24 [0·4%] vs 25 [0·4%]) or deaths attributed to vascular (565 [9·4%] vs 572 [9·5%]) or non-vascular (399 [6·6%] vs 398 [6·6%]) causes. Compared with two (0·03%) cases of myopathy in patients taking 20 mg simvastatin daily, there were 53 (0·9%) cases in the 80 mg group. Interpretation The 6% (SE 3·5%) reduction in major vascular events with a further 0·35 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in our trial is consistent with previous trials. Myopathy was increased with 80 mg simvastatin daily, but intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol can be achieved safely with other regimens. Funding Merck; The Clinical Trial Service Unit also receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

Background Many patients with bronchiectasis have recurrent hospitalisations for infective exacerbations. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is known to be associated with increased in-hospital mortality. This study examined the frequency of AKI, associated risk-factors, and the association of AKI with in-hospital mortality among patients with bronchiectasis. Methods Anonymised data of patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, were used to identify hospitalisations with a primary diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), from 2004 to 2013. After estimating the proportion of AKI diagnoses, a multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to investigate which background factors were associated with AKI. In-hospital mortality was compared between hospitalisations with and without an AKI diagnosis, with subsequent logistic regression analyses carried out for the association between AKI and in-hospital mortality. Results Of 7804 hospitalisations due to LRTI observed in 3477 patients with bronchiectasis, 230 hospitalisations involved an AKI diagnosis, an average of 2.9 %. However, the percentage increased from less than 2 % in 2004 to nearly 5 % in 2013. After taking this temporal change into account, AKI was independently associated with older age, male sex, decreased baseline kidney function, previous history of AKI, and a diagnosis of sepsis. In-hospital mortality was 33.0 % (76/230) and 6.8 % (516/7574), in hospitalisations with and without AKI, respectively (P

Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statin therapy results in substantial reductions in cardiovascular events, and larger reductions in cholesterol may produce larger benefits. In rare cases, myopathy occurs in association with statin therapy, especially when the statins are administered at higher doses and with certain other medications. Methods We carried out a genomewide association study using approximately 300,000 markers (and additional fine-mapping) in 85 subjects with definite or incipient myopathy and 90 controls, all of whom were taking 80 mg of simvastatin daily as part of a trial involving 12,000 participants. Replication was tested in a trial of 40 mg of simvastatin daily involving 20,000 participants. Results The genomewide scan yielded a single strong association of myopathy with the rs4363657 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) located within SLCO1B1 on chromosome 12 (P=4x10(-9)). SLCO1B1 encodes the organic anion-transporting polypeptide OATP1B1, which has been shown to regulate the hepatic uptake of statins. The noncoding rs4363657 SNP was in nearly complete linkage disequilibrium with the nonsynonymous rs4149056 SNP (r(2)=0.97), which has been linked to statin metabolism. The prevalence of the rs4149056 C allele in the population was 15%. The odds ratio for myopathy was 4.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 7.7) per copy of the C allele, and 16.9 (95% CI, 4.7 to 61.1) in CC as compared with TT homozygotes. More than 60% of these myopathy cases could be attributed to the C variant. The association of rs4149056 with myopathy was replicated in the trial of 40 mg of simvastatin daily, which also showed an association between rs4149056 and the cholesterol-lowering effects of simvastatin. No SNPs in any other region were clearly associated with myopathy. Conclusions We have identified common variants in SLCO1B1 that are strongly associated with an increased risk of statin-induced myopathy. Genotyping these variants may help to achieve the benefits of statin therapy more safely and effectively. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN74348595.)