Towards mitigating health inequity via machine learning: a nationwide cohort study to develop and validate ethnicity-specific models for prediction of cardiovascular disease risk in COVID-19 patients

Background Emerging data-driven technologies in healthcare, such as risk prediction models, hold great promise but also pose challenges regarding potential bias and exacerbation of existing health inequalities, which have been observed across diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and COVID-19. This study addresses the impact of ethnicity in risk prediction modelling for cardiovascular events following SARS-CoV-2 infection and explores the potential of ethnicity-specific models to mitigate disparities. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilises six linked datasets accessed through National Health Service (NHS) England’s Secure Data Environment (SDE) service for England, via the BHF Data Science Centre’s CVD-COVID-UK/COVID-IMPACT Consortium. Inclusion criteria were established, and demographic information, risk factors, and ethnicity categories were defined. Four feature selection methods (LASSO, Random Forest, XGBoost, QRISK) were employed and ethnicity-specific prediction models were trained and tested using logistic regression. Discrimination (AUROC) and calibration performance were assessed for different populations and ethnicity groups. Findings Several differences were observed in the models trained on the whole study cohort vs ethnicity-specific groups. At the feature selection stage, ethnicity-specific models yielded different selected features. AUROC discrimination measures showed consistent performance across most ethnicity groups, with QRISK-based models performing relatively poorly. Calibration performance exhibited variation across ethnicity groups and age categories. Ethnicity-specific models demonstrated the potential to enhance calibration performance for certain ethnic groups. Interpretation This research highlights the importance of considering ethnicity in risk prediction modelling to ensure equitable healthcare outcomes. Differences in selected features and asymmetric calibration across ethnicities underscore the necessity of tailored approaches. Ethnicity-specific models offer a pathway to addressing disparities and improving model performance. The study emphasises the role of data-driven technologies in either alleviating or exacerbating existing health inequalities. Evidence before this study Research has suggested that SARS-CoV-2 infections may have prognostic value in predicting later cardiovascular disease outcomes, two diseases where ethnicity-based health inequalities have been observed. Existing health inequalities are at risk of being exacerbated by bias in emerging data-driven technologies such as risk prediction models, and there currently exists no recommended practice to mitigate this issue. Model performances are not typically stratified by ethnic groups and, if reported, ethnic groups are often only included in higher-level categories that have been criticised for simplicity of definition and for missing key ethnic heterogeneity

Understanding covid-19 outcomes among people with intellectual disabilities in England

Background: Evidence from the UK from the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic showed that people with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) had higher rates of covid-19 mortality than people without ID. However, estimates of the magnitude of risk vary widely; different studies used different time periods; and only early stages of the pandemic have been analysed. Existing analyses of risk factors have also been limited. The objective of this study was to investigate covid-19 mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, and risk factors in people with ID in England up to the end of 2021. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of all people with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or death involving covid-19. Datasets covering primary care, secondary care, covid-19 tests and vaccinations, prescriptions, and deaths were linked at individual level. Results: Covid-19 carries a disproportionately higher risk of death for people with ID, above their already higher risk of dying from other causes, in comparison to those without ID. Around 2,000 people with ID had a death involving covid-19 in England up to the end of 2021; approximately 1 in 180. The covid-19 standardized mortality ratio was 5.6 [95% CI 5.4, 5.9]. People with ID were also more likely to be hospitalised for covid-19 than people without ID. The main determinants of severe covid-19 outcomes (deaths and/or hospitalisations) in both populations were age, multimorbidity and vaccination status. The key factor responsible for the higher risk of severe covid-19 in the ID population was a much higher prevalence of multimorbidity in this population. AstraZeneca vaccine was slightly less effective in preventing severe covid-19 outcomes among people with ID than among people without ID. Conclusions: People with ID should be considered a priority group in future pandemics, such as shielding and vaccinations

Vaccinations, cardiovascular drugs, hospitalisation and mortality in COVID-19 and Long COVID.

OBJECTIVE: To identify highest-risk subgroups for COVID-19 and Long COVID(LC), particularly in contexts of influenza and cardiovascular disease(CVD). METHODS: Using national, linked electronic health records for England(NHS England Secure Data Environment via CVD-COVID-UK/COVID-IMPACT Consortium), we studied individuals(of all ages) with COVID-19 and LC (2020-2023). We compared all-cause hospitalisation and mortality by prior CVD, high CV risk, vaccination status(COVID-19/influenza), and CVD drugs, investigating impact of vaccination and CVD prevention using population preventable fractions. RESULTS: Hospitalisation and mortality were 15.3% and 2.0% among 17,373,850 individuals with COVID-19(LC rate 1.3%), and 16.8% and 1.4% among 301,115 with LC. Adjusted risk of mortality and hospitalisation were reduced with COVID-19 vaccination≥2 doses(COVID-19:HR 0.36 and 0.69; LC:0.44 and 0.90). With influenza vaccination, mortality was reduced, but not hospitalisation(COVID-19:0.86 and 1.01, and LC:0.72 and 1.05). Mortality and hospitalisation were reduced by CVD prevention in those with CVD, e.g. anticoagulants- COVID:19:0.69 and 0.92; LC:0.59 and 0.88; lipid lowering- COVID-19:0.69 and 0.86; LC:0.68 and 0.90. COVID-19 vaccination averted 245044 of 321383 and 7586 of 8738 preventable deaths after COVID-19 and LC, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Prior CVD and high CV risk are associated with increased hospitalisation and mortality in COVID-19 and LC. Targeted COVID-19 vaccination and CVD prevention are priority interventions. FUNDING: NIHR. HDR UK

Vaccinations, cardiovascular drugs, hospitalization, and mortality in COVID-19 and Long COVID

Objective: To identify highest-risk subgroups for COVID-19 and Long COVID(LC), particularly in contexts of influenza and cardiovascular disease(CVD). Methods: Using national, linked electronic health records for England (NHS England Secure Data Environment via CVD-COVID-UK/COVID-IMPACT Consortium), we studied individuals (of all ages) with COVID-19 and LC (2020-2023). We compared all-cause hospitalization and mortality by prior CVD, high CV risk, vaccination status (COVID-19/influenza), and CVD drugs, investigating impact of vaccination and CVD prevention using population preventable fractions. Results: Hospitalization and mortality were 15.3% and 2.0% among 17,373,850 individuals with COVID-19 (LC rate 1.3%), and 16.8% and 1.4% among 301,115 with LC. Adjusted risk of mortality and hospitalization were reduced with COVID-19 vaccination ≥ 2 doses(COVID-19:HR 0.36 and 0.69; LC:0.44 and 0.90). With influenza vaccination, mortality was reduced, but not hospitalization (COVID-19:0.86 and 1.01, and LC:0.72 and 1.05). Mortality and hospitalization were reduced by CVD prevention in those with CVD, e.g., anticoagulants- COVID:19:0.69 and 0.92; LC:0.59 and 0.88; lipid lowering- COVID-19:0.69 and 0.86; LC:0.68 and 0.90. COVID-19 vaccination averted 245044 of 321383 and 7586 of 8738 preventable deaths after COVID-19 and LC, respectively. Interpretation: Prior CVD and high CV risk are associated with increased hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19 and LC. Targeted COVID-19 vaccination and CVD prevention are priority interventions. Funding: NIHR. HDR UK.</p

Hospital admissions linked to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents: cohort study of 3.2 million first ascertained infections in England.

Peer reviewed: TrueAcknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge all data providers who make health relevant data available for research.Funder: British Heart Foundation; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000274Funder: UK Research and Innovation; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014013OBJECTIVE: To describe hospital admissions associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents. DESIGN: Cohort study of 3.2 million first ascertained SARS-CoV-2 infections using electronic health care record data. SETTING: England, July 2020 to February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: About 12 million children and adolescents (age <18 years) who were resident in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ascertainment of a first SARS-CoV-2 associated hospital admissions: due to SARS-CoV-2, with SARS-CoV-2 as a contributory factor, incidental to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and hospital acquired SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: 3 226 535 children and adolescents had a recorded first SARS-CoV-2 infection during the observation period, and 29 230 (0.9%) infections involved a SARS-CoV-2 associated hospital admission. The median length of stay was 2 (interquartile range 1-4) days) and 1710 of 29 230 (5.9%) SARS-CoV-2 associated admissions involved paediatric critical care. 70 deaths occurred in which covid-19 or paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome was listed as a cause, of which 55 (78.6%) were in participants with a SARS-CoV-2 associated hospital admission. SARS-CoV-2 was the cause or a contributory factor in 21 000 of 29 230 (71.8%) participants who were admitted to hospital and only 380 (1.3%) participants acquired infection as an inpatient and 7855 (26.9%) participants were admitted with incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection. Boys, younger children (<5 years), and those from ethnic minority groups or areas of high deprivation were more likely to be admitted to hospital (all P<0.001). The covid-19 vaccination programme in England has identified certain conditions as representing a higher risk of admission to hospital with SARS-CoV-2: 11 085 (37.9%) of participants admitted to hospital had evidence of such a condition, and a further 4765 (16.3%) of participants admitted to hospital had a medical or developmental health condition not included in the vaccination programme's list. CONCLUSIONS: Most SARS-CoV-2 associated hospital admissions in children and adolescents in England were due to SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2 was a contributory factor. These results should inform future public health initiatives and research

Harmonising electronic health records for reproducible research: challenges, solutions and recommendations from a UK-wide COVID-19 research collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The CVD-COVID-UK consortium was formed to understand the relationship between COVID-19 and cardiovascular diseases through analyses of harmonised electronic health records (EHRs) across the four UK nations. Beyond COVID-19, data harmonisation and common approaches enable analysis within and across independent Trusted Research Environments. Here we describe the reproducible harmonisation method developed using large-scale EHRs in Wales to accommodate the fast and efficient implementation of cross-nation analysis in England and Wales as part of the CVD-COVID-UK programme. We characterise current challenges and share lessons learnt. METHODS: Serving the scope and scalability of multiple study protocols, we used linked, anonymised individual-level EHR, demographic and administrative data held within the SAIL Databank for the population of Wales. The harmonisation method was implemented as a four-layer reproducible process, starting from raw data in the first layer. Then each of the layers two to four is framed by, but not limited to, the characterised challenges and lessons learnt. We achieved curated data as part of our second layer, followed by extracting phenotyped data in the third layer. We captured any project-specific requirements in the fourth layer. RESULTS: Using the implemented four-layer harmonisation method, we retrieved approximately 100 health-related variables for the 3.2 million individuals in Wales, which are harmonised with corresponding variables for > 56 million individuals in England. We processed 13 data sources into the first layer of our harmonisation method: five of these are updated daily or weekly, and the rest at various frequencies providing sufficient data flow updates for frequent capturing of up-to-date demographic, administrative and clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented an efficient, transparent, scalable, and reproducible harmonisation method that enables multi-nation collaborative research. With a current focus on COVID-19 and its relationship with cardiovascular outcomes, the harmonised data has supported a wide range of research activities across the UK

Ethnicity data resource in population-wide health records: completeness, coverage and granularity of diversity.

Acknowledgements: The British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre (grant No SP/19/3/34678, awarded to Health Data Research (HDR) UK), funded co-development (with NHS England) of the Secure Data Environment service for England, provision of linked datasets, data access, user software licences, computational usage, and data management and wrangling support, with additional contributions from the HDR UK Data and Connectivity component of the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s National Core Studies programme to coordinate national COVID-19 priority research. Consortium partner organisations funded the time of contributing data analysts, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and clinicians. The authors acknowledge English language editing by Dr Jennifer A de Beyer and Amelia M Doran, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford. This work was carried out with the support of the BHF Data Science Centre led by HDR UK (BHF Grant no. SP/19/3/34678). This study made use of de-identified data held in NHS England’s Secure Data Environment service for England and made available via the BHF Data Science Centre’s CVD-COVID-UK/COVID-IMPACT consortium. This work used data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. We would like to acknowledge all data providers who make health relevant data available for research. This research is part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC_PC_20058). This work was also supported by The Alan Turing Institute via ‘Towards Turing 2.0’ EPSRC Grant Funding. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or report writing.Funder: UKRI (UK Research and Innovation), grant ref MC_PC_20058Funder: UCL UKRI Centre for Doctoral Training in AI-enabled Healthcare studentship, gran ref EP/S021612/1Funder: Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), grant ref HDR-9006.Intersectional social determinants including ethnicity are vital in health research. We curated a population-wide data resource of self-identified ethnicity data from over 60 million individuals in England primary care, linking it to hospital records. We assessed ethnicity data in terms of completeness, consistency, and granularity and found one in ten individuals do not have ethnicity information recorded in primary care. By linking to hospital records, ethnicity data were completed for 94% of individuals. By reconciling SNOMED-CT concepts and census-level categories into a consistent hierarchy, we organised more than 250 ethnicity sub-groups including and beyond "White", "Black", "Asian", "Mixed" and "Other, and found them to be distributed in proportions similar to the general population. This large observational dataset presents an algorithmic hierarchy to represent self-identified ethnicity data collected across heterogeneous healthcare settings. Accurate and easily accessible ethnicity data can lead to a better understanding of population diversity, which is important to address disparities and influence policy recommendations that can translate into better, fairer health for all

Ethnicity data resource in population-wide health records: completeness, coverage and granularity of diversity

Abstract Intersectional social determinants including ethnicity are vital in health research. We curated a population-wide data resource of self-identified ethnicity data from over 60 million individuals in England primary care, linking it to hospital records. We assessed ethnicity data in terms of completeness, consistency, and granularity and found one in ten individuals do not have ethnicity information recorded in primary care. By linking to hospital records, ethnicity data were completed for 94% of individuals. By reconciling SNOMED-CT concepts and census-level categories into a consistent hierarchy, we organised more than 250 ethnicity sub-groups including and beyond “White”, “Black”, “Asian”, “Mixed” and “Other, and found them to be distributed in proportions similar to the general population. This large observational dataset presents an algorithmic hierarchy to represent self-identified ethnicity data collected across heterogeneous healthcare settings. Accurate and easily accessible ethnicity data can lead to a better understanding of population diversity, which is important to address disparities and influence policy recommendations that can translate into better, fairer health for all

Association of COVID-19 With Major Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Diseases: A Population-Wide Cohort Study of 48 Million Adults in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) induces a prothrombotic state, but long-term effects of COVID-19 on incidence of vascular diseases are unclear. METHODS: We studied vascular diseases after COVID-19 diagnosis in population-wide anonymized linked English and Welsh electronic health records from January 1 to December 7, 2020. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios comparing the incidence of arterial thromboses and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) after diagnosis of COVID-19 with the incidence in people without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses by COVID-19 severity, demographic characteristics, and previous history. RESULTS: Among 48 million adults, 125 985 were hospitalized and 1 319 789 were not hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. In England, there were 260 279 first arterial thromboses and 59 421 first VTEs during 41.6 million person-years of follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratios for first arterial thrombosis after COVID-19 diagnosis compared with no COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 21.7 (95% CI, 21.0-22.4) in week 1 after COVID-19 diagnosis to 1.34 (95% CI, 1.21-1.48) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios for first VTE after COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 33.2 (95% CI, 31.3-35.2) in week 1 to 1.80 (95% CI, 1.50-2.17) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios were higher, for longer after diagnosis, after hospitalized versus nonhospitalized COVID-19, among Black or Asian versus White people, and among people without versus with a previous event. The estimated whole-population increases in risk of arterial thromboses and VTEs 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.5% and 0.25%, respectively, corresponding to 7200 and 3500 additional events, respectively, after 1.4 million COVID-19 diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: High relative incidence of vascular events soon after COVID-19 diagnosis declines more rapidly for arterial thromboses than VTEs. However, incidence remains elevated up to 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis. These results support policies to prevent severe COVID-19 by means of COVID-19 vaccines, early review after discharge, risk factor control, and use of secondary preventive agents in high-risk patients.This work was funded by the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing COVID-19 National Core Study, which was established by the UK Chief Scientific Officer in October 2020 and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant references MC_PC_20030 and MC_PC_20059), by the British Heart Foundation as part of the BHF Data Science Centre led by HDR UK (BHF grant number SP/19/3/34678), and by the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation(grant reference MC_PC_20058). This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. We would also like to acknowledge all data providers who make anonymised data available for research. This work was supported by the Con-COV team funded by the Medical Research Council (grant number: MR/V028367/1). This work was supported by Health Data Research UK, which receives its funding from HDR UK Ltd (HDR-9006) funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Wellcome Trust. This work was supported by core funding from the: British Heart Foundation (BHF; RG/13/13/30194; RG/18/13/33946), BHF Cambridge CRE (RE/13/6/30180) and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014) [*]. This work was supported by the ADR Wales programme of work. The ADR Wales programme of work is aligned to the priority themes as identified in the Welsh Government’s national strategy: Prosperity for All. ADR Wales brings together data science experts at Swansea University Medical School, staff from the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods (WISERD) at Cardiff University and specialist teams within the Welsh Government to develop new evidence which supports Prosperity for All by using the SAIL Databank at Swansea University, to link and analyse anonymised data. ADR Wales is part of the Economic and Social Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation) funded ADR UK (grant ES/S007393/1). This work was supported by the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, funded by Health and Care Research Wales. SI was funded by a BHF-Turing Cardiovascular Data Science Award (BCDSA\100005) and is funded by a University College London FB Cancer Research UK Award (C18081/A31373). RK, JAC and JACS were supported by the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre. RK, VW GDS were supported by the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol. RK was supported by NIHR ARC West. RD and JACS were supported by Health Data Research UK. SK is funded by the NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics (NIHR BTRU-2014-10024). TM was funded by the NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics (NIHR BTRU-2014-10024). AMW is part of the BigData@Heart Consortium, funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative-2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 116074 and was supported by the BHF-Turing Cardiovascular Data Science Award (BCDSA\100005). WW is supported by the Chief Scientist’s Office (CAF/01/17). CS, CS, MB AW and WW are supported by Stroke Association (SA CV 20\100018)