Recording COVID-19 consultations : review of symptoms, risk factors, and proposed SNOMED CT terms

Background There is an urgent need for epidemiological research in primary care to develop risk assessment processes for patients presenting with COVID-19, but lack of a standardised approach to data collection is a significant barrier to implementation. Aim To collate a list of relevant symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19, and match these data items with corresponding SNOMED CT clinical terms to support the development and implementation of consultation templates. Design & setting Published and preprint literature for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines describing the symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and/or lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19 and its complications were reviewed. Corresponding clinical concepts from SNOMED CT, a widely used structured clinical vocabulary for electronic primary care health records, were identified. Method Guidelines and published and unpublished reviews (N = 61) were utilised to collate a list of relevant data items for COVID-19 consultations. The NHS Digital SNOMED CT Browser was used to identify concept and descriptive identifiers. Key implementation challenges were conceptualised through a Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) lens. Results In total, 32 symptoms, eight demographic and lifestyle features, 25 health conditions, and 20 assessment items relevant to COVID-19 were identified, with proposed corresponding SNOMED CT concepts. These data items can be adapted into a consultation template for COVID-19. Key implementation challenges include: 1) engaging with key stakeholders to achieve ’buy in’; and 2) ensuring any template is usable within practice settings. Conclusion Consultation templates for COVID-19 are needed to standardise data collection, facilitate research and learning, and potentially improve quality of care for COVID-19.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Lifestyle modifications and nonpharmacologic interventions to improve outcomes in psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review

Purpose Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a multisystem inflammatory disorder associated with significant mortality and morbidity, including functional impairment and psychological disability. Although evidence-based treatment recommendations are available for the use of drug treatments in PsA, there is little guidance for health professionals on nonpharmacologic and psychological interventions that may be useful in PsA. The objective of this systematic review (SR) was to identify how lifestyle modifications and the use of nonpharmacologic and psychological interventions may improve the outcomes of patients with PsA. Methods Studies were included if they evaluated adults diagnosed with PsA and included exposure to nonpharmacologic interventions, psychological interventions, and lifestyle modifications. The outcomes used needed to have been validated in PsA. A systematic literature search was run on May 28, 2021, in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases to identify articles related to lifestyle modifications and nonpharmacologic or psychological interventions for adults with PsA published between 2010 and 2021. Two review authors independently screened and selected full-text studies for inclusion in the SR. Risk of bias was assessed with either the Risk of Bias 2 (ie, RoB 2) tool or Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist depending on the study type. Findings The search strategy identified 26,132 references. Eight studies examining lifestyle modifications and the effect on PsA were eligible to be included in the SR. Three of the 8 studies were randomized controlled trials, and 5 were nonrandomized studies. Three studies assessed physical activity, 3 assessed diet, 1 study assessed smoking, and another study assessed mud bath therapy. There was large heterogeneity between studies, and the measures of disease activity, and psychological and functional outcomes varied widely between studies. Implications Although this SR identified 8 relevant studies, these studies did not provide high-quality evidence to guide patients for non-drug treatments of PsA. The effectiveness of these interventions has therefore not been established. We found that physical activity seems to have a positive impact on disease activity and psychological well-being. Further well-designed research studies are needed to develop treatment recommendations. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42021257404

In-pandemic development of an application ontology for COVID-19 surveillance in a primary care sentinel network

Background: Creating an ontology for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surveillance should help ensure transparency and consistency. Ontologies formalise conceptualisations at either domain or application level. Application ontologies cross domains and are specified through testable use cases. Our use case was extension of the role of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) to monitor the current pandemic and become an in-pandemic research platform. Objective: To develop an application ontology for COVID-19 which can be deployed across the various use case domains of the Oxford- RCGP RSC research and surveillance activities. Methods: We described our domain-specific use case. The actor was the RCGP RSC sentinel network; the system the course of the COVID-19 pandemic; the outcomes the spread and effect of mitigation measures. We used our established three-step method to develop the ontology, separating ontological concept development from code mapping and data extract validation. We developed a coding system–independent COVID-19 case identification algorithm. As there were no gold standard pandemic surveillance ontologies, we conducted a rapid Delphi consensus exercise through the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Primary Health Care Informatics working group and extended networks. Results: Our use case domains included primary care, public health, virology, clinical research and clinical informatics. Our ontology supported: (1) Case identification, microbiological sampling and health outcomes at both an individual practice and national level; (2) Feedback through a dashboard; (3) A national observatory, (4) Regular updates for Public Health England, and (5) Transformation of the sentinel network to be a trial platform. We have identified a total of 8,627 people with a definite COVID-19 status, 4,240 with probable, and 59,147 people with possible COVID-19, within the RCGP RSC network (N=5,056,075). Conclusions: The underpinning structure of our ontological approach has coped with multiple clinical coding challenges. At a time when there is uncertainty about international comparisons, clarity about the basis on which case definitions and outcomes are made from routine data is essential

Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study

EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Scottish Government's director-general of Health and Social Care. FDRH acknowledges part support from the National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. SVK acknowledges funding from an NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13).Background The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19.  Methods We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19—EAVE II—database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1–adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine.  Findings Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination).  Interpretation Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding.  Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK.proofPeer reviewe

First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis : a pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland, and Wales

Funding: 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_20029, AS). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (https://mrc.ukri.org/) (UKRI MC_PC 19075, AS) with the support of BREATHE, The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004, AS), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. This work was supported by the Con-COV team funded by the Medical Research Council (grant number: MR/V028367/1, RL). This work was supported by Health Data Research UK, which receives its funding from HDR UK Ltd (HDR-9006, RL) 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 the ADR Wales programme of work (https://www.adruk.org/). ADR Wales is part of the Economic and Social Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation) funded ADR UK (grant ES/S007393/1, RL). SVK acknowledges funding from NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02, SVK), the MRC (MC_UU_00022/2, SVK), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17, SVK).Background : Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales. Methods and findings : We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates. Conclusions : In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk–benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Investigating the uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines : protocol for an observational study using linked UK national data

Funding: 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 (HDRUK2020.146). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19075) and supported by the Scottish Government. This work is supported by BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004). BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. ConCOV is supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/V028367/1); Health Data Research UK (HDR-9006) which receives its funding from 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; and Administrative Data Research UK which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant ES/S007393/1).Introduction : The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which emerged in December 2019, has caused millions of deaths and severe illness worldwide. Numerous vaccines are currently under development of which a few have now been authorised for population-level administration by several countries. As of 20 September 2021, over 48 million people have received their first vaccine dose and over 44 million people have received their second vaccine dose across the UK. We aim to assess the uptake rates, effectiveness, and safety of all currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the UK. Methods and analysis : We will use prospective cohort study designs to assess vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety against clinical outcomes and deaths. Test-negative case–control study design will be used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Self-controlled case series and retrospective cohort study designs will be carried out to assess vaccine safety against mild-to-moderate and severe adverse events, respectively. Individual-level pseudonymised data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory test and death records will be linked and analysed in secure research environments in each UK nation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models will be carried out to estimate vaccine uptake levels in relation to various population characteristics. VE estimates against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection will be generated using a generalised additive logistic model. Time-dependent Cox models will be used to estimate the VE against clinical outcomes and deaths. The safety of the vaccines will be assessed using logistic regression models with an offset for the length of the risk period. Where possible, data will be meta-analysed across the UK nations. Ethics and dissemination : We obtained approvals from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (12/SS/0201), the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage independent Information Governance Review Panel project number 0911. Concerning English data, University of Oxford is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation and the National Health Service (NHS) Digital Data Security and Protection Policy. This is an approved study (Integrated Research Application ID 301740, Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee 21/HRA/2786). The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub meets NHS Digital’s Data Security and Protection Toolkit requirements. In Northern Ireland, the project was approved by the Honest Broker Governance Board, project number 0064. Findings will be made available to national policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe