Risk of COVID-19 death in adults who received booster COVID-19 vaccinations in England

The emergence of the COVID-19 vaccination has been critical in changing the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure protection remains high in vulnerable groups booster vaccinations in the UK have been targeted based on age and clinical vulnerabilities. We undertook a national retrospective cohort study using data from the 2021 Census linked to electronic health records. We fitted cause-specific Cox models to examine the association between health conditions and the risk of COVID-19 death and all-other-cause death for adults aged 50-100-years in England vaccinated with a booster in autumn 2022. Here we show, having learning disabilities or Down Syndrome (hazard ratio=5.07;95% confidence interval=3.69-6.98), pulmonary hypertension or fibrosis (2.88;2.43-3.40), motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia or Huntington's disease (2.94, 1.82-4.74), cancer of blood and bone marrow (3.11;2.72-3.56), Parkinson's disease (2.74;2.34-3.20), lung or oral cancer (2.57;2.04 to 3.24), dementia (2.64;2.46 to 2.83) or liver cirrhosis (2.65;1.95 to 3.59) was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death. Individuals with cancer of the blood or bone marrow, chronic kidney disease, cystic fibrosis, pulmonary hypotension or fibrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 death relative to other causes of death compared with individuals who did not have diagnoses. Policy makers should continue to priorities vulnerable groups for subsequent COVID-19 booster doses to minimise the risk of COVID-19 death

Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters : pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales

National Core Studies–Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations amongst 3,433,483 children and young people : meta-analysis of UK prospective cohorts

SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and young people (CYP) can lead to life-threatening COVID-19, transmission within households and schools, and the development of long COVID. Using linked health and administrative data, we investigated vaccine uptake among 3,433,483 CYP aged 5–17 years across all UK nations between 4th August 2021 and 31st May 2022. We constructed national cohorts and undertook multi-state modelling and meta-analysis to identify associations between demographic variables and vaccine uptake. We found that uptake of the first COVID-19 vaccine among CYP was low across all four nations compared to other age groups and diminished with subsequent doses. Age and vaccination status of adults living in the same household were identified as important risk factors associated with vaccine uptake in CYP. For example, 5–11 year-olds were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to 16–17 year-olds (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]: 0.10 (95%CI: 0.06–0.19)), and CYP in unvaccinated households were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to CYP in partially vaccinated households (aHR: 0.19, 95%CI 0.13–0.29)

Undervaccination and severe COVID-19 outcomes : meta-analysis of national cohort studies in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales

Background: Undervaccination (receiving fewer than the recommended number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses) could be associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes—ie, COVID-19 hospitalisation or death—compared with full vaccination (receiving the recommended number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses). We sought to determine the factors associated with undervaccination, and to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people who were undervaccinated in each UK nation and across the UK. Methods: We used anonymised, harmonised electronic health record data with whole population coverage to carry out cohort studies in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Participants were required to be at least 5 years of age to be included in the cohorts. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for undervaccination as of June 1, 2022. We also estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for severe COVID-19 outcomes during the period June 1 to Sept 30, 2022, with undervaccination as a time-dependent exposure. We combined results from nation-specific analyses in a UK-wide fixed-effect meta-analysis. We estimated the reduction in severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with a counterfactual scenario in which everyone in the UK was fully vaccinated on June 1, 2022. Findings: The numbers of people undervaccinated on June 1, 2022 were 26 985 570 (45·8%) of 58 967 360 in England, 938 420 (49·8%) of 1 885 670 in Northern Ireland, 1 709 786 (34·2%) of 4 992 498 in Scotland, and 773 850 (32·8%) of 2 358 740 in Wales. People who were younger, from more deprived backgrounds, of non-White ethnicity, or had a lower number of comorbidities were less likely to be fully vaccinated. There was a total of 40 393 severe COVID-19 outcomes in the cohorts, with 14 156 of these in undervaccinated participants. We estimated the reduction in severe COVID-19 outcomes in the UK over 4 months of follow-up associated with a counterfactual scenario in which everyone was fully vaccinated on June 1, 2022 as 210 (95% CI 94–326) in the 5–15 years age group, 1544 (1399–1689) in those aged 16–74 years, and 5426 (5340–5512) in those aged 75 years or older. aHRs for severe COVID-19 outcomes in the meta-analysis for the age group of 75 years or older were 2·70 (2·61–2·78) for one dose fewer than recommended, 3·13 (2·93–3·34) for two fewer, 3·61 (3·13–4·17) for three fewer, and 3·08 (2·89–3·29) for four fewer. Interpretation: Rates of undervaccination against COVID-19 ranged from 32·8% to 49·8% across the four UK nations in summer, 2022. Undervaccination was associated with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation National Core Studies: Data and Connectivity

Europe-wide expansion and eradication of multidrug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae lineages: a genomic surveillance study

Centre for Genomic Pathogen Surveillance and the Euro-GASP study group: Sonja Pleininger, Alexander Indra, Irith De Baetselier, Wim Vanden Berghe, Blaženka Hunjak, Tatjana Nemeth Blažić, Panayiota Maikanti-Charalambous, Despo Pieridou, Hana Zákoucká, Helena Žemličková, Steen Hoffmann, Susan Cowan, Lasse Jessen Schwartz, Rita Peetso, Jevgenia Epstein, Jelena Viktorova, Ndeindo Ndeikoundam, Beatrice Bercot, Cécile Bébéar, Florence Lot, Susanne Buder, Klaus Jansen, Vivi Miriagou, Georgios Rigakos, Vasilios Raftopoulos, Eszter Balla, Mária Dudás, Lena Rós Ásmundsdóttir, Guðrún Sigmundsdóttir, Guðrún Svanborg Hauksdóttir, Thorolfur Gudnason, Aoife Colgan, Brendan Crowley, Sinéad Saab, Paola Stefanelli, Anna Carannante, Patrizia Parodi, Gatis Pakarna, Raina Nikiforova, Antra Bormane, Elina Dimina, Monique Perrin, Tamir Abdelrahman, Joël Mossong, Jean-Claude Schmit, Friedrich Mühlschlegel, Christopher Barbara, Francesca Mifsud, Alje Van Dam, Birgit Van Benthem, Maartje Visser, Ineke Linde, Hilde Kløvstad, Dominique Caugant, Beata Młynarczyk-Bonikowska, Jacinta Azevedo, Maria-José Borrego, Marina Lurdes Ramos Nascimento, Peter Pavlik, Irena Klavs, Andreja Murnik, Samo Jeverica, Tanja Kustec, Julio Vázquez Moreno, Asuncion Diaz, Raquel Abad, Inga Velicko, Magnus Unemo, Helen Fifer, Jill Shepherd, Lynsey PattersonBackground: Genomic surveillance using quality-assured whole-genome sequencing (WGS) together with epidemiological and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) data is essential to characterise the circulating Neisseria gonorrhoeae lineages and their association to patient groups (defined by demographic and epidemiological factors). In 2013, the European gonococcal population was characterised genomically for the first time. We describe the European gonococcal population in 2018 and identify emerging or vanishing lineages associated with AMR and epidemiological characteristics of patients, to elucidate recent changes in AMR and gonorrhoea epidemiology in Europe. Methods: We did WGS on 2375 gonococcal isolates from 2018 (mainly Sept 1-Nov 30) in 26 EU and EEA countries. Molecular typing and AMR determinants were extracted from quality-checked genomic data. Association analyses identified links between genomic lineages, AMR, and epidemiological data. Findings: Azithromycin-resistant N gonorrhoeae (8·0% [191/2375] in 2018) is rising in Europe due to the introduction or emergence and subsequent expansion of a novel N gonorrhoeae multi-antigen sequence typing (NG-MAST) genogroup, G12302 (132 [5·6%] of 2375; N gonorrhoeae sequence typing for antimicrobial resistance [NG-STAR] clonal complex [CC]168/63), carrying a mosaic mtrR promoter and mtrD sequence and found in 24 countries in 2018. CC63 was associated with pharyngeal infections in men who have sex with men. Susceptibility to ceftriaxone and cefixime is increasing, as the resistance-associated lineage, NG-MAST G1407 (51 [2·1%] of 2375), is progressively vanishing since 2009-10. Interpretation: Enhanced gonococcal AMR surveillance is imperative worldwide. WGS, linked to epidemiological and AMR data, is essential to elucidate the dynamics in gonorrhoea epidemiology and gonococcal populations as well as to predict AMR. When feasible, WGS should supplement the national and international AMR surveillance programmes to elucidate AMR changes over time. In the EU and EEA, increasing low-level azithromycin resistance could threaten the recommended ceftriaxone-azithromycin dual therapy, and an evidence-based clinical azithromycin resistance breakpoint is needed. Nevertheless, increasing ceftriaxone susceptibility, declining cefixime resistance, and absence of known resistance mutations for new treatments (zoliflodacin, gepotidacin) are promising.This study was supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the Centre for Genomic Pathogen Surveillance, the Li Ka Shing Foundation (Big Data Institute, University of Oxford), the Wellcome Genome Campus, the Foundation for Medical Research at Örebro University Hospital, and grants from Wellcome (098051 and 099202). LSB was funded by Conselleria de Sanitat Universal i Salut Pública, Generalitat Valenciana (Plan GenT CDEI-06/20-B), Valencia, Spain, and Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (PID2020–120113RA-I00), Spain, at the time of analysing and writing this manuscript.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

The relationship between BMI and the prescription of anti-obesity medication according to social factors: a population cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global public health problem. There are a range of treatments available with varying short and long term success rates. One option is the use of anti-obesity medication the prescription of which has increased dramatically in recent years. Despite this, little is known about the individual and GP practice factors that influence the prescription of anti-obesity medication. METHODS: Multi-level logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with the prescription of anti-obesity medication in Northern Ireland using a population primary care prescribing database (~1.5 million people aged 16+ years) during 2009/10. RESULTS: While 25.0% of people are obese, only 1.3% (2.1% of females, 0.6% of males) received anti-obesity medication. The relationship between medication rates and age differed by gender (P < 0.001) with prescriptions higher in younger females and older males. Prescribing of anti-obesity medication reflected obesity prevalence across urban/rural areas and deprivation. There was an unexplained two-fold difference, between the 25(th) and 75(th) percentile, in the GP practice prescription of anti-obesity medication. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of relative under-prescribing in males compared to females despite a similar prevalence of obesity. While the prevalence (and presumably the health consequences) of obesity worsens with age, younger females are more likely to be prescribed anti-obesity medication. This suggests an element of patient demand. Educational material to improve the understanding of the role of anti-obesity medication, for patients and practitioners, is recommended. But further study is needed to understand the factors responsible for the variation in prescribing between GP practices