1
|
Wynants L, Broers NJH, Platteel TN, Venekamp RP, Barten DG, Leers MPG, Verheij TJM, Stassen PM, Cals JWL, de Bont EGPM. Development and validation of a risk prediction model for hospital admission in COVID-19 patients presenting to primary care. Eur J Gen Pract 2024; 30:2339488. [PMID: 38682305 PMCID: PMC11060008 DOI: 10.1080/13814788.2024.2339488] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Accepted: 04/02/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a paucity of prognostic models for COVID-19 that are usable for in-office patient assessment in general practice (GP). OBJECTIVES To develop and validate a risk prediction model for hospital admission with readily available predictors. METHODS A retrospective cohort study linking GP records from 8 COVID-19 centres and 55 general practices in the Netherlands to hospital admission records. The development cohort spanned March to June 2020, the validation cohort March to June 2021. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 14 days. We used geographic leave-region-out cross-validation in the development cohort and temporal validation in the validation cohort. RESULTS In the development cohort, 4,806 adult patients with COVID-19 consulted their GP (median age 56, 56% female); in the validation cohort 830 patients did (median age 56, 52% female). In the development and validation cohort respectively, 292 (6.1%) and 126 (15.2%) were admitted to the hospital within 14 days, respectively. A logistic regression model based on sex, smoking, symptoms, vital signs and comorbidities predicted hospital admission with a c-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.86) at geographic cross-validation and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.83) at temporal validation, and was reasonably well calibrated (intercept -0.08, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.52, slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07 at geographic cross-validation and intercept 0.02, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.24, slope 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00 at temporal validation). CONCLUSION We derived a risk model using readily available variables at GP assessment to predict hospital admission for COVID-19. It performed accurately across regions and waves. Further validation on cohorts with acquired immunity and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laure Wynants
- Department of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Natascha JH. Broers
- Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Tamara N. Platteel
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Roderick P. Venekamp
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Dennis G. Barten
- Department of Emergency Medicine, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands
| | - Mathie PG. Leers
- Dept. of Clinical Chemistry & Hematology, Zuyderland MC Sittard-Geleen/Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands
| | - Theo JM. Verheij
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Patricia M. Stassen
- Department of Internal Medicine, School for Cardiovascular Diseases, CARIM, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jochen WL. Cals
- Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Eefje GPM de Bont
- Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ward IL, Robertson C, Agrawal U, Patterson L, Bradley DT, Shi T, de Lusignan S, Hobbs FDR, Sheikh A, Nafilyan V. Risk of COVID-19 death in adults who received booster COVID-19 vaccinations in England. Nat Commun 2024; 15:398. [PMID: 38228613 PMCID: PMC10791661 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-44276-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 01/18/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Chris Robertson
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland
- Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, Scotland
| | - Utkarsh Agrawal
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lynsey Patterson
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
- Public Health Agency, Belfast, UK
| | - Declan T Bradley
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
- Public Health Agency, Belfast, UK
| | - Ting Shi
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Simon de Lusignan
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - F D Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, Oxford Thames Valley, Oxford, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kerr S, Millington T, Rudan I, McCowan C, Tibble H, Jeffrey K, Fagbamigbe AF, Simpson CR, Robertson C, Hippisley-Cox J, Sheikh A. External validation of the QCovid 2 and 3 risk prediction algorithms for risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality in adults: a national cohort study in Scotland. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e075958. [PMID: 38151278 PMCID: PMC10753764 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2023] [Accepted: 10/20/2023] [Indexed: 12/29/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms are risk prediction tools developed during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that can be used to predict the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality, taking vaccination status into account. In this study, we assess their performance in Scotland. METHODS We used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 national data platform consisting of individual-level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021. RESULTS Our validation dataset comprised 465 058 individuals, aged 19-100. We found the following performance metrics (95% CIs) for QCovid 2 and 3: Harrell's C 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) for hospitalisation, and 0.92 (0.90 to 0.94) for death, observed-expected ratio of 0.24 for hospitalisation and 0.26 for death (ie, both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated), and a Brier score of 0.0009 (0.00084 to 0.00096) for hospitalisation and 0.00036 (0.00032 to 0.0004) for death. CONCLUSIONS We found good discrimination of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in Scotland, although performance was worse in higher age groups. Both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Kerr
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Tristan Millington
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Igor Rudan
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Colin McCowan
- School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, UK
| | - Holly Tibble
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Karen Jeffrey
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Adeniyi Francis Fagbamigbe
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
- Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Colin R Simpson
- Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Chris Robertson
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bosworth ML, Schofield R, Ayoubkhani D, Charlton L, Nafilyan V, Khunti K, Zaccardi F, Gillies C, Akbari A, Knight M, Wood R, Hardelid P, Zuccolo L, Harrison C. Vaccine effectiveness for prevention of covid-19 related hospital admission during pregnancy in England during the alpha and delta variant dominant periods of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: population based cohort study. BMJ MEDICINE 2023; 2:e000403. [PMID: 37564827 PMCID: PMC10410807 DOI: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/12/2023]
Abstract
Objective To estimate vaccine effectiveness for preventing covid-19 related hospital admission in individuals first infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus during pregnancy compared with those of reproductive age who were not pregnant when first infected with the virus. Design Population based cohort study. Setting Office for National Statistics Public Health Data Asset linked dataset, providing national linked census and administrative data in England, 8 December 2020 to 31 August 2021. Participants 815 477 females aged 18-45 years (mean age 30.4 years) who had documented evidence of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the NHS Test and Trace or Hospital Episode Statistics data. Main outcome measures Hospital admission where covid-19 was recorded as the primary diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for calendar time of infection, sociodemographic factors, and pre-existing health conditions related to uptake of the covid-19 vaccine and risk of severe covid-19 outcomes, were used to estimate vaccine effectiveness as the complement of the hazard ratio for hospital admission for covid-19. Results Compared with pregnant individuals who were not vaccinated, the adjusted rate of hospital admission for covid-19 was 77% (95% confidence interval 70% to 82%) lower for pregnant individuals who had received one dose and 83% (76% to 89%) lower for those who had received two doses of vaccine. These estimates were similar to those found in the non-pregnant group: 79% (77% to 81%) for one dose and 83% (82% to 85%) for two doses of vaccine. Among those who were vaccinated >90 days before infection, having two doses of vaccine was associated with a greater reduction in risk than one dose. Conclusions Covid-19 vaccination was associated with reduced rates of hospital admission in pregnant individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the reduction in risk was similar to that in non-pregnant individuals. Waning of vaccine effectiveness occurred more quickly after one than after two doses of vaccine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Daniel Ayoubkhani
- Office for National Statistics, Newport, UK
- Real World Evidence Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | | | - Vahé Nafilyan
- Office for National Statistics, Newport, UK
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Real World Evidence Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Francesco Zaccardi
- Real World Evidence Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Clare Gillies
- Real World Evidence Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Ashley Akbari
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Marian Knight
- National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rachael Wood
- Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK
- The University of Edinburgh Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Pia Hardelid
- NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK
| | - Luisa Zuccolo
- Health Data Science Centre, Fondazione Human Technopole, Milan, Italy
- MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hippisley-Cox J, Khunti K, Sheikh A, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Coupland CAC. Risk prediction of covid-19 related death or hospital admission in adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the omicron wave in England (QCOVID4): cohort study. BMJ 2023; 381:e072976. [PMID: 37343968 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072976] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/23/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To derive and validate risk prediction algorithms (QCOVID4) to estimate the risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission in people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result during the period when the omicron variant of the virus was predominant in England, and to evaluate performance compared with a high risk cohort from NHS Digital. DESIGN Cohort study. SETTING QResearch database linked to English national data on covid-19 vaccinations, SARS-CoV-2 test results, hospital admissions, and cancer and mortality data, 11 December 2021 to 31 March 2022, with follow-up to 30 June 2022. PARTICIPANTS 1.3 million adults in the derivation cohort and 0.15 million adults in the validation cohort, aged 18-100 years, with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was covid-19 related death and secondary outcome was hospital admission for covid-19. Risk equations with predictor variables were derived from models fitted in the derivation cohort. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort. RESULTS Of 1 297 922 people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the derivation cohort, 18 756 (1.5%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission and 3878 (0.3%) had a covid-19 related death during follow-up. The final QCOVID4 models included age, deprivation score and a range of health and sociodemographic factors, number of covid-19 vaccinations, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk of death related to covid-19 was lower among those who had received a covid-19 vaccine, with evidence of a dose-response relation (42% risk reduction associated with one vaccine dose and 92% reduction with four or more doses in men). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a reduction in the risk of covid-19 related death (49% reduction in men). The QCOVID4 algorithm for covid-19 explained 76.0% (95% confidence interval 73.9% to 78.2%) of the variation in time to covid-19 related death in men with a D statistic of 3.65 (3.43 to 3.86) and Harrell's C statistic of 0.970 (0.962 to 0.979). Results were similar for women. QCOVID4 was well calibrated. QCOVID4 was substantially more efficient than the NHS Digital algorithm for correctly identifying patients at high risk of covid-19 related death. Of the 461 covid-19 related deaths in the validation cohort, 333 (72.2%) were in the QCOVID4 high risk group and 95 (20.6%) in the NHS Digital high risk group. CONCLUSION The QCOVID4 risk algorithm, modelled from data during the period when the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was predominant in England, now includes vaccination dose and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and predicted covid-19 related death among people with a positive test result. QCOVID4 more accurately identified individuals at the highest levels of absolute risk for targeted interventions than the approach adopted by NHS Digital. QCOVID4 performed well and could be used for targeting treatments for covid-19 disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Carol A C Coupland
- Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lyons J, Nafilyan V, Akbari A, Bedston S, Harrison E, Hayward A, Hippisley-Cox J, Kee F, Khunti K, Rahman S, Sheikh A, Torabi F, Lyons RA. An external validation of the QCOVID3 risk prediction algorithm for risk of hospitalisation and death from COVID-19: An observational, prospective cohort study of 1.66m vaccinated adults in Wales, UK. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0285979. [PMID: 37200350 PMCID: PMC10194890 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285979] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2023] [Accepted: 05/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/20/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic there was an urgent need to identify individuals at highest risk of severe outcomes, such as hospitalisation and death following infection. The QCOVID risk prediction algorithms emerged as key tools in facilitating this which were further developed during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify groups of people at highest risk of severe COVID-19 related outcomes following one or two doses of vaccine. OBJECTIVES To externally validate the QCOVID3 algorithm based on primary and secondary care records for Wales, UK. METHODS We conducted an observational, prospective cohort based on electronic health care records for 1.66m vaccinated adults living in Wales on 8th December 2020, with follow-up until 15th June 2021. Follow-up started from day 14 post vaccination to allow the full effect of the vaccine. RESULTS The scores produced by the QCOVID3 risk algorithm showed high levels of discrimination for both COVID-19 related deaths and hospital admissions and good calibration (Harrell C statistic: ≥ 0.828). CONCLUSION This validation of the updated QCOVID3 risk algorithms in the adult vaccinated Welsh population has shown that the algorithms are valid for use in the Welsh population, and applicable on a population independent of the original study, which has not been previously reported. This study provides further evidence that the QCOVID algorithms can help inform public health risk management on the ongoing surveillance and intervention to manage COVID-19 related risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane Lyons
- Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
| | - Vahé Nafilyan
- Office of National Statistics, Newport, United Kingdom
| | - Ashley Akbari
- Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
| | - Stuart Bedston
- Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
| | - Ewen Harrison
- Usher Institute, Centre for Medical Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Hayward
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department, Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Frank Kee
- School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Shamim Rahman
- Department of Health and Social Care, Mental Health and Disabilities Analysis, London, United Kingdom
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Fatemeh Torabi
- Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
| | - Ronan A. Lyons
- Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
van der Klaauw AA, Horner EC, Pereyra-Gerber P, Agrawal U, Foster WS, Spencer S, Vergese B, Smith M, Henning E, Ramsay ID, Smith JA, Guillaume SM, Sharpe HJ, Hay IM, Thompson S, Innocentin S, Booth LH, Robertson C, McCowan C, Kerr S, Mulroney TE, O'Reilly MJ, Gurugama TP, Gurugama LP, Rust MA, Ferreira A, Ebrahimi S, Ceron-Gutierrez L, Scotucci J, Kronsteiner B, Dunachie SJ, Klenerman P, Park AJ, Rubino F, Lamikanra AA, Stark H, Kingston N, Estcourt L, Harvala H, Roberts DJ, Doffinger R, Linterman MA, Matheson NJ, Sheikh A, Farooqi IS, Thaventhiran JED. Accelerated waning of the humoral response to COVID-19 vaccines in obesity. Nat Med 2023; 29:1146-1154. [PMID: 37169862 PMCID: PMC10202802 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02343-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Accepted: 04/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
Obesity is associated with an increased risk of severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and mortality. COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes; however, their effectiveness in people with obesity is incompletely understood. We studied the relationship among body mass index (BMI), hospitalization and mortality due to COVID-19 among 3.6 million people in Scotland using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) surveillance platform. We found that vaccinated individuals with severe obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2) were 76% more likely to experience hospitalization or death from COVID-19 (adjusted rate ratio of 1.76 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.60-1.94). We also conducted a prospective longitudinal study of a cohort of 28 individuals with severe obesity compared to 41 control individuals with normal BMI (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2). We found that 55% of individuals with severe obesity had unquantifiable titers of neutralizing antibody against authentic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus compared to 12% of individuals with normal BMI (P = 0.0003) 6 months after their second vaccine dose. Furthermore, we observed that, for individuals with severe obesity, at any given anti-spike and anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody level, neutralizing capacity was lower than that of individuals with a normal BMI. Neutralizing capacity was restored by a third dose of vaccine but again declined more rapidly in people with severe obesity. We demonstrate that waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced humoral immunity is accelerated in individuals with severe obesity. As obesity is associated with increased hospitalization and mortality from breakthrough infections, our findings have implications for vaccine prioritization policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Agatha A van der Klaauw
- University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome-Medical Research Council (MRC) Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Emily C Horner
- MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Pehuén Pereyra-Gerber
- Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Disease, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Utkarsh Agrawal
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Sarah Spencer
- MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Bensi Vergese
- University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome-Medical Research Council (MRC) Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Facility, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Miriam Smith
- University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome-Medical Research Council (MRC) Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Elana Henning
- University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome-Medical Research Council (MRC) Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Isobel D Ramsay
- Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Disease, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jack A Smith
- Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Disease, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | - Iain M Hay
- Babraham Institute, Babraham Research Campus, Cambridge, UK
- Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sam Thompson
- Babraham Institute, Babraham Research Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Lucy H Booth
- MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Chris Robertson
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Colin McCowan
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Steven Kerr
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Maria A Rust
- MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alex Ferreira
- MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Soraya Ebrahimi
- Immunology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
- Clinical Biochemistry, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lourdes Ceron-Gutierrez
- Immunology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
- Clinical Biochemistry, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jacopo Scotucci
- University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome-Medical Research Council (MRC) Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Barbara Kronsteiner
- Peter Medawar Building for Pathogen Research, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Susanna J Dunachie
- Peter Medawar Building for Pathogen Research, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NDM Centre for Global Health Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Paul Klenerman
- Peter Medawar Building for Pathogen Research, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NDM Centre for Global Health Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Adrian J Park
- Clinical Biochemistry, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Francesco Rubino
- Department of Diabetes, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Abigail A Lamikanra
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
- Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hannah Stark
- NIHR BioResource, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nathalie Kingston
- NIHR BioResource, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lise Estcourt
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
- Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - David J Roberts
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
- Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rainer Doffinger
- Immunology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
- Clinical Biochemistry, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Nicholas J Matheson
- Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Disease, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
| | - I Sadaf Farooqi
- University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome-Medical Research Council (MRC) Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bosworth ML, Ahmed T, Larsen T, Lorenzi L, Morgan J, Ali R, Goldblatt P, Islam N, Khunti K, Raleigh V, Ayoubkhani D, Bannister N, Glickman M, Nafilyan V. Ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality in the second and third waves of the pandemic in England during the vaccine rollout: a retrospective, population-based cohort study. BMC Med 2023; 21:13. [PMID: 36617562 PMCID: PMC9826727 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02704-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ethnic minority groups in England have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and have lower vaccination rates than the White British population. We examined whether ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality in England have continued since the vaccine rollout and to what extent differences in vaccination rates contributed to excess COVID-19 mortality after accounting for other risk factors. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of 28.8 million adults aged 30-100 years in England. Self-reported ethnicity was obtained from the 2011 Census. The outcome was death involving COVID-19 during the second (8 December 2020 to 12 June 2021) and third wave (13 June 2021 to 1 December 2021). We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for death involving COVID-19, sequentially adjusting for age, residence type, geographical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, pre-pandemic health, and vaccination status. RESULTS Age-adjusted HRs of death involving COVID-19 were elevated for most ethnic minority groups during both waves, particularly for groups with lowest vaccination rates (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, and Black Caribbean). HRs were attenuated after adjusting for geographical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and pre-pandemic health. Further adjusting for vaccination status substantially reduced residual HRs for Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani groups in the third wave. Fully adjusted HRs only remained elevated for the Bangladeshi group (men: 2.19 [95% CI 1.72-2.78]; women: 2.12 [1.58-2.86]) and Pakistani men (1.24 [1.06-1.46]). CONCLUSIONS Lower COVID-19 vaccination uptake in several ethnic minority groups may drive some of the differences in COVID-19 mortality compared to White British. Public health strategies to increase vaccination uptake in ethnic minority groups would help reduce inequalities in COVID-19 mortality, which have remained substantial since the start of the vaccination campaign.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew L Bosworth
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Tamanna Ahmed
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Tim Larsen
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Luke Lorenzi
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Jasper Morgan
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Raghib Ali
- MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Peter Goldblatt
- UCL Institute of Health Equity, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK
| | - Nazrul Islam
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.,School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
| | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK
| | - Veena Raleigh
- The King's Fund, 11-13 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0AN, UK
| | - Daniel Ayoubkhani
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Neil Bannister
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Myer Glickman
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK
| | - Vahé Nafilyan
- Office for National Statistics, Health Analysis and Life Events, Newport, NP10 8XG, UK. .,Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kerr S, Vasileiou E, Robertson C, Sheikh A. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes from Delta AY.4.2: Cohort and test-negative study of 5.4 million individuals in Scotland. J Glob Health 2022; 12:05025. [PMID: 35802764 PMCID: PMC9269984 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.05025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background In July 2021, a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) in the Delta lineage was detected in the United Kingdom (UK), named AY.4.2 or "Delta plus". By October 2021, the AY.4.2 variant accounted for approximately 10-11% of cases in the UK. AY.4.2 was designated as a variant under investigation by the UK Health and Security Agency on 20 October 2021. This study aimed to investigate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation/death for the AY.4.2 variant. Methods We used the Scotland-wide Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance (EAVE-II) platform to estimate the VE of the ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines against symptomatic infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes in adults. The study was conducted from June 8 to October 25, 2021. We used a test-negative design (TND) to estimate VE against reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection while adjusting for sex, socioeconomic status, number of coexisting conditions, and splines in time and age. We also performed a cohort study using a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate VE against a composite outcome of COVID-19 hospital admission or death, with the same adjustments. Results We found an overall VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection due to AY.4.2 of 73% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 62-81) for >14 days post-second vaccine dose. Good protection against AY.4.2 symptomatic infection was observed for BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, and mRNA-1273. In unvaccinated individuals, the hazard ratio (HR) for COVID-19 hospital admission or death from AY.4.2 among community detected cases was 1.77 (95% CI = 1.02-3.07) relative to unvaccinated individuals who were infected with Delta, after adjusting for multiple potential confounders. VE against AY.4.2 COVID-19 admissions or deaths was 87% (95% CI = 74-93) >28 days post-second vaccination relative to unvaccinated. Conclusions We found that AY.4.2 was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations or deaths in unvaccinated individuals compared with Delta and that vaccination provided substantial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 outcomes following Delta AY.4.2 infection. High levels of vaccine uptake and protection offered by existing vaccines, as well as the rapid emergence of the Omicron variant may have contributed to the AY.4.2 variant never progressing to a variant of concern.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Kerr
- Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | | | - Chris Robertson
- University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Shi T, Pan J, Katikireddi SV, McCowan C, Kerr S, Agrawal U, Shah SA, Simpson CR, Ritchie LD, Robertson C, Sheikh A. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission among children aged 5-17 years with asthma in Scotland: a national incident cohort study. THE LANCET. RESPIRATORY MEDICINE 2022; 10:191-198. [PMID: 34861180 PMCID: PMC8631918 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00491-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2021] [Revised: 10/27/2021] [Accepted: 10/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is an urgent need to inform policy deliberations about whether children with asthma should be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and, if so, which subset of children with asthma should be prioritised. We were asked by the UK's Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation to undertake an urgent analysis to identify which children with asthma were at increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS This national incident cohort study was done in all children in Scotland aged 5-17 years who were included in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). We used data from EAVE II to investigate the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation among children with markers of uncontrolled asthma defined by either previous asthma hospital admission or oral corticosteroid prescription in the previous 2 years. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to derive hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between asthma and COVID-19 hospital admission, stratified by markers of asthma control (previous asthma hospital admission and number of previous prescriptions for oral corticosteroids within 2 years of the study start date). Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission. FINDINGS Between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021, 752 867 children were included in the EAVE II dataset, 63 463 (8·4%) of whom had clinician-diagnosed-and-recorded asthma. Of these, 4339 (6·8%) had RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In those with confirmed infection, 67 (1·5%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Among the 689 404 children without asthma, 40 231 (5·8%) had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, of whom 382 (0·9%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The rate of COVID-19 hospital admission was higher in children with poorly controlled asthma than in those with well controlled asthma or without asthma. When using previous hospital admission for asthma as the marker of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted HR was 6·40 (95% CI 3·27-12·53) for those with poorly controlled asthma and 1·36 (1·02-1·80) for those with well controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma. When using oral corticosteroid prescriptions as the marker of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted HR was 3·38 (1·84-6·21) for those with three or more prescribed courses of corticosteroids, 3·53 (1·87-6·67) for those with two prescribed courses of corticosteroids, 1·52 (0·90-2·57) for those with one prescribed course of corticosteroids, and 1·34 (0·98-1·82) for those with no prescribed course, compared with those with no asthma. INTERPRETATION School-aged children with asthma with previous recent hospital admission or two or more courses of oral corticosteroids are at markedly increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admission and should be considered a priority for vaccinations. This would translate into 9124 children across Scotland and an estimated 109 448 children across the UK. FUNDING UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and Scottish Government.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ting Shi
- Usher Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Jiafeng Pan
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | | | - Colin McCowan
- School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
| | - Steven Kerr
- Usher Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Utkarsh Agrawal
- School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
| | - Syed Ahmar Shah
- Usher Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Colin R Simpson
- Usher Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; School of Health, Wellington Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
| | | | - Chris Robertson
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shah SA, Robertson C, Rudan I, Murray JL, McCowan C, Grange Z, Buelo A, Sullivan C, Simpson CR, Ritchie LD, Sheikh A. BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccinations, incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 hospitalisations in Scotland in the Delta era. J Glob Health 2022; 12:05008. [PMID: 35356660 PMCID: PMC8942298 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.05008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The emergence of the B.1.617.2 Delta variant of concern was associated with increasing numbers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and COVID-19 hospital admissions. We aim to study national population level SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 associated hospitalisations by vaccination status to provide insight into the association of vaccination on temporal trends during the time in which the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became dominant in Scotland. Methods We used the Scotland-wide Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance (EAVE II) platform, covering the period when Delta was pervasive (May 01 to October 23, 2021). We performed a cohort analysis of every vaccine-eligible individual aged 20 or over from across Scotland. We determined the vaccination coverage, SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate and COVID-19 associated hospitalisations incidence rate. We then stratified those rates by age group, vaccination status (defined as "unvaccinated", "partially vaccinated" (1 dose), or "fully vaccinated" (2 doses)), vaccine type (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and coexisting conditions known to be associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. Results During the follow-up of 4 183 022 individuals, there were 407 405 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases with 10 441 (2.6%) associated with a hospital admission. Those vaccinated with two doses (defined as fully vaccinated in the current study) of either vaccine had lower incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections and much lower incidence rates of COVID-19 associated hospitalisations than those unvaccinated in the Delta era in Scotland. Younger age groups were substantially more likely to get infected. In contrast, older age groups were much more likely to be hospitalised. The incidence rates stratified by coexisting conditions were broadly comparable with the overall age group patterns. Conclusions This study suggests that national population level vaccination was associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 associated hospitalisation in Scotland throughout the Delta era.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Igor Rudan
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Colin McCowan
- School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
| | - Zoe Grange
- Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | | | - Colin R Simpson
- School of Health, Wellington Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
| | | | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, Riley RD, Heinze G, Schuit E, Bonten MMJ, Dahly DL, Damen JAA, Debray TPA, de Jong VMT, De Vos M, Dhiman P, Haller MC, Harhay MO, Henckaerts L, Heus P, Kammer M, Kreuzberger N, Lohmann A, Luijken K, Ma J, Martin GP, McLernon DJ, Andaur Navarro CL, Reitsma JB, Sergeant JC, Shi C, Skoetz N, Smits LJM, Snell KIE, Sperrin M, Spijker R, Steyerberg EW, Takada T, Tzoulaki I, van Kuijk SMJ, van Bussel B, van der Horst ICC, van Royen FS, Verbakel JY, Wallisch C, Wilkinson J, Wolff R, Hooft L, Moons KGM, van Smeden M. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020; 369:m1328. [PMID: 32265220 PMCID: PMC7222643 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1328] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1622] [Impact Index Per Article: 405.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/31/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laure Wynants
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, Netherlands
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Georg Heinze
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ewoud Schuit
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Marc M J Bonten
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Darren L Dahly
- HRB Clinical Research Facility, Cork, Ireland
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Johanna A A Damen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Valentijn M T de Jong
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Maarten De Vos
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Electrical Engineering, ESAT Stadius, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Paul Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Maria C Haller
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Ordensklinikum Linz, Hospital Elisabethinen, Department of Nephrology, Linz, Austria
| | - Michael O Harhay
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center and Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Liesbet Henckaerts
- Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of General Internal Medicine, KU Leuven-University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Pauline Heus
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Michael Kammer
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Nephrology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Evidence-Based Oncology, Department I of Internal Medicine and Centre for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Dusseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Anna Lohmann
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Kim Luijken
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Jie Ma
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David J McLernon
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Constanza L Andaur Navarro
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jamie C Sergeant
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Department of Nephrology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Luc J M Smits
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Matthew Sperrin
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - René Spijker
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Medical Library, Netherlands
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Toshihiko Takada
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ioanna Tzoulaki
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK
- Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece
| | - Sander M J van Kuijk
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Bas van Bussel
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, Netherlands
- Department of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Iwan C C van der Horst
- Department of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Florien S van Royen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jan Y Verbakel
- EPI-Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Christine Wallisch
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jack Wilkinson
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|