RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 QCovid 4 - Predicting risk of death or hospitalisation from COVID-19 in adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron wave in England
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.08.13.22278733
DO 10.1101/2022.08.13.22278733
A1 Hippisley-Cox, Julia
A1 Khunti, Kamlesh
A1 Sheikh, Aziz
A1 Nguyen-Van-Tam, Jonathan S
A1 Coupland, Carol AC
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/16/2022.08.13.22278733.abstract
AB Objectives To (a) derive and validate risk prediction algorithms (QCovid4) to estimate risk of COVID-19 mortality and hospitalisation in UK adults with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test during the ‘Omicron’ pandemic wave in England and (b) evaluate performance with earlier versions of algorithms developed in previous pandemic waves and the high-risk cohort identified by NHS Digital in England.Design Population-based cohort study using the QResearch database linked to national data on COVID-19 vaccination, high risk patients prioritised for COVID-19 therapeutics, SARS-CoV-2 results, hospitalisation, cancer registry, systemic anticancer treatment, radiotherapy and the national death registry.Settings and study period 1.3 million adults in the derivation cohort and 0.15 million adults in the validation cohort aged 18-100 years with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test between 11th December 2021 and 31st March 2022 with follow up to 30th June 2022.Main outcome measures Our primary outcome was COVID-19 death. The secondary outcome of interest was COVID-19 hospital admission. Models fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance evaluated in a separate validation cohort.Results Of 1,297,984 people with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test in the derivation cohort, 18,756 (1.45%) had a COVID-19 related hospital admission and 3,878 (0.3%) had a COVID-19 death during follow-up. Of the 145,404 people in the validation cohort, there were 2,124 (1.46%) COVID-19 admissions and 461 (0.3%) COVID-19 deaths.The COVID-19 mortality rate in men increased with age and deprivation. In the QCovid4 model in men hazard ratios were highest for those with the following conditions (for 95% CI see Figure 1): kidney transplant (6.1-fold increase); Down’s syndrome (4.9-fold); radiotherapy (3.1-fold); type 1 diabetes (3.4-fold); chemotherapy grade A (3.8-fold), grade B (5.8-fold); grade C (10.9-fold); solid organ transplant ever (2.4-fold); dementia (1.62-fold); Parkinson’s disease (2.2-fold); liver cirrhosis (2.5-fold). Other conditions associated with increased COVID-19 mortality included learning disability, chronic kidney disease (stages 4 and 5), blood cancer, respiratory cancer, immunosuppressants, oral steroids, COPD, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, thromboembolism, rheumatoid/SLE, schizophrenia/bipolar disease sickle cell/HIV/SCID; type 2 diabetes. Results were similar in the model in women.COVID-19 mortality risk was lower among those who had received COVID-19 vaccination compared with unvaccinated individuals with evidence of a dose response relationship. The reduced mortality rates associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar in men (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.51 (95% CI 0.40, 0.64)) and women (adjusted HR 0.55 (95%CI 0.45, 0.67)).The QCOVID4 algorithm explained 76.6% (95%CI 74.4 to 78.8) of the variation in time to COVID-19 death (R2) in women. The D statistic was 3.70 (95%CI 3.48 to 3.93) and the Harrell’s C statistic was 0.965 (95%CI 0.951 to 0.978). The corresponding results for COVID-19 death in men were similar with R2 76.0% (95% 73.9 to 78.2); D statistic 3.65 (95%CI 3.43 to 3.86) and C statistic of 0.970 (95%CI 0.962 to 0.979). QCOVID4 discrimination for mortality was slightly higher than that for QCOVID1 and QCOVID2, but calibration was much improved.Conclusion The QCovid4 risk algorithm modelled from data during the UK’s Omicron wave now includes vaccination dose and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and predicts COVID-19 mortality among people with a positive test. It has excellent performance and could be used for targeting COVID-19 vaccination and therapeutics. Although large disparities in risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes among ethnic minority groups were observed during the early waves of the pandemic, these are much reduced now with no increased risk of mortality by ethnic group.What is knownThe QCOVID risk assessment algorithm for predicting risk of COVID-19 death or hospital admission based on individual characteristics has been used in England to identify people at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, adding an additional 1.5 million people to the national shielded patient list in England and in the UK for prioritising people for COVID-19 vaccination.There are ethnic disparities in severe COVID-19 outcomes which were most marked in the first pandemic wave in 2020.COVID-19 vaccinations and therapeutics (monoclonal antibodies and antivirals) are available but need to be targeted to those at highest risk of severe outcomes.What this study addsThe QCOVID4 risk algorithm using data from the Omicron wave now includes number of vaccination doses and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. It has excellent performance both for ranking individuals (discrimination) and predicting levels of absolute risk (calibration) and can be used for targeting COVID-19 vaccination and therapeutics as well as individualised risk assessment.QCOVID4 more accurately identifies individuals at highest levels of absolute risk for targeted interventions than the ‘conditions-based’ approach adopted by NHS Digital based on relative risk of a list of medical conditions.Although large disparities in risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes among ethnic minority groups were observed during the early waves of the pandemic, these are much reduced now with no increased risk of mortality by ethnic group.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. JHC reports grants from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, grants from John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, grants from Cancer Research UK (CR-UK) grant number C5255 A18085, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, grants from the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and other research councils, during the conduct of the study. JHC is an unpaid director of QResearch, a not-for-profit organisation which is a partnership between the University of Oxford and EMIS Health who supply the QResearch database used for this work. JHC is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk ltd and was its medical director until 31st May 2019. ClinRisk Ltd produces open and closed source software to implement clinical risk algorithms (outside this work) into clinical computer systems. JHC is chair of the NERVTAG risk stratification subgroup and a member of SAGE COVID-19 groups and the NHS group advising on prioritisation of use of monoclonal antibodies in COVID-19 infection. CC reports receiving personal fees from ClinRisk Ltd, outside this work and is a member of the NERVTAG risk stratification subgroup. KK is Chair of the Ethnic Subgroup of the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and a member of SAGE. AS has received research grants from NIHR, MRC, HDRUK, CSO, NCS, GSK for COVID-19 work and has provided advice for AstraZeneca Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce and the UK and Scottish Government COVID-19 Advisory Groups (roles unremunerated)Funding StatementThis study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) following a commission by Department of Health and Social Care. The researchers are independent from the NIHR. The QResearch is supported by funds from the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, grants from Cancer Research UK (CR-UK) grant number C5255/A18085, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, grants from the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund (204826/Z/16/Z), during the conduct of the study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The QResearch ethics approval was provided on 8th June 2020 by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee reference 18 EM 0400.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesTo guarantee the confidentiality of personal and health information only the authors have had access to the data during the study in accordance with the relevant licence agreements. Access to the QResearch data is according to the information on the QResearch website (www.qresearch.org). The full model, model coefficients, functional form and cumulative incidence function, is published on the qcovid.org website. https://www.qresearch.org https://www.qcovid.org