Abstract
Objective To compare post-COVID-19 sequelae between hospitalised and non-hospitalised individuals
Design Population-based cohort study
Setting 1,383 general practices in England contributing to Clinical Practice Research Database Aurum
Participants 46,687 COVID-19 cases diagnosed between 1st August to 17th October 2020 (45.4% male; mean age 40), either hospitalised within two weeks of diagnosis or non-hospitalised, and followed-up for a maximum of three months.
Main outcome measures Event rates of new symptoms, diseases, prescriptions and healthcare utilisation in hospitalised and non-hospitalised individuals, with between-group comparison using Cox regression. Outcomes compared at 6 and 12 months prior to index date, equating to first UK wave and pre-pandemic. Non-hospitalised group outcomes stratified by age and sex.
Results 45,272 of 46,687 people were non-hospitalised; 1,415 hospitalised. Hospitalised patients had higher rates of 13/26 symptoms and 11/19 diseases post-COVID-19 than the community group, received more prescriptions and utilised more healthcare. The largest differences were noted for rates per 100,000 person-weeks [95%CI] of breathlessness: 536 [432 to 663] v. 85 [77 to 93]; joint pain: 295 [221 to 392] v. 168 [158 to 179]; diabetes: 303 [225 to 416] v. 36 [32 to 42], hypertension: 244 [178 to 344] v. 47 [41 to 53]. Although low, rates of chest tightness, tinnitus and lung fibrosis were higher in the community group. 4.2% (1882/45,272) of the community group had a post-acute burden, most frequently reporting anxiety, breathlessness, chest pain and fatigue. In those non-hospitalised, age and sex differences existed in outcome rates. Healthcare utilisation in the community group increased 28.5% post-COVID-19 relative to pre-pandemic.
Conclusions Post-COVID-19 sequelae differ between hospitalised and non-hospitalised individuals, with age and sex-specific differences in those non-hospitalised. Most COVID-19 cases managed in the community do not report ongoing issues to healthcare professionals. Post-COVID-19 follow-up and management strategies need to be tailored to specific groups.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
ISAC approval obtained from CPRD
Funding Statement
This work is supported by BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health [MC_PC_19004]. BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, or manuscript writing. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
A protocol for this research was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for MHRA Database Research (protocol number 121_000370) and the approved protocol was made available to the reviewers during peer review. Generic ethical approval for observational research using the CPRD with approval from ISAC has been granted by a Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee (East Midlands Derby, REC reference number 05/MRE04/87).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
Linked pseudonymised mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), socioeconomic data from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and secondary care data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) were provided for this study by CPRD for patients in England. Data is linked by NHS Digital, the statutory trusted third party for linking data, using identifiable data held only by NHS Digital. Select general practices consent to this process at a practice level, with individual patients having the right to opt-out. Use of HES and ONS data is Copyright (2018), re-used with the permission of The Health & Social Care Information Centre, all rights reserved. Data are available on request from the CPRD. Their provision requires the purchase of a license, and this license does not permit the authors to make them publicly available to all. This work used data from the version collected in January 2021 and have clearly specified the data selected in the Methods section. To allow identical data to be obtained by others, via the purchase of a license, the code lists have been provided on GitHub. Licenses are available from the CPRD (http://www.cprd.com): The Clinical Practice Research Datalink Group, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU.
