Background: Long COVID describes new or persistent symptoms at least four weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this were recently created. Aim: To describe the use of long COVID codes, and variation of use by general practice, demographics and over time. Design and Setting: Population-based cohort study in English primary care records. Method: Working on behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY data encompassing 96% of the English population between 2020-02-01 and 2021-04-25. We measured the proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID, overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system (EMIS or TPP), and week. Results: Long COVID was recorded for 23,273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed amongst practices, with 26.7% of practices having never used the codes. Regional variation, ranged between 20.3 per 100,000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval 19.3-21.4) and 55.6 in London (95% CI 54.1-57.1). Coding was higher amongst women (52.1, 95% CI 51.3-52.9) than men (28.1, 95% CI 27.5-28.7), and higher amongst EMIS practices (53.7, 95% CI 52.9-54.4) than TPP practices (20.9, 95% CI 20.3-21.4). Conclusion: Long COVID coding in primary care is low compared with early reports of long COVID prevalence. This may reflect under-coding, sub-optimal communication of clinical terms, under-diagnosis, a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians, or a combination of factors. We recommend increased awareness of diagnostic codes, to facilitate research and planning of services; and surveys of clinicians’ experiences, to complement ongoing patient surveys.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of Paxlovid vs. sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients. Design: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Setting: Patient-level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering a period where both Paxlovid and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings. Participants: Non-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high risk of severe outcomes treated with Paxlovid, sotrovimab or molnupiravir between February 11, 2022 and October 1, 2022. Interventions: Paxlovid, sotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units. Main outcome measure: COVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation. Results: A total of 7683 eligible patients treated with Paxlovid (n=4836) and sotrovimab (n=2847) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 54.3 (SD=14.9) years; 64% were female, 93% White and 93% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 52 (0.68%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (33 (0.68%) treated with Paxlovid and 19 (0.67%) with sotrovimab). Cox proportional hazards model stratified by region showed that after adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, treatment with Paxlovid was associated with a similar risk of outcome event as treatment with sotrovimab (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.62 to 2.08; P=0.673). Results from propensity score weighted Cox model also showed comparable risks in these two treatment groups (HR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.71; P=0.700). An exploratory analysis comparing Paxlovid users with 802 molnupiravir users (11 (1.37%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed some evidence in favour of Paxlovid but with variation in the effect estimates between models (HR ranging from 0.26 to 0.61). Conclusion: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received Paxlovid and sotrovimab between February and October 2022, when different subvariants of Omicron were dominant.

Background The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and ONS all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases compared to wild type diagnosed from 16th November 2020 to 11th January 2021. Results Using data from 185,234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha=93,153; wild-type=92,081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (aHR: 1.73 (95% CI 1.41 - 2.13; P<.0001)) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (aHR: 1.62 ((95% CI 1.48 - 1.78; P<.0001), compared to wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to ICU, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the confidence interval included the null (aHR: 1.20 (95% CI 0.74 - 1.95; P=0.45)). Conclusions The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalisation and mortality than wild-type virus.

No abstract