In total, 17,278,392 adults were included (Fig. 1; cohort description in Table 1). Eleven per cent of individuals (1,851,868) had ethnicity recorded as mixed, South Asian, Black or other (hereafter referred to

Background COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. MethodsWe conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FindingsOf 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62•9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5•9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2•0%) were Black, 170 484 (1•0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1•9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26•3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1•08 [95% CI 1•07-1•09]), Black group (1•08 [1•06-1•09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1•04 [1•02-1•05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0•77 [0•76-0•78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1•99 [1•94-2•04]), Black group (1•69 [1•62-1•77]), mixed ethnicity group (1•49 [1•39-1•59]), and other ethnicity group (1•20 [1•14-1•28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (

Background: Establishing who is at risk from a novel rapidly arising cause of death, and why, requires a new approach to epidemiological research with very large datasets and timely data. Working on behalf of NHS England we therefore set out to deliver a secure and pseudonymised analytics platform inside the data centre of a major primary care electronic health records vendor establishing coverage across detailed primary care records for a substantial proportion of all patients in England. The following results are preliminary.

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. For this to be possible, trials must evaluate outcomes that genuinely reflect real-world settings and concerns. However, many trials continue to measure and report outcomes that fall short of this clear requirement. We highlight problems with trial outcomes that make evidence difficult or impossible to interpret and that undermine the translation of research into practice and policy. These complex issues include the use of surrogate, composite and subjective endpoints; a failure to take account of patients’ perspectives when designing research outcomes; publication and other outcome reporting biases, including the under-reporting of adverse events; the reporting of relative measures at the expense of more informative absolute outcomes; misleading reporting; multiplicity of outcomes; and a lack of core outcome sets. Trial outcomes can be developed with patients in mind, however, and can be reported completely, transparently and competently. Clinicians, patients, researchers and those who pay for health services are entitled to demand reliable evidence demonstrating whether interventions improve patient-relevant clinical outcomes.

No abstract

Background Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important source of bias in trials. Despite legislation, guidelines and public commitments on correct reporting from journals, outcome misreporting continues to be prevalent. We aimed to document the extent of misreporting, establish whether it was possible to publish correction letters on all misreported trials as they were published, and monitor responses from editors and trialists to understand why outcome misreporting persists despite public commitments to address it. Methods We identified five high-impact journals endorsing Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) ( New England Journal of Medicine , The Lancet , Journal of the American Medical Association , British Medical Journal , and Annals of Internal Medicine ) and assessed all trials over a six-week period to identify every correctly and incorrectly reported outcome, comparing published reports against published protocols or registry entries, using CONSORT as the gold standard. A correction letter describing all discrepancies was submitted to the journal for all misreported trials, and detailed coding sheets were shared publicly. The proportion of letters published and delay to publication were assessed over 12 months of follow-up. Correspondence received from journals and authors was documented and themes were extracted. Results Sixty-seven trials were assessed in total. Outcome reporting was poor overall and there was wide variation between journals on pre-specified primary outcomes (mean 76% correctly reported, journal range 25–96%), secondary outcomes (mean 55%, range 31–72%), and number of undeclared additional outcomes per trial (mean 5.4, range 2.9–8.3). Fifty-eight trials had discrepancies requiring a correction letter (87%, journal range 67–100%). Twenty-three letters were published (40%) with extensive variation between journals (range 0–100%). Where letters were published, there were delays (median 99 days, range 0–257 days). Twenty-nine studies had a pre-trial protocol publicly available (43%, range 0–86%). Qualitative analysis demonstrated extensive misunderstandings among journal editors about correct outcome reporting and CONSORT. Some journals did not engage positively when provided correspondence that identified misreporting; we identified possible breaches of ethics and publishing guidelines. Conclusions All five journals were listed as endorsing CONSORT, but all exhibited extensive breaches of this guidance, and most rejected correction letters documenting shortcomings. Readers are likely to be misled by this discrepancy. We discuss the advantages of prospective methodology research sharing all data openly and pro-actively in real time as feedback on critiqued studies. This is the first empirical study of major ...

Background: It is unclear whether HIV infection is associated with risk of COVID-19 death. We aimed to investigate this in a large-scale population-based study in England. Methods: Working on behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse routinely collected electronic primary care data linked to national death registrations. People with a primary care record for HIV infection were compared to people without HIV. COVID-19 death was defined by ICD-10 codes U07.1 or U07.2 anywhere on the death certificate. Cox regression models were used to estimate the association between HIV infection and COVID-19 death, initially adjusted for age and sex, then adding adjustment for index of multiple deprivation and ethnicity, and finally for a broad range of comorbidities. Interaction terms were added to assess effect modification by age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities and calendar time. Results: 17.3 million adults were included, of whom 27,480 (0.16%) had HIV recorded. People living with HIV were more likely to be male, of black ethnicity, and from a more deprived geographical area than the general population. There were 14,882 COVID-19 deaths during the study period, with 25 among people with HIV. People living with HIV had nearly three-fold higher risk of COVID-19 death than those without HIV after adjusting for age and sex (HR=2.90, 95% CI 1.96-4.30). The association was attenuated but risk remained substantially raised, after adjustment for deprivation and ethnicity (adjusted HR=2.52, 1.70-3.73) and further adjustment for comorbidities (HR=2.30, 1.55-3.41). There was some evidence that the association was larger among people of black ethnicity (HR = 3.80, 2.15-6.74, compared to 1.64, 0.92-2.90 in non-black individuals, p-interaction=0.045) Interpretation: HIV infection was associated with a markedly raised risk of COVID-19 death in a country with high levels of antiretroviral therapy coverage and viral suppression; the association was larger in people of black ethnicity.

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the Wellcome Trust and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.