Rates of serious clinical outcomes in survivors of hospitalisation with COVID-19: a descriptive cohort study within the OpenSAFELY platform

Background Patients with COVID-19 are thought to be at higher risk of cardiometabolic and pulmonary complications, but quantification of that risk is limited. We aimed to describe the overall burden of these complications in survivors of severe COVID-19. Methods Working on behalf of NHS England we used data from the OpenSAFELY platform linking primary care records to death certificate and hospital data. We constructed two cohorts: a COVID-19 cohort consisting of patients discharged following hospitalisation with COVID-19, and a comparison population of patients discharged following hospitalisation with pneumonia in 2019. Outcomes included DVT, PE, ischaemic stroke, MI, heart failure, AKI and new type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Outcome rates from hospital discharge were measured in each cohort, stratified by patient demographics and 30-day period. We fitted Cox regression models to estimate crude and age/sex adjusted hazard ratios comparing outcome rates between the two cohorts. Results Amongst the population of 31,569 patients discharged following hospitalisation with COVID-19, the highest rates were observed for heart failure (199.3; 95% CI: 191.8 - 207.1) and AKI (154.5; 95% CI: 147.9 - 161.4). Rates of DVT, heart failure, ischaemic stroke, MI, PE and diabetes were high over the four months post discharge, especially in the first month. Patterns were broadly similar to those seen in patients discharged with pneumonia but somewhat higher in the COVID-19 population for stroke (adj-HR 1.78; 95% CI: 1.53 - 2.08), PE (adj-HR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.21 - 1.58), MI (adj-HR 1.46; 95% CI: 1.20 - 1.76), AKI (adj-HR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.19 - 1.36) and T2DM (adj-HR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.08 - 1.50). Conclusions In this descriptive study of survivors of severe COVID-19, rates of the measured outcomes are at least as high, though in some cases slightly higher, than in patients discharged after hospitalisation with pneumonia. Further work is needed to identify what characteristics of COVID-19 patients put them at highest risk of adverse events.


Introduction
Cardiometabolic and pulmonary complications, especially thrombotic events, have been described as a key feature of the severe acute phase of COVID-19. A recent systematic review estimated the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) to be ~15% in hospitalised COVID-19 patients, with higher risks observed in people admitted to intensive care (~30% 1-3 ). Underlying reasons for this increased risk are likely to be multifactorial, including immobility following illness/hospitalisation as well as the known association with infection in general, mediated through interactions with general inflammatory and other immune pathways 4 . The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 may directly trigger pulmonary thrombi via vascular damage and inflammatory effects in the lung has also been raised 5 .
As the COVID-19 pandemic has progressed, it is increasingly reported that some patients who recover from the acute disease phase go on to experience a range of post-recovery clinical problems. This post-acute COVID-19 syndrome is currently not well described or understood, with the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence stating that any body system could be affected, for an undetermined period of time 6 . Any such syndrome now needs to be defined and quantified so that patients and health services can know what outcomes may be expected, and plan accordingly 6,7 . It is also unclear whether COVID-19 is exceptional in its association with cardiometabolic events, or comparable to other respiratory pathogens.
Work to date on cardiometabolic outcomes with COVID-19 has largely focused on risks during hospitalisation, with a lack of evidence on how these risks evolve in survivors of severe COVID-19. We therefore measured the rates of cardiometabolic outcomes in people in England with COVID-19, focusing on those who were discharged from hospital following the acute phase of COVID-19. For context, we compared these rates with those seen amongst people discharged following hospitalization for non-COVID-19 pneumonia prior to the pandemic.
3 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Study design and data sources
We conducted an observational cohort study using electronic health record (EHR) data from primary care practices using The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) software linked to Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registrations and Secondary Uses Service (SUS) data (containing hospital records) through OpenSAFELY. This is a data analysis platform developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, on behalf of NHS England, to allow near real-time analysis of pseudonymised primary care records at scale, covering approximately 40% of the population in England, operating within the EHR vendor's highly secure data centre. 8,9 Details on Information Governance for the OpenSAFELY platform can be found in the Appendix.

Population
We included all adults aged ≥18 years registered with a general practice for ≥1 year on the index date with information on age, sex, and socioeconomic deprivation. From this source population we selected two cohorts: all patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in 2020, and a comparison cohort containing all patients hospitalised with non-COVID pneumonia across the equivalent period in 2019. The COVID-19 and pneumonia cohorts were selected as anyone hospitalised with an associated diagnostic code for COVID-19 or pneumonia respectively (referred to as the "index hospitalisation").
The study periods ran between 1st February and 1st November in either 2019 or 2020, depending on the population (as defined above). The follow-up period began on the discharge date of the index COVID-19 or pneumonia hospital stay. For each analysis, follow-up ended on the earliest of: the first recorded outcome event, the study end date, or the date of death of the patient. For the AKI outcome, we excluded patients who were receiving dialysis before the index date (defined as presence of a dialysis code or eGFR < 15ml/min). For diabetes, we excluded any patients who had a previous diabetes event, to ensure only incident diagnoses were measured.
Outcomes were defined primarily as the presence of a diagnostic code for each of the respective outcomes, either in the general practice record, in hospital, or as a cause of death on a death certificate. For AKI, the outcome was restricted just to events recorded in hospital or on the death certificate. For the primary analysis, we excluded use of a GP record if the patient had a recent outcome recorded within three months before the index date (including if they had been recorded during the index hospitalisation). This was to prevent double counting of the same event, for example where a GP updates the record of a patient, recording an event that occurred during a recent hospitalisation.

Statistical Methods
We described the demographics of patients discharged from an admission with COVID-19 and pneumonia.
Rates were reported for each outcome, per 10,000 person months, initially for the whole follow-up time, then stratified into time windows: 0-29 days, 30-59 days, 60-89 days, 90-120 days and 120+ days post discharge, to determine how the rate of outcomes changed over time. Rates were also stratified by age, sex and ethnicity.
We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the rates of each outcome between the hospitalised COVID-19 group and the hospitalised pneumonia group. We investigated crude univariable and age and sex adjusted models. The same patient can contribute person-time to both exposure groups, however these periods are non-overlapping. Theoretically this will lead to narrower confidence intervals, therefore we applied robust standard errors.
In sensitivity analyses we tested the effect of including a) previously omitted outcomes recorded in the primary care record when there was a recorded outcome within 3 months before the index date, and b) only events recorded in hospital or as a cause of death on a death certificate.

Software and reproducibility
Data management was performed using the OpenSAFELY software, Python 3.8 and SQL, and analysis using Stata 16.1. All codelists alongside code for data management and analyses can be found at: https://github.com/opensafely/post-covid-thrombosis-research . All software for the OpenSAFELY platform is available for review and re-use at https://github.com/opensafely .

5
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ;

Results
We identified 31,569 patients discharged following an admission with COVID-19 and 68,303 patients discharged with pneumonia in 2019. Demographics for the cohorts studied are summarised in Table 1. Compared to the COVID-19 cohort, the pneumonia cohort had a higher proportion aged over 70. The ethnic breakdown was broadly similar between the two groups, COVID-19 patients had a higher proportion of patients who are Asian and Asian British.
Overall rates of each outcome per 10,000 person months for the whole follow-up are presented in Table 2. For the majority of outcomes we observed higher rates of serious cardiometabolic and pulmonary complications in discharged COVID-19 patients compared to discharged pneumonia patients (Table 2, Figure 1). For both cohorts, the largest absolute rates were for AKI and heart failure. Overall rates stratified by age, sex and ethnicity are present in the appendix (Tables A5-A12). For COVID-19 patients, rates of stroke, heart failure MI and AKI were consistently higher amongst the over 80s, although the pattern of results was not consistent across other ages groups. Similarly, rates were not constant by ethnic group, for example, the rate of new T2DM diagnoses were slightly higher amongst black patients discharged following an admission with COVID-19.
Stratified overall rates in 30-day time windows are shown in Figure 1. For discharged COVID-19 patients we observed the highest rates for all outcomes in the first 30 days post-discharge, with a gradual decline in subsequent periods. This was remarkably consistent with the pattern of rates observed for patients discharged with pneumonia in 2019. For both cohorts, we observed pronounced rates of AKI and heart failure in the first 30 days post-discharge ( Figure 1).
Cox regression models were used to estimate HRs comparing the hazards of each outcome between the discharged COVID-19 and pneumonia groups (Table 3, Figure 2). After age and sex adjustment, we observed an increased risk in the majority of outcomes for discharged COVID-19 patients compared to discharged pneumonia patients. We observed modest increases in risks for stroke ( Results from a sensitivity analysis investigating robustness of absolute and relative rates to outcome definition are presented in the Appendix. Change in outcome definitions did not meaningfully alter conclusions. 6 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021.

10
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; Figure 2: Hazard ratios for risk of outcomes in patients who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and then discharged, compared to patients who were hospitalised with pneumonia in 2019 and then discharged.

11
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Key findings
In this descriptive study, we set out to report the overall rates of outcomes in each of the cohorts, regardless of their cause. We found that the rate of cardiometabolic and pulmonary complications following discharge from hospitalisation with COVID-19 followed a broadly similar pattern of elevated rates to those discharged from hospital after pneumonia in 2019. Some outcomes, such as stroke, PE, AKI and T2DM showed a modestly higher rate in discharged COVID-19 patients than discharged pneumonia patients, while the other outcomes we measured were not measurably different. The pattern of change in the rate of outcomes over time following discharge from hospital was also broadly similar between the COVID-19 and pneumonia patients, with a high rate in the initial 30 days of follow-up, then a 2-3 fold drop in the next 30 days, followed by a more gradual decline. In both cohorts discharged after hospitalisation, rates remained substantial even after more than 120 days.

Strengths and limitations
We were able to source our cohorts from the OpenSAFELY platform, which contains over 17m adults. This gave us a population of patients who were discharged following hospitalisation with COVID-19 of 31,569, allowing us to obtain precise estimates of the rate of each outcome. We were also able to draw on multiple linked data sources, including primary care records, hospitalisations and death certificates. This allows a more complete picture to be presented of the clinical activity surrounding each outcome.
We believe that our use of an active control population of patients hospitalised with pneumonia in 2019 provides useful context for the rates of these outcomes in COVID-19 patients who survive hospitalisation. A comparison cohort could also have been attained by matching patients from the general population on various attributes such as age, sex and comorbidities. However, such a cohort would be lacking the exposure of an acute respiratory illness event requiring hospitalisation. We think presenting the rates in this context is more informative than within a general population.
We note that our study aimed to describe clinical events that occurred after discharge from hospital, and therefore may not reflect the true additional morbidity burden of COVID-19 hospitalisation: specifically we did not set out to describe events that occurred during hospital admission with COVID-19 or pneumonia. However, in our view reliable analysis of in-hospital events may only be achievable with bespoke collections of detailed hospital data, due to shortcomings in routinely collected administrative data that are widely used for such analyses. For example, SUS and HES data contain a list of diagnostic codes associated with each hospitalisation, but they do not contain sufficient information to determine the exact timing of all events within each hospitalisation episode. This means that time-to event analyses are not possible. Furthermore it is not possible in SUS or HES to reliably determine the sequence of events during the hospitalisation: so a patient hospitalised with COVID-19, who later had a stroke, may be coded in a similar way to a patient who was hospitalised with a stroke, and then infected with SARS-CoV-2 while in hospital. In addition, routine PCR testing on hospitalised 12 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; patients during the pandemic may lead to very high ascertainment of infection with SARS-CoV-2, which may not have occurred to the same extent in the comparison population for pneumonia admissions.
We did not attempt to determine here whether any observed differences were due to a particular feature of the pathophysiology associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, or whether other factors might have had a greater influence, such as competing risk of death, pre-existing patient comorbidities, changes in healthcare provision during the pandemic or differing likelihood of ascertainment of pre-existing conditions. In the context of the rapidly changing pandemic, we aimed to provide an overview of the rates of outcomes after discharge from hospitalisation with COVID-19, compared with pneumonia, to inform health services.
It has been reported that there was a marked reduction in hospital activity during the first wave of the pandemic, for example a 40% reduction in admissions for acute coronary syndrome 10 . This may be in part explained by a reluctance of patients to present at hospitals for fear of contracting the virus. As a result, we believe population-level rates of many outcomes will be under-ascertained during 2020 compared with 2019. It is unknown whether this applies in the same way to patients who have already had severe COVID-19; if ascertainment is lower, then this would result in a possible under-estimate of outcome events associated with COVID-19 in our study.

Findings in context
A recent observational study measured similar outcome events in a population of patients discharged from hospital following COVID-19 11 . They observed elevated rates in the COVID-19 population compared to a matched general population control group. Our findings are consistent in showing high increased rates of outcomes in patients post-discharge with COVID-19. However, importantly we show that these increased rates of outcomes are broadly comparable, if not slightly lower, in people discharged from hospital following pneumonia, selected as a major non-COVID respiratory infection.
The impact of the post COVID-19 hospitalisation events described in this study upon the NHS in England is substantial. Though the absolute number of events is lower than in the post pneumonia hospitalisation cohort, it is likely that the COVID-19 related events will continue to make up a substantial proportion of the total hospitalisations for these conditions for some time. Future work will also investigate any association between non-hospitalised SARS-CoV-2 infection and these outcomes, and quantify any likely population level impact.

Summary
The rate of cardiometabolic and pulmonary events in COVID-19 survivors discharged from hospitalisation was elevated in a similar manner to patients discharged from hospitalisation with pre-pandemic pneumonia, with some outcomes observed to have a slightly higher rate in the COVID-19 survivors population. Next steps include seeing whether patients at highest risk of post-covid outcomes can be identified and determining whether higher risk groups could be early targeted for possible preventative action.

13
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Data Sharing
All data were linked, stored and analysed securely within the OpenSAFELY platform (https://opensafely.org/). Detailed pseudonymized patient data are potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared. We rapidly delivered the OpenSAFELY data analysis platform without prior funding to deliver timely analyses of urgent research questions in the context of the global COVID-19 health emergency: now that the platform is established, we are developing a formal process for external users to request access in collaboration with NHS England. Details of this process will be published in due course on the OpenSAFELY website.

Ethical Approval
This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC 20/LO/0651) and by the LSHTM Ethics Board (#21863).
14 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.22.21250304 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021.

16
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; Figure A3: As Figure 2, but outcomes recorded in GP records are not censored if the patient had an outcome within the 3 months before index date.

17
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; Figure A4: As Figure 2, but without using GP as an outcome (only hospitalisations and death certificate records).

18
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.22.21250304 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.22.21250304 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021.  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.22.21250304 doi: medRxiv preprint Information governance and ethics NHS England is the data controller; TPP is the data processor; and the key researchers on OpenSAFELY are acting on behalf of NHS England. OpenSAFELY is hosted within the TPP environment which is accredited to the ISO 27001 information security standard and is NHS IG Toolkit compliant; 12,13 patient data are pseudonymised for analysis and linkage using industry standard cryptographic hashing techniques; all pseudonymised datasets transmitted for linkage onto OpenSAFELY are encrypted; access to the platform is via a virtual private network (VPN) connection, restricted to a small group of researchers who hold contracts with NHS England and only access the platform to initiate database queries and statistical models. Pseudonymised structured data include demographics, medications prescribed from primary care, diagnoses, and laboratory measures. No free text data are included. All database activity is logged; only aggregate statistical outputs leave the platform environment following best practice for anonymisation of results such as statistical disclosure control for low cell counts. 14 The OpenSAFELY research platform adheres to the obligations of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. In March 2020, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care used powers under the UK Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 (COPI) to require organisations to process confidential patient information for the purposes of protecting public health, providing healthcare services to the public and monitoring and managing the COVID-19 outbreak and incidents of exposure; this sets aside the requirement for patient consent. 15 Taken together, these provide the legal bases to link patient datasets on the OpenSAFELY platform. GP practices, from which the primary care data are obtained, are required to share relevant health information to support the public health response to the pandemic, and have been informed of the OpenSAFELY analytics platform. This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651) and by the LSHTM Ethics Board (ref 21863).

30
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted January 25, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.22.21250304 doi: medRxiv preprint