RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Clinical coding of long COVID in English primary care: a federated analysis of 58 million patient records in situ using OpenSAFELY JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2021.05.06.21256755 DO 10.1101/2021.05.06.21256755 A1 The OpenSAFELY Collaborative A1 Alex J Walker A1 Brian MacKenna A1 Peter Inglesby A1 Christopher T Rentsch A1 Helen J Curtis A1 Caroline E Morton A1 Jessica Morley A1 Amir Mehrkar A1 Seb Bacon A1 George Hickman A1 Chris Bates A1 Richard Croker A1 David Evans A1 Tom Ward A1 Jonathan Cockburn A1 Simon Davy A1 Krishnan Bhaskaran A1 Anna Schultze A1 Elizabeth J Williamson A1 William J Hulme A1 Helen I McDonald A1 Laurie Tomlinson A1 Rohini Mathur A1 Rosalind M Eggo A1 Kevin Wing A1 Angel YS Wong A1 Harriet Forbes A1 John Tazare A1 John Parry A1 Frank Hester A1 Sam Harper A1 Shaun O’Hanlon A1 Alex Eavis A1 Richard Jarvis A1 Dima Avramov A1 Paul Griffiths A1 Aaron Fowles A1 Nasreen Parkes A1 Ian J Douglas A1 Stephen JW Evans A1 Liam Smeeth A1 Ben Goldacre YR 2021 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.06.21256755.1.abstract AB Background Long COVID is a term to describe new or persistent symptoms at least four weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were released in November 2020 in the UK, but it is not known how these codes have been used in practice.Methods Working on behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY data encompassing 96% of the English population. We measured the proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID, overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system, and week. We also measured variation in recording amongst practices.Results Long COVID was recorded for 23,273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed amongst practices, with 26.7% of practices having not used the codes at all. Regional variation was high, ranging 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). The rate was higher amongst women (52.1, 95% CI 51.3-52.9) compared to men (28.1, 95% CI 27.5-28.7), and higher amongst practices using EMIS software (53.7, 95% CI 52.9-54.4) compared to TPP software (20.9, 95% CI 20.3-21.4).Conclusions 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.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare the following: over the past five years BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. KB holds a Sir Henry Dale fellowship jointly funded by Wellcome and the Royal Society (107731/Z/15/Z). HIM is funded by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation, a partnership between Public Health England and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. AYSW holds a fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. EJW holds grants from MRC. RG holds grants from NIHR and MRC. RM holds a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship funded by the Wellcome Trust (201375/Z/16/Z). HF holds a UKRI fellowship. IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).Funding StatementThis work was jointly funded by UKRI, NIHR and Asthma UK-BLF [COV0076; MR/V015737/] and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme. EMIS and TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data environments pro bono in the context of a national emergency. The OpenSAFELY software platform is supported by a Wellcome Discretionary Award. BG's work on clinical informatics is supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley. 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. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care.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:This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651) and by the LSHTM Ethics Board (reference 21863).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesAll data were linked, stored, and analysed securely within the OpenSAFELY platform. Detailed pseudonymised patient data are potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared. We rapidly delivered the OpenSAFELY data analysis platform without previous 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 have established a process for external users to request access to the platform https://www.opensafely.org/onboarding-new-users/.