Search

Importance: COVID-19 infection has been associated with acute kidney injury. However, its possible association with long-term kidney function is not well understood., Objective: To investigate whether kidney function decline accelerated after COVID-19 compared with after other respiratory tract infections., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used linked data from the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) Project between February 1, 2018, and January 1, 2022, in Stockholm, Sweden. All hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults in the database with at least 1 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurement in the 2 years prior to a COVID-19 positive test result or pneumonia diagnosis were selected. Statistical analyses were conducted between June 2023 and October 2024., Exposure: COVID-19 and pneumonia (including influenza)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean annual change in eGFR after COVID-19 and after pneumonia was calculated with a linear regression model., Results: The COVID-19 cohort comprised 134 565 individuals (74 819 females [55.6%]; median [IQR] age, 51 [37-64] years). The pneumonia cohort consisted of 35 987 individuals (19 359 females [53.8%]; median [IQR] age, 71 [56-81] years). The median (IQR) baseline eGFR was 94 (79-107) mL/min/1.73m2 for the COVID-19 cohort and 79 (61-92) mL/min/1.73m2 for the pneumonia cohort. After adjustment for covariates, both infections demonstrated accelerated annual eGFR decline, with greater magnitude of decline after COVID-19 (3.4% [95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%] after COVID-19; 2.3% [95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%] after pneumonia). This decline was more severe among individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 (5.4%; 95% CI, 5.2%-5.6%) but remained similar among those hospitalized for pneumonia., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found an association between COVID-19 and accelerated decline in kidney function, particularly after hospitalization, compared with pneumonia. People who were hospitalized for COVID-19 should receive closer monitoring of kidney function to ensure early diagnosis and optimized management of chronic kidney disease to effectively prevent complications and further decline.

Background: Biological evidence suggests ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-a common treatment of cholestatic liver disease-may prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to compare the hazard of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death between UDCA users versus non-users in a population with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)., Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a population-based cohort study using primary care records between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2022, linked to death registration data and hospital records through the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between time-varying UDCA exposure and COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death, stratified by geographical region and considering models unadjusted and fully adjusted for pre-specified confounders., Results: We identify 11,305 eligible individuals, 640 were hospitalised or died with COVID-19 during follow-up, 400 (63%) events among UDCA users. After confounder adjustment, UDCA is associated with a 21% relative reduction in the hazard of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.93), consistent with an absolute risk reduction of 1.35% (95% CI 1.07%-1.69%)., Conclusions: We found evidence that UDCA is associated with a lower hazard of COVID-19 related hospitalisation and death, support calls for clinical trials investigating UDCA as a preventative measure for severe COVID-19 outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests B.G. has received research funding from the Bennett Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, 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, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data. A.M. is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group, and received consulting fee from Induction Healthcare. L.A.T. has received research funding from MRC, Wellcome, NIHR and GSK, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of 4 non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and MHRA Expert advisory group (Women’s Health). R.E.C. has shares in AstraZeneca. V.M. received a grant from NIHR. A.S. is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. J.T. received an AstraZeneca grant for unrelated COVID-19 research. G.F.M. and R.S. have received research funding from Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Advanz Pharma. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Knowledge of which medications may lead to acute kidney injury (AKI) is limited, relying mostly on spontaneous reporting in pharmacovigilance systems. We here conducted an exploratory drug-wide association study (DWAS) to screen for associations between dispensed drugs and AKI risk., Methods: Using two large Danish and Swedish data linkages, we identified AKI hospitalizations occurring between April 1997 and December 2021 in Denmark and between March 2007 and December 2021 in Sweden. We used a case-time control design comparing drug dispensing in the 3 months prior to the AKI with earlier periods for the same patient. Odds ratios (ORs) for the association between each drug and AKI were estimated using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for the presence of comorbidities. We sought replication of signals in both health systems and explored the plausibility of findings through pharmacovigilance system analysis in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, appearance in the RESCUE list of medications that report AKI as a side effect, PubMed evidence review and causality assessment through direct acyclic graphs., Results: We included 20 622 adults in Denmark and 13 852 in Sweden hospitalized for AKI. In total, 16 unique medications were identified in both cohorts as associated to increased AKI occurrence. Of these, 10 medications had higher reporting ORs in the FAERS database, 9 were listed by RESCUE, and 7 appearing in PubMed. This analysis identified some medications with known AKI risks (i.e. likely true positives such as furosemide, penicillin, spironolactone and omeprazole), medications that may have initiated in response to conditions that lead to AKI (i.e. false positives like metoclopramide provided to treat nausea/vomiting) and other candidates (e.g. opioids) that warrant further evaluation in subsequent studies., Conclusions: This hypothesis-generating study identifies medications with potential involvement in AKI that require confirmation and validation., Competing Interests: A.P. reports participation in research projects funded by Alcon, Almirall, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Servier and LEO Pharma, all regulator-mandated phase IV studies, all with funds paid to the institution where he was employed (no personal fees). Furthermore, he has received one unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk. A.B., L.C.L., V.M., F.M., C.F.C., A.S., J.J.C.: none., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Objectives: To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on deprivation-related inequalities in hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) conditions in Denmark and England between March 2018 and December 2021., Design: Time-series studies in England and Denmark., Setting: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used English primary care electronic health records, linked to secondary care and death registry data through the OpenSAFELY platform and nationwide Danish health registry data., Participants: We included adults aged 18 and over without missing age, sex or deprivation information. On 1 March 2020, 16 234 700 people in England and 4 491 336 people in Denmark met the inclusion criteria., Primary Outcome Measures: Hospital admissions with the primary reason for myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, heart failure and venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Results: We saw deprivation gradients in monthly CVD hospitalisations in both countries, with differences more pronounced in Denmark. Based on pre-pandemic trends, in England, there were an estimated 2608 fewer admissions than expected for heart failure in the most deprived quintile during the pandemic compared with an estimated 979 fewer admissions in the least deprived quintile. For all other outcomes, there was little variation by deprivation quintile. In Denmark, there were an estimated 1013 fewer admissions than expected over the pandemic for MI in the most deprived quintile compared with 619 in the least deprived quintile. Similar trends were seen for stroke and VTE, though absolute numbers were smaller. Heart failure admissions were similar to pre-pandemic levels with little variation by deprivation quintile., Conclusions: Overall, we did not find that the pandemic substantially worsened pre-existing deprivation-related differences in CVD hospitalisations, though there were exceptions in both countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: REC has personal shares in AstraZeneca (AZ) unrelated to this work. BM is also employed by National Health Service ( NHS) England (all declarations are openly available at: https://www.whopaysthisdoctor.org/doctor/491/active ). JH has grant funding from UKRI and the Wellcome Trust, has a patent with Juli Health unrelated to this work and has received consultancy fees from Juli Health and the Wellcome Trust unrelated to this work. RM is supported by Barts Charity (MGU0504), receives salary contributions from Genes & Health and has received consultancy fees from Amgen. JKQ has grants from MRC, HDR UK, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), BI, Asthma + Lung UK and AZ and has received fees from GSK, Evidera, AZ and Insmed. SL was co-founder and co-chair of the RECORD steering committee and has a leadership role at Health Data Research UK. KM has received consultancy fees from Amgen. LAT has grant funding from MRC, the Wellcome Trust, has consulted for Bayer and is on the MHRA expert advisory group (Women’s health) and is a member of four non-industry funded trial advisory committees (unpaid). AYSW is funded by British Heart Foundation (FS/19/19/34175) and AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission. AM has received consultancy fees from induction health and is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, receives funding for other studies from companies in the form of research grants to (and administered by) Aarhus University. None of these studies have any relation to the present study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To validate primary and secondary care codes in electronic health records to identify people receiving chronic kidney replacement therapy based on gold standard registry data., Design: Validation study using data from OpenSAFELY and the UK Renal Registry, with the approval of NHS England., Setting: Primary and secondary care electronic health records from people registered at 45% of general practices in England on 1 January 2020, linked to data from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, part of the NHS England OpenSAFELY covid-19 service., Participants: 38 745 prevalent patients (recorded as receiving kidney replacement therapy on 1 January 2020 in UKRR data, or primary or secondary care data) and 10 730 incident patients (starting kidney replacement therapy during 2020), from a population of 19 million people alive and registered with a general practice in England on 1 January 2020., Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and positive predictive values of primary and secondary care code lists for identifying prevalent and incident kidney replacement therapy cohorts compared with the gold standard UKRR data on chronic kidney replacement therapy. Agreement across the data sources overall, and by treatment modality (transplantation or dialysis) and personal characteristics., Results: Primary and secondary care code lists were sensitive for identifying the UKRR prevalent cohort (91.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.8% to 91.6%) and 92.0% (91.6% to 92.4%), respectively), but not the incident cohort (52.3% (50.3% to 54.3%) and 67.9% (66.1% to 69.7%)). Positive predictive values were low (77.7% (77.2% to 78.2%) for primary care data and 64.7% (64.1% to 65.3%) for secondary care data), particularly for chronic dialysis (53.7% (52.9% to 54.5%) for primary care data and 49.1% (48.0% to 50.2%) for secondary care data). Sensitivity decreased with age and index of multiple deprivation in primary care data, but the opposite was true in secondary care data. Agreement was lower in children, with 30% (295/980) featuring in all three datasets. Half (1165/2315) of the incident patients receiving dialysis in UKRR data had a kidney replacement therapy code in the primary care data within three months of the start date of the kidney replacement therapy. No codes existed whose exclusion would substantially improve the positive predictive value without a decrease in sensitivity., Conclusions: Codes used in primary and secondary care data failed to identify a small proportion of prevalent patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. Codes also identified many patients who were not recipients of chronic kidney replacement therapy in UKRR data, particularly dialysis codes. Linkage with UKRR kidney replacement therapy data facilitated more accurate identification of incident and prevalent kidney replacement therapy cohorts for research into this vulnerable population. Poor coding has implications for any patient care (including eligibility for vaccination, resourcing, and health policy responses in future pandemics) that relies on accurate reporting of kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council (MRC), UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Health Data Research UK, National Core Studies, and Health and Safety Executive for the submitted work; VM is supported by a fellowship grant from the NIHR; LP is supported by grants from Kidney Research UK and the Academy of Medical Sciences, and is the paediatric research lead for the UK Kidney Association (UKKA) for which she receives support for conference attendance; SL holds a contract with UKKA to provide support in medical writing (not for this study), has received consulting fees from Novartis Pharma AG and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, payment for a report for the European Renal Association, support for conference attendance from the European Renal Association, is the chair of the UKKA patient council, a trustee of Guy’s and St Thomas’ Kidney Patients’ Association, and a member of the Kidney Care UK Patient Advisory Group; LT holds grants from the MRC, Wellcome, NIHR, and GSK (no personal payment received), has consulted for Bayer (no personal payment received), received support from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRH) to attend an expert advisory group, and participates on four non-industry funded trial advisory committees; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves., Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups., Findings: A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033)., Interpretation: 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 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK., Competing Interests: 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, NHS England, 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, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data. AM is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group, and received consulting fee from Induction Healthcare. SJWE was paid for attendance at meetings of Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) Meta–Data Safety Monitoring Board. IJD has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca and holds shares in GSK. LAT has received research funding from MRC, Wellcome, NIHR and GSK, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of 4 non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and MHRA Expert advisory group (Women’s Health). ELH received NIHR post doctoral fellowship. REC has shares in AstraZeneca. VM received grant from NIHR. VS received speaker fees from Bayer AG. JP is employed by TPP SystmOne in the role of Clinical Director. RME received research grants from NIHR, HDR UK, IMI2, New Ventures Fund. JT received AstraZeneca grant for unrelated COVID-19 research. Other authors declared no conflict of interest., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK., Methods: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR)., Results: Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab ( n  = 1852) or molnupiravir ( n  = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.71]; P  = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13-1.21); P  = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P  > .05)., Conclusions: In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves., Competing Interests: B.G. has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn–Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a non-executive director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. B.M.K. is employed by NHS England, working on medicines policy and a clinical lead for primary care medicines data. A.M. is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group, and received consulting fee from Induction Healthcare. E.P. was a consultant for WHO SAGE COVID-19 Vaccines Working Group. I.J.D. has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca and holds shares in GSK. J.T. was funded by an unrestricted grant from GSK for methodological research unrelated to this work. S.L. received remuneration for medical writing from Kidney Care UK, UK Kidney Association and GORE; support for attending meeting from UK Kidney Association; and is Chair of Patients Council of UK Kidney Association, and Secretary and Trustee of Guy's & St Thomas' Kidney Patients' Association. V.M. received grant from National Institute for Health and Care Research. E.C. is a member of UK Kidney Association Infection Prevention & Control committee. F.L. received grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and payment to institution from AstraZeneca for scientific events. S.B. received consulting fees from GSK and AstraZeneca. D.N. received grants from National Institute for Health and Care Research, MRC and GSK Open Lab, unrelated to this work; and is the UKKA Director of Informatics Research. L.A.T. has received research funding from MRC, Wellcome, NIHR and GSK, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of 4 non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and MHRA Expert advisory group (Women's Health). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programme in England was extended to include all adolescents and children by April 2022. The aim of this paper is to describe trends and variation in vaccine coverage in different clinical and demographic groups amongst adolescents and children in England by August 2022. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 3.21 million children and adolescents' records in general practice in England,  in situ  and within the infrastructure of the electronic health record software vendor TPP using OpenSAFELY. Vaccine coverage across various demographic (sex, deprivation index and ethnicity) and clinical (risk status) populations is described. Results: Coverage is higher amongst adolescents than it is amongst children, with 53.5% adolescents and 10.8% children having received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Within those groups, coverage varies by ethnicity, deprivation index and risk status; there is no evidence of variation by sex. Conclusion: First dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage is shown to vary amongst various demographic and clinical groups of children and adolescents., Competing Interests: Competing interests: 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, NHS England, 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, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data., (Copyright: © 2023 Hopcroft LE et al.)

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England., Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules., Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance., Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations., Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK., Competing Interests: EPKP has been employed as a consultant by the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines. WJH and VM have received research funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). EJC has received research funding (paid to the institution) form Kidney Research UK and partner charities and patient associations. FL is employed as Policy Director of Kidney Care UK, which has received funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and GSK, and honoraria (paid to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and University College London for invited talks and meeting attendance. FL is Lay Chair of the West Herts Hospital Organ Donation committee; Vice Chair of the Lister Hospital Kidney Patients’ Association; and member of the International Society for Nephrology patient liaison advisory group. SL has received medical writing fees from the UK Kidney Association and Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland; freelance employment as Deputy Editor for Kidney Care UK's Kidney Matters magazine; and support for conference attendance from the UK Kidney Association. SL is Chair of the UK Kidney Association Patient Council and member of the Guy’s and St Thomas’ Kidney Patients’ Association. BMK is also employed by NHS England as a specialist pharmacist adviser. AM has received consultancy fees from Induction Healthcare and is a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group. BG’s work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG’s grants on this work. BG is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital. DN is the UK Kidney Association's Director of Informatics Research. LAT has received research funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Wellcome, and NIHR; has consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid); is a member of four non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid); and is a member of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert advisory group (Women’s Health). The authors disclose no other competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Objective: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England., Design: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England., Setting: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR)., Participants: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR., Main Outcome Measures: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models., Results: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake., Conclusion: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BG’s work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG's grants on this work. BG is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital. EJW holds grants from MRC., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England., Design: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England., Setting: Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database., Participants: Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes., Interventions: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units., Results: 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%)., Conclusions: Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Wellcome Trust, MRC, NIHR, and Health Data Research UK for the submitted work. BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NHS NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UK Research and Innovation, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation, and Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). JT is employed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) on a fellowship sponsored by an unrestricted GSK grant. NJD received research funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

The availability of electronic health records and access to a large number of routine measurements of serum creatinine and urinary albumin enhance the possibilities for epidemiologic research in kidney disease. However, the frequency of health care use and laboratory testing is determined by health status and indication, imposing certain challenges when identifying patients with kidney injury or disease, when using markers of kidney function as covariates, or when evaluating kidney outcomes. Depending on the specific research question, this may influence the interpretation, generalizability, and/or validity of study results. This review illustrates the heterogeneity of working definitions of kidney disease in the scientific literature and discusses advantages and limitations of the most commonly used approaches using 3 examples. We summarize ways to identify and overcome possible biases and conclude by proposing a framework for reporting definitions of exposures and outcomes in studies of kidney disease using routinely collected health care data., (Copyright © 2022 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) with molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe outcomes of covid-19 in adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community and at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19., Design: Observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform., Setting: With the approval of NHS England, a real world cohort study was conducted with the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (a secure, transparent, open source software platform for analysis of NHS electronic health records), and 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 SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatments, hospital admission, and death, over a period when both drug treatments were frequently prescribed in community settings., Participants: Adult patients with covid-19 in the community at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir from 16 December 2021., Interventions: Sotrovimab or molnupiravir given in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units., Main Outcome Measures: Admission to hospital with covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the primary diagnosis) or death from covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the underlying or contributing cause of death) within 28 days of the start of treatment., Results: Between 16 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively, with no substantial differences in baseline characteristics. Mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (standard deviation 16) years; 59% were women, 89% were white, and 88% had received three or more covid-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days of the start of treatment, 87 (1.4%) patients were admitted to hospital or died of infection from SARS-CoV-2 (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographic information, high risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index, and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). Consistent results were found from propensity score weighted Cox models (0.50, 0.31 to 0.81, P=0.005) and when restricted to people who were fully vaccinated (0.53, 0.31 to 0.90, P=0.02). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction >0.10). The findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between 16 February and 1 May 2022 when omicron BA.2 was the predominant variant in England., Conclusions: In routine care of adult patients in England with covid-19 in the community, at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe outcomes of covid-19 than those treated with molnupiravir., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Asthma UK-British Lung Foundation (BLF) for the submitted work; BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NHS NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation, and Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; BG is a non-executive director at NHS Digital; BG also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science; IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); LAT has received funding from Medical Research Council (MRC), Wellcome, NIHR, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of four non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) expert advisory group (Women’s Health); NJD has received funding for covid meta-research from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany); JT is funded at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) through an unrestricted grant from GSK; AM was a former employee and interim chief medical officer of NHS Digital and is a member of Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group; AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK; VM has received funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR301535); RME has received funding from HDR UK (MR/S003975/1); no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have aimed to address the challenges faced by patients with kidney disease and their caregivers. These studies addressed areas of concern such as the high infection and mortality risk of patients on in-centre haemodialysis and transplant recipients. However, the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from these studies has in some instances been challenging, owing to barriers in aspects of usual care, data limitations and problematic methodological practices. In many settings, access to SARS-CoV-2 testing differed substantially between patient groups, whereas the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied over time and place because of differences in viral prevalence, targeted public health policies and vaccination rates. The absence of baseline kidney function data posed problems in the classification of chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury in some studies, potentially compromising the generalizability of findings. Study findings also require attentive appraisal in terms of the effects of confounding, collider bias and chance. As this pandemic continues and in the future, the implementation of sustainable and integrated research infrastructure is needed in settings across the world to minimize infection transmission and both prevent and plan for the short-term and long-term complications of infectious diseases. Registries can support the real-world evaluation of vaccines and therapies in patients with advanced kidney disease while enabling monitoring of rare complications., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: While the vaccines against COVID-19 are highly effective, COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough is possible despite being fully vaccinated. With SARS-CoV-2 variants still circulating, describing the characteristics of individuals who have experienced COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs could be hugely important in helping to determine who may be at greatest risk., Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using routine clinical data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP database of fully vaccinated individuals, linked to secondary care and death registry data and described the characteristics of those experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs., Results: As of 1st November 2021, a total of 15,501,550 individuals were identified as being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, with a median follow-up time of 149 days (IQR: ​107-179). From within this population, a total of 579,780 (<4%) individuals reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. For every 1000 years of patient follow-up time, the corresponding incidence rate (IR) was 98.06 (95% CI 97.93-98.19). There were 28,580 COVID-19-related hospital admissions, 1980 COVID-19-related critical care admissions and 6435 COVID-19-related deaths; corresponding IRs 4.77 (95% CI 4.74-4.80), 0.33 (95% CI 0.32-0.34) and 1.07 (95% CI 1.06-1.09), respectively. The highest rates of breakthrough COVID-19 were seen in those in care homes and in patients with chronic kidney disease, dialysis, transplant, haematological malignancy or who were immunocompromised., Conclusions: While the majority of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases in England were mild, some differences in rates of breakthrough cases have been identified in several clinical groups. While it is important to note that these findings are simply descriptive and cannot be used to answer why certain groups have higher rates of COVID-19 breakthrough than others, the emergence of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 coupled with the number of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests still occurring is concerning and as numbers of fully vaccinated (and boosted) individuals increases and as follow-up time lengthens, so too will the number of COVID-19 breakthrough cases. Additional analyses, to assess vaccine waning and rates of breakthrough COVID-19 between different variants, aimed at identifying individuals at higher risk, are needed., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: There is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation., Methods and Findings: With the approval of NHS-England, we conducted a cohort study, using linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February to December 2020) and surviving at least 1 week, and (i) demographically matched controls from the 2019 general population; and (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017 to 2019. We used Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidities considered potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. We included 24,673 postdischarge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls, followed for ≤315 days. COVID-19 patients had median age of 66 years, 13,733 (56%) were male, and 19,061 (77%) were of white ethnicity. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30,968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.22, 2.14 to 2.30, p < 0.001) but slightly lower than the influenza group (aHR 0.95, 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.004). All-cause mortality (7,439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (aHR 4.82, 4.48 to 5.19 versus general population controls [p < 0.001] and 1.74, 1.61 to 1.88 versus influenza controls [p < 0.001]). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than in general population controls and largely similar or lower in COVID-19 compared with influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted or die due to their initial infection or other lower respiratory tract infection (aHR 1.37, 1.22 to 1.54, p < 0.001) and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission or death (aHR 1.37, 1.02 to 1.84, p = 0.039); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with preexisting dementia had higher risk of dementia hospitalisation or death (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2.47, 1.37 to 4.44, p = 0.002). Limitations of our study were that reasons for hospitalisation or death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes, and we did not have data to distinguish COVID-19 variants., Conclusions: In this study, we observed that people discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations, but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmission or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of postdischarge monitoring., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests. The authors declare that: AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. CWG is supported by a Wellcome Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (201440/Z/16/Z), and also holds grants from the Alzheimer’s Society, the British Heart Foundation and the Rosetrees Trust for unrelated work. RM has received consulting fees from AMGEN unrelated to the submitted work. ID has received grants from and holds shares in GSK. HIM is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Vaccines and Immunisation, a partnership between Public Health England and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. JP is an employee of TPP (Leeds) Ltd who own SystmOne. 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.

Background: Haemodialysis patients are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. Their immune response after infection is unclear. We have found high seroconversion rates in this population with 95% developing antibodies. It is unclear if and how long these antibodies persist. Here we investigate this with serial antibody testing., Methods: We identified haemodialysis patients who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 between March-May 2020 and measured monthly antibodies (IgG/IgM) in those who survived. We used a semi-quantitative cut-off index (COI) to create a qualitative result and plotted optical density (OD) over time. We used linear regression to examine the slope, as well as noting peak OD and time to peak OD. We correlated these against baseline demographics, markers of illness severity, and comorbidities., Results: 122 patients were analysed. All remained antibody positive during follow-up; for a minimum of 148 days. 71% had a positive gradient indicating increasing antibody positivity over time. We found that age (p = 0.01), duration of PCR positivity (p = 0.06) and presence of symptoms (p = 0.05) were associated with a longer time to peak OD. Immunosuppression did not alter peak OD but did lead to a non-significant increase in time to peak OD and more patients had a subsequent fall in Ab levels (p = 0.02). Diabetic patients were more likely to have a positive slope (OR 2.26)., Conclusions: These results indicate that haemodialysis patients have a robust and sustained antibody response after confirmed COVID-19 infection with no suggestion that immunosuppression weakens this response. Although unclear what protection these antibodies confer, this encouraging that haemodialysis patients should respond to vaccination., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Kidney transplant recipients are at increased susceptibility to many viral infections leading to justifiable anxiety about the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: We performed literature searches from multiple resources in April and August 2020 for relevant English and Chinese literature. Abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review with data extraction of reports that included at least 20 kidney transplant recipients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and completed outcomes., Results: Twenty studies had sufficient data, which we have summarized. Studies were predominantly descriptive and came from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Quality assessment demonstrated limitations in selection of comparison groups and controlling for additional factors. Mortality rates from published studies were variable. Based on early data early from Spain, 46% of patients who developed COVID-19 within 60 days of transplantation died. Acute kidney injury was common, and mycophenolate was discontinued in most patients., Conclusion: Given the rapid global spread of COVID-19, reliable evidence is needed to inform public health policies. Hospitalized kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 are at a high risk of death in early reports but interpretation of these data requires caution, as studies were susceptible to period effects. Reassuringly, the quality of observational data is improving. Detailed and comprehensive data collection through linked registries will be necessary to conduct accurate analyses of risk factors for adverse outcomes, not least given the risks of stopping imunosuppression. This report highlights the early mortality excess in transplant recipients but medium- and longer-term outcomes remain uncertain and merit careful investigation., (© 2020 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Nephrotic syndrome is an important presentation of glomerular disease characterised by heavy proteinuria, hypoalbuminaemia and oedema. The differential diagnosis of the underlying condition is wide including primary renal disorders and secondary diseases such as malignancy, infection, diabetes and amyloid. Presentations to acute medicine may be with hypervolaemia, complications of the nephrotic state (such as venous thromboembolism), or complications of therapy (such as infection). Early recognition of nephrotic syndrome is possible through simple urinalysis for protein and testing serum albumin, although a high index of suspicion is sometimes required in patients with comorbidities including potentially distracting cardiac or hepatic diseases.

Background: In addition to acute hospital mortality, sepsis is associated with higher risk of death following hospital discharge. We assessed the strength of epidemiological evidence supporting a causal link between sepsis and mortality after hospital discharge by systematically evaluating the available literature for strength of association, bias, and techniques to address confounding., Methods: We searched Medline and Embase using the following 'mp' terms, MESH headings and combinations thereof - sepsis, septic shock, septicemia, outcome. Studies published since 1992 where one-year post-acute mortality in adult survivors of acute sepsis could be calculated were included. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data using predefined criteria and data extraction forms to assess risk of bias, confounding, and causality. The difference in proportion between cumulative one-year mortality and acute mortality was defined as post-acute mortality. Meta-analysis was done by sepsis definition categories with post-acute mortality as the primary outcome., Results: The literature search identified 11,156 records, of which 59 studies met our inclusion criteria and 43 studies reported post-acute mortality. In patients who survived an index sepsis admission, the post-acute mortality was 16.1% (95% CI 14.1, 18.1%) with significant heterogeneity (p < 0.001), on random effects meta-analysis. In studies reporting non-sepsis control arm comparisons, sepsis was not consistently associated with a higher hazard ratio for post-acute mortality. The additional hazard associated with sepsis was greatest when compared to the general population. Older age, male sex, and presence of comorbidities were commonly reported independent predictors of post-acute mortality in sepsis survivors, challenging the causality relationship. Sensitivity analyses for post-acute mortality were consistent with primary analysis., Conclusions: Epidemiologic criteria for a causal relationship between sepsis and post-acute mortality were not consistently observed. Additional epidemiologic studies with recent patient level data that address the pre-illness trajectory, confounding, and varying control groups are needed to estimate sepsis-attributable additional risk and modifiable risk factors to design interventional trials.