PreprintCited by 6,674COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19-related hospital death in the linked electronic health records of 17 million adult NHS patients

Open access
The OpenSAFELY Collaborative, Williamson, Elizabeth, Walker, Alex J, Bhaskaran, Krishnan, Bacon, Seb, Bates, Chris, Morton, Caroline E, Curtis, Helen J +23 more·2020·Nature

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4 · Paper page

Abstract

Background: Establishing who is at risk from a novel rapidly arising cause of death, and why, requires a new approach to epidemiological research with very large datasets and timely data. Working on behalf of NHS England we therefore set out to deliver a secure and pseudonymised analytics platform inside the data centre of a major primary care electronic health records vendor establishing coverage across detailed primary care records for a substantial proportion of all patients in England. The following results are preliminary. Data sources: Primary care electronic health records managed by the electronic health record vendor TPP, pseudonymously linked to patient-level data from the COVID-19 Patient Notification System (CPNS) for death of hospital inpatients with confirmed COVID-19, using the new OpenSAFELY platform. Population: 17,425,445 adults. Time period: 1st Feb 2020 to 25th April 2020. Primary outcome: Death in hospital among people with confirmed COVID-19. Methods: Cohort study analysed by Cox-regression to generate hazard ratios: age and sex adjusted, and multiply adjusted for co-variates selected prospectively on the basis of clinical interest and prior findings. Results: There were 5683 deaths attributed to COVID-19. In summary after full adjustment, death from COVID-19 was strongly associated with: being male (hazard ratio 1.99, 95%CI 1.88-2.10); older age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); uncontrolled diabetes (HR 2.36 95% CI 2.18-2.56); severe asthma (HR 1.25 CI 1.08-1.44); and various other prior medical conditions. Compared to people with ethnicity recorded as white, black people were at higher risk of death, with only partial attenuation in hazard ratios from the fully adjusted model (age-sex adjusted HR 2.17 95% CI 1.84-2.57; fully adjusted HR 1.71 95% CI 1.44-2.02); with similar findings for Asian people (age-sex adjusted HR 1.95 95% CI 1.73-2.18; fully adjusted HR 1.62 95% CI 1.431.82). Conclusions: We have quantified a range of clinical risk factors for death from COVID-19, some of which were not previously well characterised, in the largest cohort study conducted by any country to date. People from Asian and black groups are at markedly increased risk of in-hospital death from COVID-19, and contrary to some prior speculation this is only partially attributable to pre-existing clinical risk factors or deprivation; further research into the drivers of this association is therefore urgently required. Deprivation is also a major risk factor with, again, little of the excess risk explained by co-morbidity or other risk factors. The findings for clinical risk factors are concordant with policies in the UK for protecting those at highest risk. Our OpenSAFELY platform is rapidly adding further NHS patients’ records; we will update and extend these results regularly.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Collaborative, T. O., Williamson, E., Walker, A. J., Bhaskaran, K., Bacon, S., Bates, C., Morton, C. E., Curtis, H. J., Mehrkar, A., Evans, D., Inglesby, P., Cockburn, J., McDonald, H. I., MacKenna, B., Tomlinson, L., Douglas, I. J., Rentsch, C. T., Mathur, R., Wong, A., Grieve, R., Harrison, D., Forbes, H., Schultze, A., Croker, R., Parry, J., Hester, F., Harper, S., Perera, R., Evans, S., Smeeth, L., & Goldacre, B.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
Corresponding author
Goldacre, Ben
Venue
Nature
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-05-07
Volume
584
Issue
7821
Pages
430-436
ISSN
0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3047144258
Cited by
6,674
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 176 · 2025: 303 · 2024: 698 · 2023: 904 · 2022: 1505 · 2021: 2173 · 2020: 908 · 2019: 2
FWCI
179.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
  • Wellcome Trust (107731/Z/15/Z, 201375/Z/16/Z, 201375, 107731)
  • UK Research and Innovation
  • National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation (FS/19/19/34175)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Royal Society
  • Diabetes UK
  • Public Health England
  • Medical Research Council (MR/S003940/1)
  • NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 mortality, risk factors, OpenSAFELY, primary care electronic health records, sex differences, age, socioeconomic deprivation, diabetes mellitus, severe asthma, ethnicity, NHS England, cohort studies
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Asthma, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Sex Characteristics, Smoking, State Medicine, Cohort Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, Age Distribution, Coronavirus Infections, Risk Assessment, Black People, Asian People, Young Adult, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review