Using national electronic health records for pandemic preparedness: validation of a parsimonious model for predicting excess deaths among those with COVID-19

Abstract

Objectives

To use national, pre- and post-pandemic electronic health records (EHR) to develop and validate a scenario-based model incorporating baseline mortality risk, infection rate (IR) and relative risk (RR) of death for prediction of excess deaths.

Design

An EHR-based, retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Linked EHR in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD); and linked EHR and COVID-19 data in England provided in NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment (TRE).

Participants

In the development (CPRD) and validation (TRE) cohorts, we included 3.8 million and 35.1 million individuals aged ≥30 years, respectively.

Main outcome measures

One-year all-cause excess deaths related to COVID-19 from March 2020 to March 2021.

Results

From 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021, there were 127,020 observed excess deaths. Observed RR was 4.34% (95% CI, 4.31–4.38) and IR was 6.27% (95% CI, 6.26–6.28). In the validation cohort, predicted one-year excess deaths were 100,338 compared with the observed 127,020 deaths with a ratio of predicted to observed excess deaths of 0.79.

Conclusions

We show that a simple, parsimonious model incorporating baseline mortality risk, one-year IR and RR of the pandemic can be used for scenario-based prediction of excess deaths in the early stages of a pandemic. Our analyses show that EHR could inform pandemic planning and surveillance, despite limited use in emergency preparedness to date. Although infection dynamics are important in the prediction of mortality, future models should take greater account of underlying conditions.

Keywords

Clinical epidemiology health informatics infectious diseases public health

Introduction

Mortality estimates of COVID-19 have been widely reported and followed at local, regional, national and international levels since early in the pandemic, influencing policy and health service planning. Electronic health record (EHR) data informed early identification of risk factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality, leading to UK lockdown and shielding policies.^1–3 Moreover, EHR linkage enabled both specialist registry data and pragmatic clinical trials of new treatments at scale.^4,5

All-cause and disease-specific mortality prediction in research and clinical practice has included underlying conditions or ‘baseline mortality risk’, often derived and validated using EHR.^6–8 Underlying non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are important mortality predictors in infectious diseases,^9,10 but baseline mortality risk based on NCDs is largely neglected in pandemic preparedness, which emphasises infection transmissibility and severity, using metrics such as case fatality ratio, infection fatality ratio and reproduction number.^11–14 Although COVID-19 is increasingly viewed as a ‘syndemic’¹⁵ (with interaction between infectious diseases and NCDs, requiring cross-speciality expertise), efforts to predict excess mortality have focused on dynamic transmission modelling without consideration of baseline risk or use of anonymised, individual-level, population-scale EHR.^16,17

On 22 March 2020, before the first UK lockdown, we released a preprint (published on 12 May 2020),¹ estimating one-year COVID-19 mortality using a model developed in pre-pandemic population-based linked EHRs from 3.8 million people in the UK (via Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]). Our EHR-derived model included baseline one-year mortality risk for a range of underlying conditions, incorporating scenario-based assumptions regarding relative risk (RR) of mortality during the pandemic compared to baseline, and population infection rate (IR). Validation of the model is required to establish the actual RR and IR, to update scenario-based assumptions and to assess the accuracy of model predictions.

The NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment (TRE) for England, which became available during 2020, offers the opportunity to validate our approach at whole population level, with longitudinal, individual-level data.^18,19 Therefore, using these data, we: (1) ascertained the observed IR of COVID-19 and RR of one-year COVID-19 mortality; and (2) compared the predicted versus observed COVID-19 mortality for conceptual validation of our EHR-derived model.

Methods

Data sources

Conceptual model development

We used a pre-pandemic linked CPRD dataset, including EHR, across primary care, hospital data and death registry with follow-up from 1997 to 2017.¹

Model validation

The NHS Digital TRE for England provides secure, remote access to linked, individual-level EHR data,^18,19 including primary care, hospital episodes, registered deaths, dispensed medicines, COVID-19 laboratory tests and vaccinations. We used General Practice Extraction Service Data for Pandemic Planning and Research, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, Second Generation Surveillance System, COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System, Civil Registry Deaths, NHS Business Services Authority dispensed medicines and COVID-19 vaccine datasets, prior to 15 May 2021.¹⁹

Cohort specifications

Both model development and validation involved population-based, retrospective cohort analyses with a range of high-risk conditions as exposures and one-year all-cause mortality as outcome. In the validation study, a further exposure was SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the development study, eligible individuals were aged ≥30 years, registered with a GP between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 2017 (Figure S1.A), with ≥1 year of follow-up.

In the validation study, eligible individuals were aged ≥30 years on 1 March 2018. COVID-19-related high-risk conditions were from Public Health England guidance.²⁰ We considered all-cause mortality after COVID-19 as the direct pandemic effect. Deaths in those without COVID-19 include baseline mortality and deaths attributable to indirect pandemic effects. To evaluate direct COVID-19 effects on one-year all-cause mortality, we specified two time periods (Figure S1.B and S1.C). The pre-pandemic period (1 March 2018–1 March 2019) was used for baseline characteristics and outcome (mortality) in the non-exposed (non-COVID-19) group. The pandemic period (1 March 2020–1 March 2021) was used to study COVID-19 cases and deaths in the exposed group (i.e. COVID-19 with or without high-risk conditions). Underlying conditions were assessed on 1 March 2018 in the validation study, minimising the effect of age difference between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods (Figure S2).

Exposures and outcomes of interest

Exposures were presence (versus absence) of high-risk conditions for COVID-19²⁰ including cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), body mass index (BMI) over 40 kg/m², chronic liver disease, age >70 years and history of oral steroid therapy. For all conditions, except steroid therapy, the minimum period between earliest diagnosis date and baseline date (1 March 2018) was one year. For steroid therapy, event date was based on first dispensing date between 1 March 2018 and 1 March 2019, since prescription/dispensed medication data were only available since April 2018. Outcome was one-year all-cause mortality.

To define underlying conditions, we used extended CALIBER phenotyping algorithms.²¹ Phenotypes with earliest diagnosis dates between 1 March 2017 and 1 March 2018 were excluded, to allow ≥1 year history of conditions prior to cohort entry. The CVD phenotype was a composite, including heart failure, stroke (non-specified, ischaemic, haemorrhagic, transient ischaemic attack, subarachnoid haemorrhagic), arrhythmias, acute myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, isolated calf vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The dispensed oral corticosteroid phenotype was determined based on the CALIBER phenotype mapped to British National Formulary codes.²² To define COVID-19 cases, we used positive swab testing results and Public Health England labs and NHS hospitals, community swab testing results, primary care and hospital episode data, vaccination and death registration.²³

Model development and validation

Our prediction model in the development study was a conceptual model based on baseline mortality, RR of death in those exposed to COVID-19 versus those not exposed to COVID-19 (pre-pandemic) and IR of COVID-19

\begin{matrix} \frac{COVID-19-related all-cause excess death count}{Baseline death count} \\ =IR (RR - 1) \end{matrix}

In the development study, we calculated scenario-based COVID-19 excess deaths using baseline mortality by high-risk underlying conditions and plausible RR/IR (0.001%, 1%, 10% and 80% for total, partial, moderate and no suppression, respectively).² For each IR scenario, we applied RRs (1.2, 1.5 and 3), and scaled up to mid-2018 population of England aged ≥30 using estimates of the Office for National Statistics.²⁴

Full validation was beyond scope and not possible in the rapidly changing timelines of the pandemic. Validation in our study involved use of observed IR and RR values (TRE for England; Figure S1.B) in the conceptual model to predict COVID-19 deaths in the development and validation cohorts. This constituted ‘model verification’ (‘determining that the model's inputs and outputs are consistent with actual data and accepted theories’) and ‘conceptual model validation’ (‘determining that the theories and assumptions underlying the conceptual model are correct and the model representation of the problem entity and the model's structure, logic and mathematical and causal relationships are reasonable for the intended purpose of the model’).²⁵ In order to capture direct COVID-19 mortality effects, we selected unexposed and exposed groups in pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, respectively. We estimated baseline one-year mortality in the pre-pandemic period (Figure S1.B) by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. We calculated baseline and COVID-19 mortality risk (using RR) in pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, respectively, by high-risk conditions. To calculate IR in each sub-sample, we divided the COVID-19 population by those at risk at the start of the period. The final IR was the average of IRs of two sub-samples (refer to Supplementary materials).

Results

In the validation cohort, we included 35,098,810 individuals aged ≥30 years at baseline (Figure S2). Of all individuals aged ≥30 years on 1 March 2018, 18,361, 665 (52.3%) were female; mean age was 55.0[SD 16.2] in both sexes; 28,049,984 (79.9%) were aged ≤70 (mean age 48.7 [SD 11.6] years in females and 49.1 [SD 11.5] years in males) and 7,048,826(20.1%) were >70 (mean 79.7 [SD 6.8] years in females and 78.5 [SD 6.1] years in males). Prevalence for CVD, diabetes, CKD, COPD, BMI > 40 kg/m², chronic liver disease and steroid therapy was 5.56% and 2.76%, 4.59% and 3.75%, 2.03% and 2.84%, 1.83% and 1.81%, 1.41% and 2.07%, 0.15% and 0.10%, and 3.52% and 5.07% in males and females, respectively. Prevalence of 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 underlying conditions was 35.57% and 39.95%, 8.15% and 8.48%, 8.82% and 2.79%, and 1.13% and 1.09% in males and females, respectively. Prevalence of all underlying conditions was higher in individuals >70 years and males (Figure 1, Table 1).

Figure 1.

Prevalence of high-risk conditions for COVID-19 mortality in validation cohort (n = 35,098,810) cohort aged ≥30 years.

Table 1.

Underlying conditions in the validation cohort (NHS Digital TRE, n = 35,098,810, aged 30 years or older).

	Count (% of total population)
Underlying condition	Male Age ≤ 70 yearsN = 13,587,089	MaleAge > 70 yearsN = 3,150,056	MaleAll agesN = 16,737,145	FemaleAge ≤ 70 yearsN = 14,462,895	FemaleAge > 70 yearsN = 3,898,770	FemaleAll agesN = 18,361,665
CVD	873,001 (2.49)	1,080,487 (3.08)	1,953,488 (5.56)	509,450 (1.45)	968,909 (2.76)	1,478,359 (4.21)
Diabetes	965,436 (2.75)	647,269 (1.84)	1,612,705 (4.59)	716,309 (2.04)	600,494 (1.71)	1,316,803 (3.75)
CKD	227,924 (0.65)	483,972 (1.38)	711,896 (2.03)	274,852 (0.78)	720,582 (2.05)	995,434 (2.84)
COPD	291,294 (0.83)	351,684 (1.00)	642,978 (1.83)	287,287 (0.82)	349,463 (0.99)	636,750 (1.81)
BMI >40 kg/m²	373,213 (1.06)	120,512 (0.34)	493,725 (1.41)	561,351 (1.60)	165,612 (0.47)	726,963 (2.07)
Chronic liver disease	42,789 (0.12)	10,966 (0.03)	53,755 (0.15)	25,807 (0.07)	9875 (0.03)	35,682 (0.10)
Steroid therapy	762,449 (2.17)	472,571 (1.35)	1,235,020 (3.52)	1,183,308 (3.37)	596,578 (1.70)	1,779,886 (5.07)
0	11,167,965 (31.82)	1,317,372 (3.75)	12,485,337 (35.57)	12,137,332 (35.58)	1,885,800 (5.37)	14,023,132 (39.95)
1	1,835,747 (5.23)	1,025,674 (2.92)	2,861,421 (8.15)	1,800,831 (5.13)	1,174,823 (3.35)	2,975,654 (8.48)
2	451,492 (1.29)	541,211 (1.54)	992,703 (8.82)	406,504 (1.16)	573,786 (1.63)	980,290 (2.79)
≥3	131,885 (0.38)	265,799 (0.76)	397,684 (1.13)	118,228 (0.34)	264,361 (0.75)	382,589 (1.09)

Figure 2.

Baseline one-year mortality in England (age ≥30 years) according to underlying conditions in the validation cohort (n = 35,098,810).

One-year mortality

Among individuals with at least one high-risk condition, estimated pre-pandemic one-year mortality risk was observed to be 3.55% (3.54–3.57). One-year mortality risk in individuals aged >70 years was 9.24% (9.17–9.31), 3.37% (3.34–3.40), 8.36% (8.32–8.40) and 6.38% (6.34–6.42) for COPD, CKD, CVD and diabetes, respectively. In individuals aged >70 years, one-year mortality risks in men were 9.45% (9.35–9.55), 3.91% (3.85–3.96), 7.92% (7.98–9.20), 6.48% (6.42–6.54) for COPD, CKD, CVD and diabetes, respectively; and in women, 9.02% (8.92–9.11), 3.00% (2.96–3.04), 8.84% (8.78–9.11) and 6.27% (6.21–6.33), respectively.

Validation and replication of the conceptual model

In March 2020, we predicted 73,498 one-year COVID-19-related deaths for the population of England, by scaling from the development cohort (3,862,012 aged ≥30 years) to the mid-2018 population of England and assuming a scenario of IR = 10% and RR = 3.² In the validation study, from March 2020 until March 2021, we ascertained 127,020 COVID-19-related all-cause deaths. We estimated pre-pandemic one-year mortality risk by age group, sex and number of high-risk conditions in the absence of COVID-19.

We calculated cross-validated one-year (March 2020–2021) RR and IR of COVID-19 as 4.34%(95% CI, 4.31–4.38) and 6.27% (95% CI, 6.26–6.28), respectively. Tables S1 and S2 show the cross-validated IR and RR, respectively, across two random subsamples of the cohort shown in Figure S1. Table S3 shows the sensitivity analysis for underfitting and further cross-validation. We found that the effect of vaccination on overall RR or IR between December 2020 and March 2021 was negligible compared to effects of under-reported COVID-19 cases pre-vaccination (Table S4). We applied our prediction model using observed RR (4.34) and IR (6.27) and baseline mortality risk data in the validation cohort (Tables S5 and S6).

Figures 3 and S4 show the predicted one-year COVID-19-related all-cause deaths, based on baseline mortality risk (March 2018–2019 for validation cohort), RR = 4.34, and IR = 6.27% compared to observed excess deaths (March 2020–2021). The observed and model-predicted COVID-19 deaths were 127,020 and 100,338 (79.0% of observed), respectively (Tables 2, Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Baseline deaths, model-predicted COVID-19-related all-cause deaths and observed deaths among those with COVID-19 in England (age ≥30 years) over one year, stratified by age and sex in the validation cohort (n = 35,098,810). (a) Baseline one-year mortality. (b) Total (and model-predicted COVID-19) one-year mortality based on RR = 4.34%, IR = 6.27%. (c) Total (and observed COVID-19) one-year mortality.

Table 2.

Observed COVID-19 one-year mortality in England (NHS Digital TRE; n = 35,098,810 aged ≥30 years; 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021).

	Age ≤70 years				Age >70 years				All ages
	N total (%)	Total deaths	N COVID-19 (%)	COVID-19 deaths	N total (%)	Total deaths	N COVID-19 (%)	COVID-19 deaths	N total (%)	Total deaths	N COVID-19 (%)	COVID-19 deaths
≥1 Underlying condition excluding age >70 years	4,634,608 (13.58)	70,202	314,587 (0.92)	16,203	3,340,209 (9.79)	317,114	209,190 (0.61)	74,276	7,974,817 (23.36)	70,479	523,777 (1.53)	90,479
Age > 70 years	–	–	–	–	6,299,844 (18.46)	443,043	317,798 (0.93)	99,828	–	–	–	–
Diabetes	1,645,037 (4.82)	29,688	123,984 (0.36)	8338	1,087,148 (3.18)	106,124	75,870 (0.22)	27,474	2,732,158 (8.00)	135,902	199,854 (0.58)	35,812
CVD	1,335,614 (3.91)	30,301	80,174 (0.23)	6966	1,710,348 (5.01)	200,644	121,772 (0.36)	46,744	3,045,962 (8.92)	230,945	201,946 (0.59)	53,710
BMI > 40 kg/m²	932,120 (2.73)	8454	73,399 (0.21)	2333	280,331 (0.82)	19,410	15,690 (0.04)	4911	1,212,451 (3.55)	27,864	89,089 (0.26)	7244
Steroid therapy	1,889,695 (5.54)	44,671	149,685 (0.44)	7655	923,584 (2.70)	111,144	67,321 (0.20)	24,354	2,813,279 (8.24)	155,815	217,006 (0.64)	32,009
COPD	549,304 (1.61)	18,905	29,797 (0.09)	3733	574,369 (1.68)	70,701	43,183 (0.13)	16,872	112,3673 (3.29)	89,606	72,980 (0.21)	20,605
CKD	492,763 (1.44)	11,102	33,377 (0.10)	3255	1,100,918 (3.25)	121,830	75,622 (0.22)	29,332	1,593,680 (4.67)	132,932	108,999 (0.32)	32,587
Chronic liver disease	60,270(0.18)	3584	3769 (0.18)	556	15,556 (0.04)	2291	1213 (0.003)	483	75,826(0.22)	5875	4982(0.01)	1039
3+ Underlying conditions	233,799 (0.68)	12,645	18,267 (0.05)	1470	442,569 (1.30)	67,507	40,625 (0.12)	17,304	676,368 (1.98)	80,152	58,892 (0.17)	20,774
2 Underlying conditions	827,803 (2.472)	20,516	55,977 (0.16)	4885	956,907 (2.80)	104,452	66,645 (0.19)	24,693	1,784,710 (5.23)	12,4968	122,622 (0.36)	29,578
1 underlying condition	3,573,006 (10.47)	37,041	240,343 (0.70)	7848	1,940,733 (5.68)	145,155	101,920 (0.30)	32,279	5,513,739 (16.15)	182,196	342,263 (1.00)	40,127
No underlying condition	23,197,624 (47.96)	72,168	1,615,026 (4.73)	10,989	2,959,635 (8.67)	125,929	108,608 (0.32)	23,869	26,157,259 (76.63)	198,097	1,723,634 (5.05)	36,541
Overall population	27,832,232 (81.54)	142,370	1,929,613 (5.65)	27,192	6,299,844 (18.46)	443,043	317,798 (0.93)	99,828	34,132,076 (100)	585,413	2,247,411 (6.58)	127,020

Discussion

In anonymised, individual-level, population-scale, national EHR data between March 2020 and March 2021, we conducted the first study to predict and validate one-year mortality among those with COVID-19 using baseline (pre-pandemic) mortality risk. We provide the first detailed, scenario-based mortality risk assessment before and during the pandemic, based on absolute risk estimates in national population data. We show that a simple, parsimonious model incorporating baseline risk of mortality, IR and RR of the pandemic can be used to predict one-year COVID-19 mortality.

Strengths and weaknesses

Our analysis uses anonymised, national, individual-level EHR data with unprecedented scale and whole population inclusivity and validated EHR phenotypes. It highlights the importance of EHR data, baseline mortality and scenario-based assumptions in risk assessment at early stages of a pandemic where dynamics of the new infectious disease are not yet known.

Our analysis used only the most frequent high-risk conditions. Our simple model made assumptions regarding static RR and IR over the course of the pandemic and did not incorporate infectivity or population dynamics of the original or later strains of SARS-CoV-2, the impact of COVID-19-related policies or vaccination rates. Generalisability of our findings to other countries and contexts requires further validation. Our study only investigated COVID-19, and applicability to other infectious diseases or pandemics is unknown. There are differences between development and validation cohorts in terms of data coding systems (e.g. lack of standardised one-to-one mapping between coding terminologies), and limited availability of fields in CPRD (e.g. ethnicity) and in the TRE for England (e.g. medication use before 2018 and multiple index of deprivation), which restricted analyses. Overall, national mortality estimates in people with COVID-19 were similar in development and validation cohorts, with differences in mortality risk at baseline in stratified analyses. For example, mortality risk was similar for younger people in both cohorts, but mortality risk was relatively higher in the development cohort for individuals aged >70 years due to the earlier cohort entry date in the CPRD study population.¹ Also, the number of estimated deaths was lower in the development cohort in all age categories, perhaps because the one-year mortality in CPRD data were calculated after study entry date, when these individuals were younger (mean age 43.5 [SD 11.7] years), compared to the validation cohort in March 2018–2019 (mean age 55.0 [SD 16.2] years). Another explanation is that the actual IR over one year is higher than our observed rate (and probably greater than the 10% we used in prediction), due to incomplete availability of COVID-19 testing, especially during the early months of the pandemic.

Comparison with other studies

We searched for systematic reviews published after March 2020 in PubMed using combinations of equivalent Mesh terms: ‘COVID’, ‘prediction’, ‘mortality’, ‘model’, ‘underlying condition’, ‘relative risk’ and ‘infection rate’. A systematic review of 107 multivariate prediction models for COVID-19 mortality showed that variables were selected from signs, symptoms and risk factors from COVID-19 patients during the pandemic.²⁶ All models had unclear or high risk of bias, including non-representative data sources, unreliable COVID-19 case definition, excluding patients who had not experienced outcomes of interest, and model overfitting. We found no studies of excess mortality prediction based on pre-pandemic mortality in people with high-risk underlying conditions and RR and IR associated with COVID-19. In our study, all patients, regardless of outcome of interest, were included in analyses. Moreover, we conducted model cross-validation to minimise overfitting (Table S3).

We used EHR data of the whole population in England to validate our model for predicting one-year excess mortality in people exposed to COVID-19. The data used in our study are derived from anonymised, individual-level and linked EHRs of the whole population in England, making our model highly representative. We have used validated phenotype definitions for high-risk underlying conditions and COVID-19 cases. Our study highlights the significance of pre-pandemic longitudinal EHR data to predict the direct effects of the pandemic for preparedness and early response.

Our model is a simple, conceptual model for formulating worst-case to best-case scenarios at the start of the pandemic. We developed the model in CPRD data with assumed parameters and replicated the model in NHS Digital TRE using observed RR and IR values. Hence, our model is more suitable for risk assessment for pandemic preparedness and early response rather than high-precision estimation of the mortality.

Meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications

Pre-pandemic mortality risks

Baseline mortality risk can be used to predict COVID-19-related mortality over one year at the national level, and underlying conditions and age are major determining factors of the risk. We show that national data EHRs, such as the NHS Digital TRE, and sampled less complete data, such as CPRD, can be used to estimate and monitor baseline risk at scale. Such data are available across diseases, risk factors and countries via the Global Burden of Disease Study and other efforts, and have already been used to project high-risk populations for COVID-19.²⁷ There is public demand for such information, which can be provided in an interpretable, usable format employing open phenotypes, coding and standards.^18–21,28

Infection rate over one year

Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 IRs has been crucial across countries throughout the pandemic by different methods, including incident or prevalent cases, over weeks or months, by antigen or antibody tests, or by static or dynamic rates. Our model used population IR over one year, which we estimated using comprehensive testing, primary care, hospital data and death data in the NHS Digital TRE in a mostly pre-vaccination era. Our estimates of IR represent nearly the whole English population, consistent with pre-vaccination antibody rates in the UK²⁹ and a recent study using the same data.²³ However, under-estimation is still possible and, moreover, likely, due to initially limited testing capacity and asymptomatic infection. Future research and models should incorporate higher vaccination rates, novel variants, potential impact of reinfection and dynamic IRs over time.

Relative risk associated with the pandemic

Excess mortality associated with COVID-19 has been a focus in health policy since the early stages of the pandemic. Comparisons with flu persist until now, including ‘winter excess deaths’, which have been estimated as 20% higher than the baseline mortality rate.¹ In our model, we used RR estimates of 1.5, 2 and 3, and in the national data, we observed 4.34 in the overall population. Assuming an under-estimation of IR, we may have over-estimated RR, but our estimates are in line with a recent time-series analysis of excess mortality in the first pandemic wave in the UK. That study showed that certain underlying conditions were associated with higher RR of excess pandemic mortality, compared with the pre-pandemic period.³⁰

Implications for public health and policy makers

There are three public health and policy implications. First, EHRs were designed and used for reimbursement, clinical care and quality improvement, with limited use in emergency preparedness. Our analyses show that EHRs could and should be part of pandemic planning and surveillance. Second, pre-pandemic mortality risk can be estimated at individual, subgroup and national levels, and is important in pandemic mortality prediction as well as preparedness including shielding and vaccination prioritisation. Third, our data support the syndemic lens, which views COVID-19 not just as an infectious disease, but one with social, environmental and NCD determinants and effects, signalling the need for multidisciplinary public health and policy approaches in pandemics.

Research implications

First, there are more than 80 diseases, risk factors and underlying conditions designated as moderate and high risk for COVID-19 by the UK government.²⁰ We will validate COVID-19 mortality estimates for the comprehensive list, providing condition-specific IR and RR estimates, stratified by ethnicity, deprivation and vaccination, with future application for models in COVID-19 and other pandemics. Second, the policy need for region- and country-specific data is well recognised, and our UK-based analyses may not be generalisable to other countries and datasets. Third, we only considered direct pandemic impact on mortality, not indirect and long-term (Long COVID) impact, which need to be studied and incorporated into future pandemic impact models. Fourth, baseline mortality risk estimation (using models such as ours) could be combined with existing methods of dynamic transmission modelling to predict and mitigate future pandemics.

Conclusions

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on excess mortality can be predicted using national EHRs and is related to baseline mortality risk, population IRs and pandemic-associated RR. In public health, policy and research, there are implications for expertise, data and resources in future pandemic preparedness.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jrs-10.1177_01410768221131897 - Supplemental material for Using national electronic health records for pandemic preparedness: validation of a parsimonious model for predicting excess deaths among those with COVID-19–a data-driven retrospective cohort study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jrs-10.1177_01410768221131897 for Using national electronic health records for pandemic preparedness: validation of a parsimonious model for predicting excess deaths among those with COVID-19–a data-driven retrospective cohort study by Mehrdad A Mizani, Ashkan Dashtban, Laura Pasea, Alvina G Lai, Johan Thygesen, Chris Tomlinson, Alex Handy, Jil B Mamza, Tamsin Morris, Sara Khalid, Francesco Zaccardi, Mary Joan Macleod, Fatemeh Torabi, Dexter Canoy, Ashley Akbari, Colin Berry, Thomas Bolton, John Nolan, Kamlesh Khunti, Spiros Denaxas, Harry Hemingway, Cathie Sudlow, Amitava Banerjee on behalf of the CVD-COVID-UK Consortium in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Footnotes

Declarations

References

Banerjee

Pasea

Harris

Gonzalez-Izquierdo

Torralbo

Shallcross

, et al. Estimating excess 1-year mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic according to underlying conditions and age: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2020; 395: 1715–1725.

Williamson

Walker

Bhaskaran

Bacon

Bates

Morton

, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature 2020; 584: 430–436.

Clift

Coupland

CAC

Keogh

Diaz-Ordaz

Williamson

Harrison

, et al. Living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID) for risk of hospital admission and mortality from coronavirus 19 in adults: national derivation and validation cohort study. BMJ 2020; 371: m3731.

Docherty

Harrison

Green

Hardwick

Pius

Norman

, et al. Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ 2020; 369: m1985.

Horby

Lim

Emberson

Mafham

Bell

Linsell

, et al.; RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 693–704.

Hippisley-Cox

Coupland

Vinogradova

Robson

Minhas

Sheikh

, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 2008; 336: 1475–1482.

Vogelsang

Bojesen

Hoelmich

Orhan

Buzquurz

Cai

, , et al. Prediction of 90-day mortality after surgery for colorectal cancer using standardized nationwide quality-assurance data. BJS Open 2021; 5: zrab023.

Ajnakina

Agbedjro

McCammon

Faul

Murray

, Stahlet al. Development and validation of prediction model to estimate 10-year risk of all-cause mortality using modern statistical learning methods: a large population-based cohort study and external validation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021; 21: 1–11.

Bolge

Kariburyo

Yuce

Fleischhackl

Predictors and outcomes of hospitalization for influenza: real-world evidence from the United States medicare population.

Infect Dis Ther 2021; 10: 213–228.

10.

Tang

Woo

Predictors of in-hospital mortality of older patients admitted for community-acquired pneumonia.

Age Ageing 2011; 40: 736–741.

11.

Huppert

Katriel

Mathematical modelling and prediction in infectious disease epidemiology.

Clin Microbiol Infect 2013; 19: 999–1005.

12.

Biggerstaff

Cowling

Cucunubá

Dinh

Ferguson

Gao

, et al. WHO COVID-19 modelling parameters group. Early insights from statistical and mathematical modeling of key epidemiologic parameters of COVID-19. Emerg Infect Dis 2020; 26: e1–e14.

13.

Laydon

Mishra

Hinsley

Samartsidis

Flaxman

Gandy

, et al. Modelling the impact of the tier system on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the UK between the first and second national lockdowns. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e050346.

14.

Verity

Okell

Dorigatti

Winskill

Whittaker

Imai

, et al. Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20: 669–677.

15.

Horton

Offline: COVID-19 is not a pandemic.

Lancet 2020; 396: 874.

16.

Banerjee

Chen

Pasea

Lai

Katsoulis

Denaxas

, et al. Excess deaths in people with cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2021; 28: 1599–609.

17.

Lai

Pasea

Banerjee

Hall

Denaxas

Chang

, et al. Estimating excess mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity in the COVID-19 emergency. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e043828.

18.

Wood

Denholm

Hollings

Cooper

Walker

, et al. Linked electronic health records for research on a nationwide cohort of more than 54 million people in England: data resource. BMJ 2021; 373: n826.

19.

CVD-COVID-UK/COVID-IMPACT TRE Dataset Provisioning Dashboard, British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, Health Data Research UK. See www.hdruk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/220210-CVD-COVID-UK-COVID-IMPACT-TRE-Dataset-Provisioning-Dashboard.pdf (last checked 11 February 2022).

20.

Who is at high risk from coronavirus (COVID-19). See www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/who-is-at-high-risk-from-coronavirus/ (last checked 1 February 2022).

21.

Denaxas

Gonzalez-Izquierdo

Direk

Fitzpatrick

Fatemifar

Banerjee

, et al. UK phenomics platform for developing and validating electronic health record phenotypes: CALIBER. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26: 1545–1559.

22.

OpenPrescribing, https://openprescribing.net/bnf/0603/ (last checked 1 February 2022).

23.

Thygesen

Tomlinson

Hollings

Mizani

Handy

Akbari

, et al. COVID-19 trajectories among 57 million adults in England: a cohort study using electronic health records. Lancet Digit Health 2022; 4: e542–e557.

24.

Estimates of the population for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Office for National Statistics. See www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland (last checked 1 February 2022).

25.

Kopec

Finès

Manuel

Buckeridge

Flanagan

Oderkirk

, et al. Validation of population-based disease simulation models: a review of concepts and methods. BMC Public Health 2010; 10: 710.

26.

Wynants

Van Calster

Collins

Riley

Heinze

Schuit

, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020; 369: m1328.

27.

Clark

Jit

Warren-Gash

Guthrie

Wang

HHX

Mercer

, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8: e1003–e1017.

28.

Banerjee

Pasea

Manohar

Lai

Hemingway

Sofer

, et al. ‘What is the risk to me from COVID-19?': Public involvement in providing mortality risk information for people with ‘high-risk' conditions for COVID-19 (OurRisk.CoV). Clin Med (Lond) 2021; 21: e620–e628.

29.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection survey: characteristics of people testing positive for COVID-19 in England and antibody data for the UK: December 2020. See www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsinthecommunityinengland/december2020 (last checked 2 February 2022).

30.

Strongman

Carreira

De Stavola

Bhaskaran

Leon

DA.

Factors associated with excess all-cause mortality in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a time series analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PLoS Med 2022; 19: e1003870.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.26 MB