Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T15:01:23.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2023

Qi Feng*
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Ben Lacey
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Jelena Bešević
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Wemimo Omiyale
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Megan Conroy
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Fenella Starkey
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Catherine Calvin
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Howard Callen
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Laura Bramley
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Samantha Welsh
Affiliation:
UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Allen Young
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Mark Effingham
Affiliation:
UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Alan Young
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Rory Collins
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Jo Holliday
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
Naomi Allen
Affiliation:
Oxford Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK UK Biobank, Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK
*
Corresponding author: Qi Feng; Email: Qi.Feng@ndph.ox.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

UK Biobank is an intensively characterised prospective cohort of 500,000 adults aged 40–69 years when recruited between 2006 and 2010. The study was established to enable researchers worldwide to undertake health-related research in the public interest. The existence of such a large, detailed prospective cohort with a high degree of participant engagement enabled its rapid repurposing for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) research. In response to the pandemic, the frequency of updates on hospitalisations and deaths among participants was immediately increased, and new data linkages were established to national severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and primary care health records to facilitate research into the determinants of severe COVID-19. UK Biobank also instigated several sub-studies on COVID-19. In 2020, monthly blood samples were collected from approximately 20,000 individuals to investigate the distribution and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to assess the persistence of antibodies following infection with another blood sample collected after 12 months. UK Biobank also performed repeat imaging of approximately 2,000 participants (half of whom had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and half did not) to investigate the impact of the virus on changes in measures of internal organ structure and function. In addition, approximately 200,000 UK Biobank participants took part in a self-test SARS-CoV-2 antibody sub-study (between February and November 2021) to collect objective data on previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. These studies are enabling unique research into the genetic, lifestyle and environmental determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19, as well as their long-term health effects. UK Biobank’s contribution to the national and international response to the pandemic represents a case study for its broader value, now and in the future, to precision medicine research.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. UK Biobank data.At recruitment, participants completed questionnaires on a wide range of exposure; physical measurements were taken including blood pressure, heart rate, spirometry, grip strength and anthropometry; and blood, urine and – in a subset – saliva samples were collected for long-term storage. A multimodal imaging sub-study in up to 100,000 participants includes a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the heart, abdomen and brain, whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, carotid ultrasound and 12-lead ECG. Participants are followed up for health outcomes through linkage to national death and cancer registries, hospital inpatient admissions and (for a subset) primary care records.

Figure 1

Table 1. Biological sample assay data available in UK Biobank

Figure 2

Figure 2. UK Biobank publications on COVID-19 (A) and related citations (B).

Figure 3

Table 2. Key enhancements to enable COVID-19 research in UK Biobank

Supplementary material: PDF

Feng et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S3 and Figures S1-S2

Download Feng et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 270.9 KB

Author comment: UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019 — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019 — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The UK Biobank is a very important resource for science and public health and has already proven its worth. It has also been shown to be an essential source of information in the COVID-19 pandemic.

General Comment: The problem with the current version is that it reads like a sales pitch, without explaining the rationale for this article and weighing opportunities, successes, and limitations.

Introduction. It is not clear to me what the purpose of the paper is. I understand that the manuscript is about the description of the UK Biobank and its value for COVID-19 research, but please explain the purpose of the manuscript in the introduction.

UK Biobank section. There are other publications that describe the UK Biobank in detail. What does this manuscript add to these existing publications?

The Impact and Introduction section seems to focus on the value of UK Biobank for COVID-19 research. This section describing the UK Biobank is more general and does not mention COVID-19 at all. Please make clear to the reader that this section is only about the pre-existing data.

The “Research Enhancements to Enable COVID-19 Research” section describes the data collections and data linkages for COVID-19 research, but it is mixed with results. For example: “By the end of 2022 there were approximately 250 COVID-19 peer-reviewed research publications based on UK Biobank data, with over 4500 citations”. A separation of the the data collection and the results would give the manuscript more structure and a more objective, academic perspective. What data collections or linkages failed or were not possible? What was not possible with the data? What were limitations? It is very important for future users of the UK Biobank to understand its limitations. This does not make the UK Biobank less valuable, but does contribute to its reliability.

Recommendation: UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019 — R0/PR3

Comments

The topic and content of this review is very good and interesting, and the topic is one that we really want to publish, however the first reviewer has a solid point and I think there needs to be a revision. Simply, there seems to me too much un-cited (presumably unpublished) results in this manuscript to be a review.

Given the time that has passed, hopefully more has been published to make a revision easier with the simple addition of citations (eg, the Olink study mentioned). Otherwise, I think most/all of the remaining uncited results could fit the scope of a review if the authors were to show a bit more of the workings, and then tie it back to something published. (perhaps a table of the 250 published works based on the program, as a supplementary?) I believe that’s the other reviewer’s general point too, to make it more clear what is results versus review; and then to balance out the whole review a bit.

Decision: UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019 — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019 — R1/PR5

Comments

02 July 2023

Prof Anna Dominiczak

Editors-in-Chief,

Cambridge Prisms: Precision Medicine

Dear Prof Dominiczak,

Re: UK Biobank: enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of COVID-19

(Manuscript reference: PCM-23-0004)

Thank you for the editors’ and reviewers’ comments regarding the above manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in the light of these comments, and our responses to these are detailed in the attached document. We hope that we have addressed the issues raised satisfactorily.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Qi Feng Assoc. Professor Ben Lacey Professor Naomi Allen

UK Biobank Epidemiology Group

Nuffield Department of Population Health

University of Oxford

Response to editors’ and reviewer’s comments

(Manuscript reference: PCM-23-0004)

The editors’ and reviewers’ comments are shown below in bold, and our responses are shown as non-bold text. The page and line numbers indicate where the changes have been made in the revised manuscript with tracked changes.

Editors’ Comments:

Please also ensure your manuscript complies with the following formatting points (a copy of our author guidelines is included for reference):

Please include an Impact Statement below the abstract (max. 300 words). This must not be a repetition of the abstract but a plain worded summary of the wider impact of the article.

Done. We have moved the Impact Statement to below the abstract.

Submission of graphical abstracts is encouraged for all articles to help promote their impact online. A Graphical Abstract is a single image that summarises the main findings of a paper, allowing readers to quickly gain an overview and understanding of your work. Ideally, the graphical abstract should be created independently of the figures already in the paper, but it could include a (simplified version of) an existing figure or a combination thereof. If you do not wish to include a graphical abstract please let me know.

Done. We would like to select Figure 1 as our Graphical Abstract to highlight the breadth of data in the study.

Please ensure references are correctly formatted. In text citations should follow the author and year style. When an article cited has three or more authors the style ‘Smith et al. 2013’ should be used on all occasions. At the end of the article, references should first be listed alphabetically, with a full title of each article, and the first and last pages. Journal titles should be given in full.

Done.

Statements of the following are required at the end of all articles: ‘Author Contribution Statement’, ‘Financial Support’, ‘Conflict of Interest Statement’, ‘Ethics statement’ (if appropriate), ‘Data Availability Statement’. Please see the author guidelines for further information.

Done.

Handling Editor’s Comments to Author:

Handling Editor: VanSteenhouse, Harper

Comments to the Author:

The topic and content of this review is very good and interesting, and the topic is one that we really want to publish, however the first reviewer has a solid point and I think there needs to be a revision. Simply, there seems to me too much un-cited (presumably unpublished) results in this manuscript to be a review.

Done. We have added additional references throughout the manuscript to address the concern that there is too many uncited results.

Given the time that has passed, hopefully more has been published to make a revision easier with the simple addition of citations (eg, the Olink study mentioned). Otherwise, I think most/all of the remaining uncited results could fit the scope of a review if the authors were to show a bit more of the workings, and then tie it back to something published. (perhaps a table of the 250 published works based on the program, as a supplementary?) I believe that’s the other reviewer’s general point too, to make it more clear what is results versus review; and then to balance out the whole review a bit.

Done. See response to above comment. We have now added additional references throughout the manuscript. We have also added a table of the published works to date that have used the additional covid-19 data in UK Biobank, as suggested (Table S3). In addition, we have added a paragraph at the end of the Introduction to make the aims and structure of the paper clearer - the first part of the paper being a review of the participant recruitment and data collection in UK Biobank prior to the pandemic, which provides a background for the second part of the paper that reports the enhancements to the study in response to the pandemic together with some of the research findings that have come from each of the enhancements (page 7, lines 2-9).

Reviewers’ Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

The UK Biobank is a very important resource for science and public health and has already proven its worth. It has also been shown to be an essential source of information in the COVID-19 pandemic.

General Comment: The problem with the current version is that it reads like a sales pitch, without explaining the rationale for this article and weighing opportunities, successes, and limitations.

Done. We have now added a comment towards the end of the Introduction that clarifies the rationale for the article (page 7, lines 2-9). We have also added a section towards the end of the paper that weighs the opportunities and limitations for the study, as suggested (page 19, lines 10-24 and page 20, lines 1-16).

Introduction. It is not clear to me what the purpose of the paper is. I understand that the manuscript is about the description of the UK Biobank and its value for COVID-19 research, but please explain the purpose of the manuscript in the introduction.

Done. See response to comment above. We have now added a comment to the Introduction that explains more clearly the purpose of the manuscript (page 7, lines 2-9).

UK Biobank section. There are other publications that describe the UK Biobank in detail. What does this manuscript add to these existing publications?

Done. UK Biobank is being continually enhanced and this paper provides an update on enhancements to those with an interest in precision medicine. In particular, no previous publications have comprehensively described the COVID-related enhancements of the study or the research that this enabled. The initial description of UK Biobank regarding its participant recruitment, data collection and data access, provides not only a general understanding of the cohort to reader that are new to UK Biobank, but also a background for data enhancement for COVID-19 research. We appreciate that this was not made clear in the manuscript and we have now edited the Introduction (page 7, lines 2-9) and Conclusion (page 21, line 7) accordingly.

The Impact and Introduction section seems to focus on the value of UK Biobank for COVID-19 research. This section describing the UK Biobank is more general and does not mention COVID-19 at all. Please make clear to the reader that this section is only about the pre-existing data.

Done. We have added a paragraph at the end of the Introduction to make it clear to the reader that the first section is only about data collection prior to the pandemic, as suggested (page 7, lines 2-9).

The “Research Enhancements to Enable COVID-19 Research” section describes the data collections and data linkages for COVID-19 research, but it is mixed with results. For example: “By the end of 2022 there were approximately 250 COVID-19 peer-reviewed research publications based on UK Biobank data, with over 4500 citations”. A separation of the the data collection and the results would give the manuscript more structure and a more objective, academic perspective. What data collections or linkages failed or were not possible? What was not possible with the data? What were limitations? It is very important for future users of the UK Biobank to understand its limitations. This does not make the UK Biobank less valuable, but does contribute to its reliability.

Partially done. We have edited the Introduction to make it clear that the aim of the paper is to describe UK Biobank’s contribution to the national and international response to the pandemic, and in doing so show the broader value of the study, now and in the future, to precision medicine research (page 7, lines 2-9). As such, we firstly report the data collection and study enhancements prior to the pandemic, and then discuss each of the covid-19 enhancements and some of the published work that has come from these enhancements. As the published work is often the result of a specific enhancement (e.g. the findings from the imaging sub-study) we felt it would be clearer if the published work were summarized immediately following the specific enhancement. However, we would be willing to separate the research findings from the enhancements into separate sections, if the reviewer and editors feel strongly that this is necessary. We accept that we could elaborate further on the limitation of the study, and we have added a section towards the end of the manuscript titled ‘Opportunities and limitations’ to expand on the strengths and limitations of the study (page 19, lines 10-24 and page 20, lines 1-16).

Recommendation: UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019 — R1/PR6

Comments

An important contribution to precision medicine, combining the power of a large-scale population study in the context of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic.

Decision: UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019 — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.