Search

Background/Aims The impact of the pandemic on the incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis (IA) is not understood. Routinely-captured data in secure platforms, such as OpenSAFELY, offer unique opportunities to understand how IA was impacted upon by the pandemic. Our objective was to use OpenSAFELY to assess the effects of the pandemic on diagnostic incidence and care delivery for IA in England, and replicate key metrics from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we used primary care and hospital data for 17 million adults registered with general practices using TPP health record software, to explore the following outcomes between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022: 1) incidence of IA diagnoses (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, undifferentiated IA) recorded in primary care; 2) time to first rheumatology assessment; 3) time to first prescription of a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in primary care, and choice of first csDMARD. Results From 17,683,500 adults (representing 40% of the English population), there were 31,280 incident IA diagnoses recorded between April 2019 and March 2022. New IA diagnoses decreased by 39.7% in the early months of the pandemic. Overall, a 20.3% decrease in IA diagnoses was seen in the year commencing April 2020, relative to the preceding year (5.1 vs. 6.4 diagnoses per 10,000 adults, respectively). Further decreases coincided with rising COVID-19 numbers, before returning to pre-pandemic levels by the end of the study period. No rebound increase in IA incidence was observed as of April 2022. The median time from referral to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (18 days; IQR 8-35 days) than before (21 days; 9-41 days). The proportion of patients prescribed csDMARDs in primary care was comparable to before the pandemic; however, fewer people were prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide, and more were prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine. Conclusion IA diagnoses decreased markedly during the early phase of the pandemic; however, the impact on rheumatology assessment times and DMARD prescribing was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using routinely-captured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection. Disclosure M.D. Russell: Honoraria; Lilly, Menarini, Biogen. Other; Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, UCB. J.B. Galloway: Honoraria; Abbvie, Biovitrum, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. C.D. Andrews: None. B. MacKenna: None. B. Goldacre: Grants/research support; Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NIHR, Mohn-Westlake Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organisation, UKRI, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation, and National Core Studies programme. A. Mehrkar: Other; Former employee and interim CMO of NHS Digital, and RCGP representative on GP Data Professional Advisory Group to NHS Digital. H.J. Curtis: None. B. Butler-Cole: None. T. O'Dwyer: None. S. Qureshi: Grants/research support; BMS. J.M. Ledingham: Other; Clinical director for NEIAA, Secretary for The Federation of Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians SCE Board, and trustee of the BSR. A. Mahto: Honoraria; Abbvie, Galapagos. Other; Lilly. A.I. Rutherford: Other; Lilly. M.A. Adas: None. E. Alveyn: None. S. Norton: None. A.P. Cope: Consultancies; BMS, Abbvie, GSK/Galvini. Member of speakers’ bureau; BMS, Abbvie. Grants/research support; BMS. Other; Executive committee of the EULAR research centre. K. Bechman: Grants/research support; Versus Arthritis and Pfizer Global Medical Grants.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis is not understood. Routinely captured data in secure platforms, such as OpenSAFELY, offer unique opportunities to understand how care for patients with inflammatory arthritis was impacted upon by the pandemic. Our objective was to use OpenSAFELY to assess the effects of the pandemic on diagnostic incidence and care delivery for inflammatory arthritis in England and to replicate key metrics from the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit.In this population-level cohort study, we used primary care and hospital data for 17·7 million adults registered with general practices using TPP health record software, to explore the following outcomes between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022: (1) incidence of inflammatory arthritis diagnoses (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis) recorded in primary care; (2) time to first rheumatology assessment; (3) time to first prescription of a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in primary care; and (4) choice of first DMARD.Among 17 683 500 adults, there were 31 280 incident inflammatory arthritis diagnoses recorded between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022. The mean age of diagnosed patients was 55·4 years (SD 16·6), 18 615 (59·5%) were female, 12 665 (40·5%) were male, and 22 925 (88·3%) of 25 960 with available ethnicity data were White. New inflammatory arthritis diagnoses decreased by 20·3% in the year commencing April, 2020, relative to the preceding year (5·1Inflammatory arthritis diagnoses decreased markedly during the early phase of the pandemic. The impact on rheumatology assessment times and DMARD prescribing in primary care was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using routinely captured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection.None.

BACKGROUND Approaches to addressing unwarranted variation in health care service delivery have traditionally relied on the prospective identification of activities and outcomes, based on a hypothesis, with subsequent reporting against defined measures. Practice-level prescribing data in England are made publicly available by the National Health Service (NHS) Business Services Authority for all general practices. There is an opportunity to adopt a more data-driven approach to capture variability and identify outliers by applying hypothesis-free, data-driven algorithms to national data sets. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to develop and apply a hypothesis-free algorithm to identify unusual prescribing behavior in primary care data at multiple administrative levels in the NHS in England and to visualize these results using organization-specific interactive dashboards, thereby demonstrating proof of concept for prioritization approaches. METHODS Here we report a new data-driven approach to quantify how “unusual” the prescribing rates of a particular chemical within an organization are as compared to peer organizations, over a period of 6 months (June-December 2021). This is followed by a ranking to identify which chemicals are the most notable outliers in each organization. These outlying chemicals are calculated for all practices, primary care networks, clinical commissioning groups, and sustainability and transformation partnerships in England. Our results are presented via organization-specific interactive dashboards, the iterative development of which has been informed by user feedback. RESULTS We developed interactive dashboards for every practice (n=6476) in England, highlighting the unusual prescribing of 2369 chemicals (dashboards are also provided for 42 sustainability and transformation partnerships, 106 clinical commissioning groups, and 1257 primary care networks). User feedback and internal review of case studies demonstrate that our methodology identifies prescribing behavior that sometimes warrants further investigation or is a known issue. CONCLUSIONS Data-driven approaches have the potential to overcome existing biases with regard to the planning and execution of audits, interventions, and policy making within NHS organizations, potentially revealing new targets for improved health care service delivery. We present our dashboards as a proof of concept for generating candidate lists to aid expert users in their interpretation of prescribing data and prioritize further investigations and qualitative research in terms of potential targets for improved performance.

Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild-type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and Office for National Statistics all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases with wild-type diagnosed from 16 November 2020 to 11 January 2021. Results Using data from 185 234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha = 93 153; wild-type = 92 081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41–2.13; P Conclusions The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalization and mortality than wild-type virus.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on delivery of NHS care. We have developed the OpenSAFELY Service Restoration Observatory (SRO) to describe this impact on primary care activity and monitor its recovery.ObjectivesTo develop key measures of primary care activity and describe the trends in these measures throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we developed an open source software framework for data management and analysis to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across primary care electronic health record (EHR) data on 48 million adults.We developed SNOMED-CT codelists for key measures of primary care clinical activity selected by a expert clinical advisory group and conducted a population cohort-based study to describe trends and variation in these measures January 2019-December 2021, and pragmatically classified their level of recovery one year into the pandemic using the percentage change in the median practice level rate.ResultsWe produced 11 measures reflective of clinical activity in general practice. A substantial drop in activity was observed in all measures at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. By April 2021, the median rate had recovered to within 15% of the median rate in April 2019 in six measures. The remaining measures showed a sustained drop, ranging from a 18.5% reduction in medication reviews to a 42.0% reduction in blood pressure monitoring. Three measures continued to show a sustained drop by December 2021.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a substantial change in primary care activity across the measures we developed, with recovery in most measures. We delivered an open source software framework to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. We will continue to expand the set of key measures to be routinely monitored using our publicly available NHS OpenSAFELY SRO dashboards with near real-time data.

Background Priority patients in England were offered COVID-19 vaccination by mid-April 2021. Codes in clinical record systems can denote the vaccine being declined. Aim We describe records of COVID-19 vaccines being declined, according to clinical and demographic factors. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study between 8 December 2020 and 25 May 2021 with primary care records for 57.9 million patients using OpenSAFELY, a secure health analytics platform. COVID-19 vaccination priority patients were those aged ≥ 50 years or ≥ 16 years clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) or ’at risk’. We describe the proportion recorded as declining vaccination for each group and stratified by clinical and demographic subgroups, subsequent vaccination and distribution of clinical code usage across general practices. Results Of 24.5 million priority patients, 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline recorded, while 2,155,076 (8.8%) had neither a vaccine nor decline recorded. Those recorded as declining, who were subsequently vaccinated (n = 125,587; 18.9%) were overrepresented in the South Asian population (32.3% vs 22.8% for other ethnicities aged ≥ 65 years). The proportion of declining unvaccinated patients was highest in CEV (3.3%), varied strongly with ethnicity (black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, white 1.5% for ≥ 80 years) and correlated positively with increasing deprivation. Conclusions Clinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are commonly used in England, but substantially more common among black and South Asian people, and in more deprived areas. Qualitative research is needed to determine typical reasons for recorded declines, including to what extent they reflect patients actively declining.

Background Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of age-based generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in Wave 1 (1 February 2020–31 August 2020) and 2 731 427 in Wave 2 (1 September 2020–31 January 2021). Results Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves [e.g. Wave 2, 67+ living with three other generations vs 67+-year-olds only: White hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 95% CI 1.38–1.87, South Asian HR 1.76 95% CI 1.48–2.10], with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in Wave 2. There was also an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in Wave 1 associated with living alone for White (HR 1.35 95% CI 1.30–1.41), South Asian (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.18–1.84) and Other (HR 1.72 95% CI 0.99–2.97) ethnicities, an effect that persisted for White older people in Wave 2. Conclusions Both multigenerational living and living alone were associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings, whereas a substantial proportion of White older people live alone. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics.

BackgroundLong COVID describes new or persistent symptoms at least 4 weeks after onset of acute COVID-19. Clinical codes to describe this phenomenon were recently created.AimTo describe the use of long-COVID codes, and variation of use by general practice, demographic variables, and over time.Design and settingPopulation-based cohort study in English primary care.MethodWorking on behalf of NHS England, OpenSAFELY data were used encompassing 96% of the English population between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021. The proportion of people with a recorded code for long COVID was measured overall and by demographic factors, electronic health record software system (EMIS or TPP), and week.ResultsLong COVID was recorded for 23 273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed among practices, with 26.7% of practices having never used the codes. Regional variation ranged between 20.3 per 100 000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.3 to 21.4) and 55.6 per 100 000 people in London (95% CI = 54.1 to 57.1). Coding was higher among females (52.1, 95% CI = 51.3 to 52.9) than males (28.1, 95% CI = 27.5 to 28.7), and higher among practices using EMIS (53.7, 95% CI = 52.9 to 54.4) than those using TPP (20.9, 95% CI = 20.3 to 21.4).ConclusionCurrent recording of long COVID in primary care is very low, and variable between practices. This may reflect patients not presenting; clinicians and patients holding different diagnostic thresholds; or challenges with the design and communication of diagnostic codes. Increased awareness of diagnostic codes is recommended to facilitate research and planning of services, and also surveys with qualitative work to better evaluate clinicians’ understanding of the diagnosis.

On March 11th 2020, the World Health Organization characterised COVID-19 as a pandemic. Responses to containing the spread of the virus have relied heavily on policies involving restricting contact between people. Evolving policies regarding shielding and individual choices about restricting social contact will rely heavily on perceived risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In order to make informed decisions, both individual and collective, good predictive models are required. For outcomes related to an infectious disease, the performance of any risk prediction model will depend heavily on the underlying prevalence of infection in the population of interest. Incorporating measures of how this changes over time may result in important improvements in prediction model performance. This protocol reports details of a planned study to explore the extent to which incorporating time-varying measures of infection burden over time improves the quality of risk prediction models for COVID-19 death in a large population of adult patients in England. To achieve this aim, we will compare the performance of different modelling approaches to risk prediction, including static cohort approaches typically used in chronic disease settings and landmarking approaches incorporating time-varying measures of infection prevalence and policy change, using COVID-19 related deaths data linked to longitudinal primary care electronic health records data within the OpenSAFELY secure analytics platform.

BACKGROUND Data analysis can be used to identify signals suggestive of variation in treatment choice or clinical outcome. Analyses to date have generally focused on an hypothesis-driven approach. OBJECTIVE Develop hypothesis-blind data driven approaches to identify outlier prescribing behaviour. METHODS Here we report an innovative hypothesis-blind approach (calculating chemical-class proportions for every chemical substance prescribed in each Clinical Commissioning Group and ranking chemicals by (a) their kurtosis and (b) a ratio between inter-centile differences) applied to England’s national prescribing data, and demonstrate how this identified unusual prescribing of two antipsychotics. RESULTS We identified that, while promazine and pericyazine are barely used by most clinicians, they make up a substantial proportion of all antipsychotic prescribing in two small geographic regions in England. CONCLUSIONS Data-driven approaches can be effective at identifying unusual clinical choices. More widespread adoption of such approaches, combined with clinician and decision-maker engagement could lead to better optimised patient care. CLINICALTRIAL n/a

BackgroundSince its inception in March 2020, data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP electronic health record platform has been used for more than 50 studies relating to the global COVID-19 emergency. OpenSAFELY-TPP data is derived from practices in England using SystmOne software, and has been used for the majority of these studies. We set out to investigate the representativeness of OpenSAFELY-TPP data by comparing it to national population estimates.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we describe the age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation and ethnicity of the OpenSAFELY-TPP population compared to national estimates from the Office for National Statistics. The five leading causes of death occurring between the 1st January 2020 and the 31st December 2020 were also compared to deaths registered in England during the same period.ResultsDespite regional variations, TPP is largely representative of the general population of England in terms of IMD (all within 1.1 percentage points), age, sex (within 0.1 percentage points), ethnicity and causes of death. The proportion of the five leading causes of death is broadly similar to those reported by ONS (all within 1 percentage point).ConclusionsData made available via OpenSAFELY-TPP is broadly representative of the English population.SummaryUsers of OpenSAFELY must consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research. Although the coverage of TPP practices varies regionally across England, TPP registered patients are generally representative of the English population as a whole in terms of key demographic characteristics.Key messagesThere is regional variability across England in terms of key population characteristicsUsers of OpenSAFELY should carefully consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research.TPP registered patients are a representative sub-sample of the English population as a whole in terms of age, sex, IMD and ethnicity.The proportions of the five leading causes of death in TPP in 2020 are broadly similar to those reported by ONS.

Background: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and on immune-modifying drugs might not be fully mediated by comorbidities and might vary by factors such as ethnicity. We aimed to assess the risk of severe COVID-19 in adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and in those on immune-modifying therapies. Methods: We did a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY (an analytics platform for electronic health records) and TPP (a software provider for general practitioners), analysing routinely collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death, and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We included people aged 18 years or older on March 1, 2020, who were registered with TPP practices with at least 12 months of primary care records before March, 2020. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders and mediators) to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) comparing the risk of COVID-19-related death, critical care admission or death, and hospital admission (from March 1 to Sept 30, 2020) in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with the general population, and in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on targeted immune-modifying drugs (eg, biologics) compared with those on standard systemic treatment (eg, methotrexate). Findings: We identified 17 672 065 adults; 1 163 438 adults (640 164 [55·0%] women and 523 274 [45·0%] men, and 827 457 [71·1%] of White ethnicity) had immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and 16 508 627 people (8 215 020 [49·8%] women and 8 293 607 [50·2%] men, and 10 614 096 [64·3%] of White ethnicity) were included as the general population. Of 1 163 438 adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, 19 119 (1·6%) received targeted immune-modifying therapy and 181 694 (15·6%) received standard systemic therapy. Compared with the general population, adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, and smoking status; HR 1·23, 95% CI 1·20-1·27) and further adjusting for mediators (body-mass index [BMI], cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and current glucocorticoid use; 1·15, 1·11-1·18). Adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases also had an increased risk of COVID-19-related critical care admission or death (confounder-adjusted HR 1·24, 95% CI 1·21-1·28; mediator-adjusted 1·16, 1·12-1·19) and hospital admission (confounder-adjusted 1·32, 1·29-1·35; mediator-adjusted 1·20, 1·17-1·23). In post-hoc analyses, the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases was higher in non-White ethnic groups than in White ethnic groups (as it was in the general population). We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults on targeted, compared with those on standard systemic, therapy after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, BMI, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [bowel, joint, and skin], cardiovascular disease, cancer [excluding non-melanoma skin cancer], stroke, and diabetes (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80-1·33), and after additionally adjusting for current glucocorticoid use (1·01, 0·78-1·30). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults prescribed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-12/IL‑23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, or Janus kinase inhibitors compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19-related death (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·11-2·56), with some attenuation after excluding people with haematological malignancies or organ transplants (1·54, 0·95-2·49). Interpretation: COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions were higher in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune-modifying drugs for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Funding: UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, and Wellcome Trust.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity across a broad range of clinical services. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible.AimsUsing routinely collected data, our aim was to describe changes in the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice in: (i) cardiovascular disease, (ii) diabetes, (iii) mental health, (iv) female and reproductive health, (v) screening, and (vi) processes related to medication.Design and settingWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in-situ using OpenSAFELY.MethodsWe selected common primary care activity using CTV3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 - December 2020, presenting median and deciles of code usage across practices per month.ResultsWe identified substantial and widespread changes in clinical activity in primary care since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with generally good recovery by December 2020. A few exceptions showed poor recovery and warrant further investigation, such as mental health, e.g. “Depression interim review” (median across practices in December 2020 -41.6% compared to December 2019).ConclusionsGranular NHS GP data at population-scale can be used to monitor disruptions to healthcare services and guide the development of mitigation strategies. The authors are now developing real-time monitoring dashboards for key measures identified here as well as further studies, using primary care data to monitor and mitigate the indirect health impacts of Covid-19 on the NHS.How this fits inDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, routine healthcare services in England faced significant disruption, and NHS England recommended restoring NHS services to near-normal levels before winter 2020. Our previous report covered the disruption and recovery in pathology tests and respiratory activity: here we describe an additional six areas of common primary care activity. We found most activities exhibited significant reductions during pandemic wave 1 (with most recovering to near-normal levels by December); however many important aspects of care - especially those of a more time-critical nature - were maintained throughout the pandemic. We recommend key measures for ongoing monitoring and further investigation of the impacts on health inequalities, to help measure and mitigate the ongoing indirect health impacts of COVID-19 on the NHS.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) vs. molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients.DesignWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform.SettingPatient-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 COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering a period where both medications were frequently prescribed in community settings.ParticipantsNon-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high risk of severe outcomes treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir since December 16, 2021.InterventionsSotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units.Main outcome measureCOVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation.ResultsBetween December 16, 2021 and February 10, 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, with no substantial differences in their baseline characteristics. The mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (SD=16) years; 59% were female, 89% White and 88% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 87 (1.4%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographics, 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, HR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.88; P=0.014). Consistent results were obtained from propensity score weighted Cox models (HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.81; P=0.005) and when restricted to fully vaccinated people (HR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.90; P=0.019). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction>0.10). Findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between February 16 and May 1, 2022 when the Omicron BA.2 variant was dominant in England.ConclusionIn routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is increasing in prevalence around the world. Accurate estimation of disease severity associated with Omicron is critical for pandemic planning. We found lower risk of accident and emergency (AE) attendance following SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron compared to Delta (HR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.30 – 0.51; PConflicts of InterestsNothing to declare.Funding statementThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1. TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data centre pro bono in the context of a national emergency. Rosalind Eggo is funded by HDR UK (grant: MR/S003975/1), MRC (grant: MC_PC 19065), NIHR (grant: NIHR200908).

Objectives To assess the association between routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform.Methods We conducted two cohort studies from 1 March to 14 June 2020. Working on behalf of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data in England linked to death data. In study 1, we identified people with an NSAID prescription in the last 3 years from the general population. In study 2, we identified people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. We defined exposure as current NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1 March 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate HRs for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications and geographical region.Results In study 1, we included 536 423 current NSAID users and 1 927 284 non-users in the general population. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14) in the multivariable-adjusted model. In study 2, we included 1 708 781 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175 495 (10%) were current NSAID users. In the multivariable-adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use.Conclusions We found no evidence of a harmful effect of routinely prescribed NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks of COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about the routine therapeutic use of NSAIDs.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219517

BackgroundSince 2014 English national guidance recommends ‘high-intensity’ statins, reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by ≥40%.AimTo describe trends and variation in low-/medium-intensity statin prescribing and assess the feasibility of rapid prescribing behaviour change.Design and settingA retrospective cohort study using OpenPrescribing data from all 8142 standard NHS general practices in England from August 2010 to March 2019.MethodStatins were categorised as high- or low-/medium-intensity using two different thresholds, and the proportion prescribed below these thresholds was calculated. The authors plotted trends and geographical variation, carried out mixed-effects logistic regression to identify practice characteristics associated with breaching of guidance, and used indicator saturation to identify sudden prescribing changes.ResultsThe proportion of statins prescribed below the recommended 40% LDL-lowering threshold has decreased gradually from 80% in 2011/2012 to 45% in 2019; the proportion below a pragmatic 37% threshold decreased from 30% to 18% in 2019. Guidance from 2014 had minimal impact on trends. Wide variation was found between practices (interdecile ranges 20% to 85% and 10% to 30% respectively in 2018). Regression identified no strong associations with breaching of guidance. Indicator saturation identified several practices exhibiting sudden changes towards greater guideline compliance.ConclusionBreaches of guidance on choice of statin remain common, with substantial variation between practices. Some have implemented rapid change, indicating the feasibility of rapid prescribing behaviour change. This article discusses the potential for a national strategic approach, using data and evidence to optimise care, including targeted education alongside audit and feedback to outliers through services such as OpenPrescribing.

BackgroundData analysis can be used to identify signals suggestive of variation in treatment choice or clinical outcome. Analyses to date have generally focused on an hypothesis-driven approach.MethodsHere we report an innovative hypothesis-blind approach (calculating chemical-class proportions for every chemical substance prescribed in each Clinical Commissioning Group and ranking chemicals by (a) their kurtosis and (b) a ratio between inter-centile differences) applied to England’s national prescribing data, and demonstrate how this identified unusual prescribing of two antipsychotics.OutcomesWe identified that, while promazine and pericyazine are barely used by most clinicians, they make up a substantial proportion of all antipsychotic prescribing in two small geographic regions in England.InterpretationData-driven approaches can be effective at identifying unusual clinical choices. More widespread adoption of such approaches, combined with clinician and decision-maker engagement could lead to better optimised patient care.FundingNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford; Health Foundation; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research and Research for Patient BenefitResearch in contextEvidence before this studyIdentifying variation in clinical activity typically employs a traditional approach whereby measures are prospectively defined, and adherence then assessed in data. We are aware of no prior work using data science techniques hypothesis-blind to systematically identify outliers for any given treatment choice or clinical outcome (numerators) as a proportion of automatically generated denominators.Added value of this studyHere we report an innovative hypothesis-blind approach applied to England’s national prescribing data, to identify chemical substances with substantial prescribing patterns between organisations. As illustrative examples we show that promazine and pericyazine, while rarely used by most clinicians, made up a substantial proportion of all antipsychotic prescribing in two small geographic regions in England.Implications of all the available evidenceThe choice of antipsychotics between English regions could be further investigated using qualitative methods to explore the implications for patient care. More broadly, data-driven approaches can be effective at identifying unusual clinical choices. More widespread adoption of such approaches, combined with clinician and decision-maker engagement could lead to better optimised patient care.

Objective To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) covid-19 vaccines during the booster programme in England. Design Matched cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial. Setting Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants were dominant. Participants 3 237 918 adults who received a booster dose of either vaccine between 29 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 as part of the national booster programme in England and who received a primary course of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Intervention Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster vaccine dose. Main outcome measures Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and non-covid-19 related death at 20 weeks after receipt of the booster dose. Results 1 618 959 people were matched in each vaccine group, contributing a total 64 546 391 person weeks of follow-up. The 20 week risks per 1000 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 164.2 (95% confidence interval 163.3 to 165.1) for BNT162b2 and 159.9 (159.0 to 160.8) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.96). The 20 week risks per 1000 for hospital admission with covid-19 were 0.75 (0.71 to 0.79) for BNT162b2 and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.69) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.82 to 0.95). Covid-19 related deaths were rare: the 20 week risks per 1000 were 0.028 (0.021 to 0.037) for BNT162b2 and 0.024 (0.018 to 0.033) for mRNA-1273; hazard ratio 0.83 (0.58 to 1.19). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical vulnerability. Relative benefit was similar when vaccines were compared separately in the delta and omicron variant eras. Conclusions This matched observational study of adults estimated a modest benefit of booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 in preventing positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and hospital admission with covid-19 20 weeks after vaccination, during a period of delta followed by omicron variant dominance.

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. 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.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential association of COVID-19 vaccination with three acute neurological events: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England we analysed primary care data from >17 million patients in England linked to emergency care, hospital admission and mortality records in the OpenSAFELY platform. Separately for each vaccine brand, we used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the incidence rate ratio for each outcome in the period following vaccination (4-42 days for GBS, 4-28 days for transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy) compared to a within-person baseline, using conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: Among 7,783,441 ChAdOx1 vaccinees, there was an increased rate of GBS (N = 517; incidence rate ratio 2·85; 95% CI2·33-3·47) and Bell's palsy (N = 5,350; 1·39; 1·27-1·53) following a first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine, corresponding to 11.0 additional cases of GBS and 17.9 cases of Bell's palsy per 1 million vaccinees if causal. For GBS this applied to the first, but not the second, dose. There was no clear evidence of an association of ChAdOx1 vaccination with transverse myelitis (N = 199; 1·51; 0·96-2·37). Among 5,729,152 BNT162b2 vaccinees, there was no evidence of any association with GBS (N = 283; 1·09; 0·75-1·57), transverse myelitis (N = 109; 1·62; 0·86-3·03) or Bell's palsy (N = 3,609; 0·89; 0·76-1·03). Among 255,446 mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients there was no evidence of an association with Bell's palsy (N = 78; 0·88, 0·32-2·42). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines save lives, but it is important to understand rare adverse events. We observed a short-term increased rate of Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell's palsy after first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. The absolute risk, assuming a causal effect attributable to vaccination, was low.

Background On December 8th 2020, NHS England administered the first COVID-19 vaccination as part of an ambitious vaccination programme during a global health emergency. Aims To develop a framework for detailed near-real-time monitoring of COVID-19 vaccine roll-out; to describe trends and variation in coverage by geographic area, and between key clinical and demographic patient groups. Methods Working on behalf of NHS England we used routine clinical data from 23.4 million patients to conduct a retrospective cohort study of comprehensive electronic health record data in NHS England, using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform which covers approximately 40% of the general population in England with weekly data updates. We developed algorithms to identify key demographic and clinical sub-groups within this population and generated descriptive statistics on proportion of eligible patients receiving the vaccine among key Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) target groups. Results Between December 8th and January 13th 961,580 people out of 23.4m in our dataset received a COVID-19 vaccine. Of 1,160,062 patients aged 80 or over and not living in a care home (currently targeted by JCVI) 476,375 had been vaccinated in total (41.1%). We observed a substantial divergence in vaccination by ethnicity within this group (White 42.5% vaccinated, Black 20.5%) and across rankings of deprivation (least deprived 44.7%, most deprived 37.9%). Patients with pre-existing medical conditions were equally likely, or more likely, to have received a vaccine across most co-morbidity groups with two exceptions: severe mental illness (30.3% vaccinated) and learning disability (28.1%). We identify substantial variation in vaccination among the over-80s between Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs; Range 12%-74%); lower vaccination rates among ethnic minority and deprived groups was observed in most but not all STPs. In the 70-79 age cohort 74,108 people (3.6%) had been vaccinated. 378,921 vaccine recipients under 70 and not identifiably resident in a care home were presumed to be health or social care workers; 32,174 recipients were identified as older aged care home residents (33.2% coverage). Of all those vaccinated, 169,472 had received a second dose (17.6%). Conclusions The NHS in England has rapidly delivered mass vaccination. We were able to deploy a data monitoring framework across small clinical subgroups using linked patient-level NHS data on 23.4 million people with very short delays from vaccine administration to completed analysis. Targeted activity may be needed to address lower vaccination rates observed among certain key groups: ethnic minorities, people living in areas of higher deprivation, and those with severe mental illness or learning disabilities. However we note that this data is only from the first preliminary weeks of the vaccination programme. Variation in vaccination coverage between groups and regions will have many complex drivers, the figures presented in this manuscript require thoughtful interpretation to support a rapidly evolving NHS vaccination campaign; we are sharing local level data with national and regional NHS teams on request.

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, “high-cost drugs” (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed; drug name; and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

BackgroundEarly evidence has shown that anticoagulant reduces the risk of thrombotic events in those infected with COVID-19. However, evidence of the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes is limited.AimTo investigate the association between OACs and COVID-19 outcomes in those with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2.Design and settingOn behalf of NHS England, a population-based cohort study was conducted.MethodThe study used primary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19 outcomes comparing people with current OAC use versus non-use, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications, deprivation, and general practice.ResultsOf 71 103 people with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, there were 52 832 current OAC users and 18 271 non-users. No difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with current use (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.04) versus non-use. A lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and a marginally lower risk of COVID-19-related death (aHR, 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04) were associated with current use versus non-use.ConclusionAmong those at low baseline stroke risk, people receiving OACs had a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or unmeasured confounding, including more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity globally. The NHS in England stopped most non-urgent work by March 2020, but later recommended that services should be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible. The authors are developing the OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory , using data to describe changes in service activity during COVID-19, and reviewing signals for action with commissioners, researchers and clinicians. Here we report phase one: generating, managing, and describing the data. Objective To describe the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in English primary care across 23.8 million patients’ records, taking respiratory disease and laboratory procedures as key examples. Methods Working on behalf of NHS England we developed an open source software framework for data management and analysis to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across primary care EHR data on 23.8 million patients; and conducted a population cohort-based study to describe activity using CTV3 coding hierarchy and keyword searches from January 2019-September 2020. Results Much activity recorded in general practice declined to some extent during the pandemic, but largely recovered by September 2020, with some exceptions. There was a large drop in coded activity for commonly used laboratory tests, with broad recovery to pre-pandemic levels by September. One exception was blood coagulation tests such as International Normalised Ratio (INR), with a smaller reduction (median tests per 1000 patients in 2020: February 8.0; April 6.2; September 7.0). The overall pattern of recording for respiratory symptoms was less affected, following an expected seasonal pattern and classified as “no change” from the previous year. Respiratory tract infections exhibited a sustained drop compared with pre-pandemic levels, not returning to pre-pandemic levels by September 2020. Various COVID-19 codes increased through the period. We observed a small decline associated with high level codes for long-term respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Asthma annual reviews experienced a small drop but since recovered, while COPD annual reviews remain below baseline. Conclusions We successfully delivered an open source software framework to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. The COVD-19 pandemic led to a substantial change in healthcare activity. Most laboratory tests showed substantial reduction, largely recovering to near-normal levels by September 2020, with some important tests less affected. Records of respiratory infections decreased with the exception of codes related to COVID-19, whilst activity of other respiratory disease codes was mixed. We are expanding the NHS Service Restoration Observatory in collaboration with clinicians, commissioners and researchers and welcome feedback.

ObjectiveTo 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.DesignRetrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England.SettingRoutine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.ParticipantsOutpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes.InterventionsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units.Results93 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 (ConclusionsUsing 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.

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.

Background Thromboembolism has been reported as a consequence of severe COVID-19. Although warfarin is a commonly used anticoagulant, it acts by antagonising vitamin K, which is low in patients with severe COVID-19. To date, the clinical evidence on the impact of regular use of warfarin on COVID-19-related thromboembolism is lacking. Methods On behalf of NHS England, we conducted a population-based cohort study investigating the association between warfarin and COVID-19 outcomes compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse primary care data and pseudonymously linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions and death records from England. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19-related outcomes comparing warfarin with DOACs in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. We also conducted negative control outcome analyses (being tested for SARS-CoV-2 and non-COVID-19 death) to assess the potential impact of confounding. Results A total of 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users were included. We observed a lower risk of all outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs [testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.68–0.79); COVID-19-related hospital admission, HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.68–0.83); COVID-19-related deaths, HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.83)]. A lower risk of negative control outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs was also observed [being tested for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.79–0.81); non-COVID-19 deaths, HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.76–0.83)]. Conclusions Overall, this study shows no evidence of harmful effects of warfarin on severe COVID-19 disease.

BackgroundIt is unclear if people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) (joint, bowel and skin) and on immune modifying therapy have increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we conducted a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY, analysingroutinely-collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders) to estimate hazard ratios (HR) comparing risk of COVID-19-death, death/critical care admission, and hospitalisation (March to September 2020) in: 1) people with IMIDs compared to the general population; and 2) people with IMIDs on targeted immune modifying drugs (e.g., biologics) compared to standard systemic treatment (e.g., methotrexate).FindingsWe identified 17,672,065 adults; of 1,163,438 (7%) with IMIDs, 19,119 people received targeted immune modifying drugs, and 200,813 received standard systemics. We saw evidence of increased COVID-19-death (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27), and COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35) in individuals with IMIDs overall compared to individuals without IMIDs of the same age, sex, deprivation and smoking status. We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19 deaths with targeted compared to standard systemic treatments (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.80, 1.33). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in those prescribed TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23, IL7, IL-6 or JAK inhibitors compared to standard systemics. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19 death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56); however, this finding may relate to confounding.InterpretationCOVID-19 death and hospitalisation was higher in people with IMIDs. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune modifying drugs for IMIDs compared to standard systemics.RESEARCH IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed on May 19th, 2021, using the terms “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2” and “rheumatoid arthritis”, “psoriatic arthritis” “ankylosing spondylitis”, “Crohn’s disease” “ulcerative colitis” “hidradenitis suppurativa” and “psoriasis”, to identify primary research articles examining severe COVID-19 outcome risk in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and those on immune modifying therapy. The studies identified (including matched cohort studies and studies in disease-specific registries) were limited by small sample sizes and number of outcomes. Most studies did not show a signal of increased adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on targeted therapies, with the exception of rituximab. Additionally, disease-specific registries are subject to selection bias and lack denominator populations.Added value of the studyIn our large population-based study of 17 million individuals, including 1 million people with IMIDs and just under 200,000 receiving immune modifying medications, we saw evidence that people with IMIDs had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared to the general population after adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, deprivation, smoking status) (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27). We saw differences by IMID type, with COVID-19-related death being increased by the most in people with inflammatory joint disease (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.40, 1.54). We also saw some evidence that those with IMIDs were more likely, compared to the general population, to have COVID-19-related critical care admission/death (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.21, 1.28) and hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35).Compared to people with IMIDs taking standard systemics, we saw no evidence of differences in severe COVID-19-related outcomes with TNF inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors and JAK inhibitors. However, there was some evidence that rituximab was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56) and death/critical care admission (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.31, 2.81). We also saw evidence of an increase in COVID-19-related hospital admissions in people prescribed rituximab (HR 1.59, 95%CI 1.16, 2.18) or JAK inhibition (HR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09, 3.01) compared to those on standard systemics, although this could be related to worse underlying health rather than the drugs themselves, and numbers of events were small.This is the first study to our knowledge to use high-cost drug data on medicines supplied by hospitals at a national scale in England (to identify targeted therapies). The availability of these data fills an important gap in the medication record of those with more specialist conditions treated by hospitals creating an important opportunity to generate insights to these conditions and these medicationsImplications of all of the available evidenceOur study offers insights into future risk mitigation strategies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination priorities for individuals with IMIDs, as it highlights that those with IMIDs and those taking rituximab may be at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Critically, our study does not show a link between most targeted immune modifying medications compared to standard systemics and severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, the increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes that we saw in people with IMIDs and those treated with rituximab merits further study.

BackgroundAll patients in England within vaccine priority groups were offered a COVID-19 vaccine by mid-April 2021. Clinical record systems contain codes to denote when such an offer has been declined by a patient (although these can in some cases be entered for a variety of other reasons including vaccination delay, or other administrative issues). We set out to describe the patterns of usage of codes for COVID-19 vaccines being declined.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England and using the full pseudonymised primary care records for 57.9 million NHS patients, we identified all patients in key vaccine priority groups: aged over 50, or over 16 and at increased risk from COVID-19 (Clinically Extremely Vulnerable [CEV] or otherwise “at risk”). We describe the proportion of patients recorded as declining a COVID-19 vaccination for each priority group, and by other clinical and demographic factors; whether patients recorded as “declined” subsequently went on to receive a vaccination; and the distribution of code usage across GP practices.ResultsOf 24.5 million patients in priority groups as of May 25th 2021, 89.2% had received a vaccine, 8.8% had neither a vaccination nor a decline recorded, and 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline code recorded. Of patients with a recorded decline, 125,587 (18.9%) were subsequently vaccinated. Subsequent vaccination was slightly more common in the South Asian population than other ethnicities (e.g. 32.3% vs 22.8%, over 65s). The proportion of declining-unvaccinated patients varied strongly with ethnicity (Black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, White 1.5% in over 80s); and was higher in patients from more deprived areas. COVID-19 vaccine decline codes were present in almost all practices (98.8%), but with wide variation between practices in rates of usage. Among all priority groups, declining-unvaccinated status was most common in CEV (3.3%).ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are widely used in English general practice. They are substantially more common among Black and South Asian patients, and patients from more deprived areas. There is a need for more detailed survey and/or qualitative research with patients and clinicians to determine the most common reasons for these recorded declines.

National guidance was issued during the COVID-19 pandemic to switch patients on warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) where appropriate as these require less frequent blood testing. DOACs are not recommended for patients with mechanical heart valves. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of DOAC prescribing in people with a record of a mechanical heart valve between September 2019 and May 2021, and describe the characteristics of this population. We identified 15,457 individuals with a mechanical heart valve recorded in their records, of whom 1058 (6.8%) had been prescribed a DOAC during the study period. 767 individuals with a record of a mechanical heart valve were currently prescribed a DOAC as of May 31st 2021. This is suggestive of inappropriate prescribing of DOACs in individuals with mechanical heart valves. Direct alerts have been issued to clinicians through their EHR software informing the issue. We show that the OpenSAFELY platform can be used for rapid audit and feedback to mitigate the indirect health impacts of COVID-19 on the NHS. We will monitor changes in prescribing for this risk group over the following months.

BackgroundThere is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute 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 FindingsWorking on behalf of NHS-England, we used 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-December 2020), and (i) demographically-matched controls from the 2019 general population; (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017-19. We used Cox regression adjusted for personal and clinical characteristics.24,673 post-discharge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls were followed for ≤315 days. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (adjusted-HR 2.23, 2.14-2.31) but similar to the influenza group (adjusted-HR 0.94, 0.91-0.98). All-cause mortality (7439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (adjusted-HR 4.97, 4.58-5.40 vs general population controls and 1.73, 1.60-1.87 vs influenza controls). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than general population controls, and largely comparable between COVID-19 and influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted/die due to their initial infection/other lower respiratory tract infection (adjusted-HR 1.37, 1.22-1.54), and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission/death (adjusted-HR 1.36, 1.01-2.83); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with pre-existing dementia had higher risk of dementia death. One limitation of our study is that reasons for hospitalisation/death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes.ConclusionsPeople 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, readmissions/death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of post-discharge monitoring.

BackgroundResidents in care homes have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe trends in risk of mortality among care home residents compared to residents in private homes in England.MethodsOn behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY-TPP, an analytics platform running across the linked electronic health records of approximately a third of the English population, to calculate monthly age-standardised risks of death due to all causes and COVID-19 among adults aged >=65 years between 1/2/2019 and 31/03/2021. Care home residents were identified using linkage to the Care and Quality Commission.FindingsWe included 4,329,078 people aged 65 years or older on the 1st of February 2019, 2.2% of whom were classified as residing in a care or nursing home. Age-standardised mortality risks were approximately 10 times higher among care home residents compared to non-residents in February 2019 residents (CMF = 10.59, 95%CI = 9.51, 11.81 among women, CMF = 10.82, 95%CI = 9.89, 11.84 among men). This increased to more than 17 times in April 2020 (CMF = 17.52, 95%CI = 16.38, 18.74 among women, CMF = 18.12, 95%CI = 17.17 – 19.12 among men) before returning to pre-pandemic levels in June 2020. CMFs did not increase during the second wave, despite a rise in the absolute age-standardised COVID-19 mortality risks.InterpretationThe first COVID-19 wave had a disproportionate impact on care home residents in England compared to older private home residents. A degree of immunity, improved protective measures or changes in the underlying frailty of the populations may explain the lack of an increase in the relative mortality risks during the second wave. The care home population should be prioritised for measures aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19.FundingMedical Research Council MR/V015737/1