Search

To assess any disparities in the initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatments prescribed among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in England according to ethnicity and social deprivation level.This cross-sectional study used linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics), and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). We included people aged 18 years or older with T2DM who intensified to second-line oral antidiabetic medication between 2014 and 2020 to investigate disparities in second-line antidiabetic treatment prescribing (one of sulphonylureas [SUs], dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors, in combination with metformin) by ethnicity (White, South Asian, Black, mixed/other) and deprivation level (IMD quintiles). We report prescriptions of the alternative treatments by ethnicity and deprivation level according to predicted percentages derived from multivariable, multinomial logistic regression.Among 36 023 people, 85% were White, 10% South Asian, 4% Black and 1% mixed/other. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing by ethnicity were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-23%), 20% (95% CI 18-22%), 19% (95% CI 16-22%) and 17% (95% CI 14-21%) among people with White, South Asian, Black, and mixed/other ethnicity, respectively. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing by deprivation were 22% (95% CI 20-25%) and 19% (95% CI 17-21%) for the least deprived and the most deprived quintile, respectively. When stratifying by prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) status, we found lower predicted percentages of people with prevalent CVD prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors compared with people without prevalent CVD across all ethnicity groups and all levels of social deprivation.Among people with T2DM, there were no substantial differences by ethnicity or deprivation level in the percentage prescribed either SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors or SUs as second-line antidiabetic treatment.

Signal detection is a crucial step in the discovery of post-marketing adverse drug reactions. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected data to complement established spontaneous report analyses. This work aims to systematically review the methods for drug safety signal detection using routinely collected healthcare data and their performance, both in general and for specific types of drugs and outcomes.We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines, and registered a protocol in PROSPERO. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched until July 13, 2021.The review included 101 articles, among which there were 39 methodological works, 25 performance assessment papers, and 24 observational studies. Methods included adaptations from those used with spontaneous reports, traditional epidemiological designs, methods specific to signal detection with real-world data. More recently, implementations of machine learning have been studied in the literature. Twenty-five studies evaluated method performances, 16 of them using the area under the curve (AUC) for a range of positive and negative controls as their main measure. Despite the likelihood that performance measurement could vary by drug-event pair, only 10 studies reported performance stratified by drugs and outcomes, in a heterogeneous manner. The replicability of the performance assessment results was limited due to lack of transparency in reporting and the lack of a gold standard reference set.A variety of methods have been described in the literature for signal detection with routinely collected data. No method showed superior performance in all papers and across all drugs and outcomes, performance assessment and reporting were heterogeneous. However, there is limited evidence that self-controlled designs, high dimensional propensity scores, and machine learning can achieve higher performances than other methods.

The high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) is a semi-automated procedure for confounder identification, prioritisation and adjustment in large healthcare databases that requires investigators to specify data dimensions, prioritisation strategy and tuning parameters. In practice, reporting of these decisions is inconsistent and this can undermine the transparency, and reproducibility of results obtained. We illustrate reporting tools, graphical displays and sensitivity analyses to increase transparency and facilitate evaluation of the robustness of analyses involving HDPS.Using a study from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink that implemented HDPS we demonstrate the application of the proposed recommendations.We identify seven considerations surrounding the implementation of HDPS, such as the identification of data dimensions, method for code prioritisation and number of variables selected. Graphical diagnostic tools include assessing the balance of key confounders before and after adjusting for empirically selected HDPS covariates and the identification of potentially influential covariates. Sensitivity analyses include varying the number of covariates selected and assessing the impact of covariates behaving empirically as instrumental variables. In our example, results were robust to both the number of covariates selected and the inclusion of potentially influential covariates. Furthermore, our HDPS models achieved good balance in key confounders.The data-adaptive approach of HDPS and the resulting benefits have led to its popularity as a method for confounder adjustment in pharmacoepidemiological studies. Reporting of HDPS analyses in practice may be improved by the considerations and tools proposed here to increase the transparency and reproducibility of study results.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of Paxlovid vs. sotrovimab and molnupiravir 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 Paxlovid and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings.ParticipantsNon-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high risk of severe outcomes treated with Paxlovid, sotrovimab or molnupiravir between February 11, 2022 and October 1, 2022.InterventionsPaxlovid, sotrovimab 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.ResultsA total of 7683 eligible patients treated with Paxlovid (n=4836) and sotrovimab (n=2847) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 54.3 (SD=14.9) years; 64% were female, 93% White and 93% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 52 (0.68%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (33 (0.68%) treated with Paxlovid and 19 (0.67%) with sotrovimab). Cox proportional hazards model stratified by region showed that after adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, treatment with Paxlovid was associated with a similar risk of outcome event as treatment with sotrovimab (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.62 to 2.08; P=0.673). Results from propensity score weighted Cox model also showed comparable risks in these two treatment groups (HR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.71; P=0.700). An exploratory analysis comparing Paxlovid users with 802 molnupiravir users (11 (1.37%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed some evidence in favour of Paxlovid but with variation in the effect estimates between models (HR ranging from 0.26 to 0.61).ConclusionIn routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received Paxlovid and sotrovimab between February and October 2022, when different subvariants of Omicron were dominant.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected our lives in numerous ways. How youth have been impacted by the pandemic and which preexisting factors best relate to COVID-19 responses are of high importance for effective identification and treatment of those most vulnerable. Youth with pre-pandemic mental health difficulties such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) could be at risk for worse well-being during and after the pandemic. Methods The current study tested potential risk factors (i.e., pre-pandemic mental health, age, and parental education) and their relationship to family experiences during early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were previously enrolled in an ongoing, yearly longitudinal study examining the relationship between mental health and executive functions in youth. Families with 1–4 annual pre-pandemic lab visits filled out an online COVID-19 survey in May–July 2020 to assess how the pandemic impacted their well-being (n = 135 youth). Results Youth pre-pandemic mental health difficulties, especially ADHD symptoms, related to worse well-being during the early pandemic. Trajectories of recent ADHD symptoms over time also predicted cognitive difficulties during the pandemic. We found that youth age was a strong predictor of pandemic response, with younger youth showing fewer negative responses. Parental education level buffered family economic impact during early COVID-19. Families showed synchrony in their pandemic responses. Conclusions Pre-pandemic ADHD severity and slope, youth age, and parental education (a proxy for socioeconomic status) were risk factors that influenced youth or family well-being early in the COVID-19 pandemic; this information can help identify those who may need more community and educational support.

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.

Summary: Background: Uncertainty remains concerning the association of blood cholesterol with the risk of subsequent dementia. Using data from people with lipid measurements in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we examined the association between blood lipid levels and dementia (both vascular and non-vascular, including Alzheimer's disease) by age at first measurement of blood lipids and duration of follow-up. Methods: We studied a cohort from the UK CPRD of people aged 40 years or older with a first total cholesterol recording between Jan 1, 1992, and Dec 31, 2009. Follow-up was until the first record of dementia, the last data collection date, patient death or transfer out of the practice, or Jan 5, 2015, whichever was earliest. We excluded individuals with a record of dementia before the total cholesterol measurement. We used Poisson regression to examine the association between baseline total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides and incident dementia diagnosis. Analyses were stratified by age at first measurement (

Conflicting results exist about the relationship between bariatric surgery and fracture risk. Also, prediction of who is at increased risk of fracture after bariatric surgery is not currently available. Hence, we used a combination of a self-controlled case series (SCCS) study to establish the association between bariatric surgery and fracture, and develop a prediction model for postoperative fracture risk estimation using a cohort study. Patients from UK Primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD linked to Hospital Episode Statistics undergoing bariatric surgery with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 between 1997 and 2018 were included in the cohort. Those sustaining one or more fractures in the 5 years before or after surgery were included in the SCCS. Fractures were considered in three categories: (i) any except skull and digits (primary outcome); (ii) major (hip, vertebrae, wrist/forearm, and humerus); and (iii) peripheral (forearm and lower leg). Of 5487 participants, 252 (4.6%) experienced 272 fractures (of which 80 were major and 135 peripheral) and were included in the SCCS analyses. Major fracture risk increased after surgery, incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 2.77 (95% CI, 1.34-5.75) and 3.78 (95% CI, 1.42-10.08) at ≤3 years and 3.1 to 5 years postsurgery when compared to 5 years prior to surgery, respectively. Any fracture risk was higher only in the 2.1 to 5 years following surgery (IRR 1.73; 95% CI, 1.08-2.77) when compared to 5 years prior to surgery. No excess risk of peripheral fracture after surgery was identified. A prediction tool for major fracture was developed using 5487 participants included in the cohort study. It was also internally validated (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC ROC] 0.70) with use of anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics and female as major predictors. Hence, major fractures are nearly threefold more likely after bariatric surgery. A simple prediction tool with five variables identifies high risk patients for major fracture. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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 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.

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.

Introduction There is concern regarding adverse effects of antihypertensive treatment, including falls and subsequent fractures, especially hip fractures. As frailty is increasingly recognised as an important risk factor for adverse outcomes, we examined its relationship to fracture rates in older patients after starting antihypertensives. Methods Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we identified participants over 65-years old starting a first-line antihypertensive medication. Using deficits identified in CPRD we classified patient-level frailty as “Fit”, “Mild”, “Moderate” or “Severe” using the Electronic Frailty Index. We calculated the rate of fractures by frailty level and fracture site, and determined the rate ratio (RR) of first fracture by frailty level, adjusting for confounding, using multivariable poisson regression. We conducted sensitivity analyses to additionally adjust for ethnicity, deprivation, and bisphosphonate use. Results 44% of participants were classified as mildly frail or greater, but frail participants experienced 58% of all fractures, and 63% of hip fractures. The whole cohort showed a crude rate of 14.1 fractures/1000 person-years, with 4.5 hip fractures/1000 person-years. In severe frailty, this rises to 51.0 fractures/1000 person-years, and 17.7 hip fractures/1000 person-years. After adjustment for confounding, increasing frailty was associated with greater rate of any fracture, reaching RR 2.85 (95% confidence interval 2.43–3.33) for severe frailty versus fit. Results were unchanged in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Frailty and fracture are both common in older participants who start antihypertensive medications. Increasing frailty was positively associated with increased rates of fracture. Clinicians need awareness of this relationship to consider fracture risk assessment and prevention in these patients.

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

Purpose Recent evidence from US claims data suggests use of high-dimensional propensity score (hd-PS) methods improve adjustment for confounding in non-randomised studies of interventions. However, it is unclear how best to apply hd-PS principles outside their original setting, given important differences between claims data and electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to implement the hd-PS in the setting of United Kingdom (UK) EHRs. Methods We studied the interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Whilst previous observational studies suggested an interaction (with reduced effect of clopidogrel), case-only, genetic and randomised trial approaches showed no interaction, strongly suggesting the original observational findings were subject to confounding. We derived a cohort of clopidogrel users from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. Analyses estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for myocardial infarction (MI) comparing PPI users with non-users using a Cox model adjusting for confounders. To reflect unique characteristics of UK EHRs, we varied the application of hd-PS principles including the level of grouping within coding systems and adapting the assessment of code recurrence. Results were compared with traditional analyses. Results Twenty-four thousand four hundred and seventy-one patients took clopidogrel, of whom 9111 were prescribed a PPI. Traditional PS approaches obtained a HR for the association between PPI use and MI of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00-1.35). Applying hd-PS modifications resulted in estimates closer to the expected null (HR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.78-1.28). Conclusions hd-PS provided improved adjustment for confounding compared with other approaches, suggesting hd-PS can be usefully applied in UK EHRs.

BackgroundThe UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered its first “booster” doses in September 2021, initially in groups at high risk of severe disease then across the adult population. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, with Moderna mRNA-1273 subsequently also used.MethodsWe used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of English primary care practices and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses between 16 September and 16 December 2021 when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Follow up was for up to 10 weeks. Each booster recipient was matched with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior immunisation. Additional factors were adjusted for in Cox models estimating hazard ratios (HRs). Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and non-COVID-9 death. Booster vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1−HR.ResultsAmong 4,352,417 BNT162b2 booster recipients matched with unboosted controls, estimated effectiveness of a booster dose compared with two doses only was 50.7% (95% CI 50.1-51.3) for positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 80.1% (78.3-81.8) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, 88.5% (85.0-91.1) for COVID-19 death, and 80.3% (79.0-81.5) for non-COVID-19 death.Estimated effectiveness was similar among those who had received a BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S two-dose primary vaccination course, but effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was slightly lower in those classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (76.3% (73.1-79.1) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, and 85.1% (79.6-89.1) for COVID-19 death). Estimated effectiveness against each outcome was lower in those aged 18-65 years than in those aged 65 and over.ConclusionOur findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.

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).

Early psychosocial adversities exist at many levels, including caregiving-related, extrafamilial, and sociodemographic, which despite their high interrelatedness may have unique impacts on development. In this paper, we focus on caregiving-related early adversities (crEAs) and parse the heterogeneity of crEAs via data reduction techniques that identify experiential cooccurrences. Using network science, we characterized crEA cooccurrences to represent the comorbidity of crEA experiences across a sample of school-age children (n = 258; 6–12 years old) with a history of crEAs. crEA dimensions (variable level) and crEA subtypes (subject level) were identified using parallel factor analysis/principal component analysis and graph-based Louvain community detection. Bagging enhancement with cross-validation provided estimates of robustness. These data-driven dimensions/subtypes showed evidence of stability, transcended traditional sociolegally defined groups, were more homogenous than sociolegally defined groups, and reduced statistical correlations with sociodemographic factors. Finally, random forests showed both unique and common predictive importance of the crEA dimensions/subtypes for childhood mental health symptoms and academic skills. These data-driven outcomes provide additional tools and recommendations for crEA data reduction to inform precision medicine efforts in this area.

Background Residents in care homes have been severely impacted by COVID-19. We describe trends in the mortality risk among residents of care homes compared to private homes. Methods On behalf of NHS England we used OpenSAFELY-TPP 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 Care and Quality Commission data. Findings We included 4,340,648 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 those in private housing in February 2019: comparative mortality figure (CMF) = 10.59 (95%CI = 9.51, 11.81) among women, and 10.87 (9.93, 11.90) among men. By April 2020 these relative differences had increased to more than 17 times with CMFs of 17.57 (16.43, 18.79) among women and 18.17 (17.22, 19.17) among men. CMFs did not increase during the second wave, despite a rise in the absolute age-standardised COVID-19 mortality risks. Interpretation COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on the mortality of care home residents in England compared to older residents of private homes, but only in the first wave. This may be explained by a degree of acquired immunity, improved protective measures or changes in the underlying frailty of the populations. The care home population should be prioritised for measures aimed at controlling COVID-19. Funding Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1

Background Previous studies investigating potential cardiovascular adverse events of acid-suppressing drugs are susceptible to protopathic bias and confounding. We aimed to investigate the association between short-term risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) using a self-controlled case series (SCCS) with an active comparator. Methods We conducted a SCCS using a population-wide database from Hong Kong from 2003–2014. Adult with ≥1 outpatient oral PPI prescription or H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) and MI during the observation period were included. We used both simple ratio and effect modifier approaches to SCCS with active comparators to obtain comparator adjusted estimates. Results A total of 2802 and 1889 people with MI who had exposure to PPIs and H2RA were included respectively. We observed a higher risk of MI during days 1–14 following the start of PPI prescription (Incidence rate ratio (IRR): 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.76–3.00) versus baseline. Similarly, we observed a higher risk of MI during days 1–14 following the start of H2RA prescription (IRR: 2.46, 95%CI: 1.92–3.16) versus baseline. In the novel SCCS analyses, comparator adjusted estimates were 0.93 (95%CI: 0.57–1.30) and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.58–1.20) during days 1–14 in simple ratio and effect modifier approach, respectively. Conclusions We observed no difference in risk of MI associated with PPIs compared with baseline using H2RA as the active comparator. The elevated risk of MI associated with PPIs is likely due to protopathic bias. More studies are required to explore the feasibility of using active comparators in SCCS to address protopathic bias in addition to confounding.

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.

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.

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.

IntroductionFor people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require an antidiabetic drug as an add-on to metformin, there is controversy about whether newer drug classes such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce the risk of long-term complications compared with sulfonylureas (SU). There is widespread variation across National Health Service Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in drug choice for second-line treatment in part because National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not specify a single preferred drug class, either overall or within specific patient subgroups. This study will evaluate the relative effectiveness of the three most common second-line treatments in the UK (SU, DPP4i and SGLT2i as add-ons to metformin) and help target treatments according to individual risk profiles.Methods and analysisThe study includes people with T2DM prescribed one of the second-line treatments-of-interest between 2014 and 2020 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics. We will use an instrumental variable (IV) method to estimate short-term and long-term relative effectiveness of second-line treatments according to individuals’ risk profiles. This method minimises bias from unmeasured confounders by exploiting the natural variation in second-line prescribing across CCGs as an IV for the choice of prescribed treatment. The primary outcome to assess short-term effectiveness will be change in haemoglobin A1c (%) 12 months after treatment initiation. Outcome measures to assess longer-term effectiveness (maximum ~6 years) will include microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality and hospital admissions during follow-up.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (20-064) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (21395). Results, codelists and other analysis code will be made available to patients, clinicians, policy-makers and researchers.

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.

Background Although routine NHS data potentially include all patients, confounding limits their use for causal inference. Methods to minimise confounding in observational studies of implantable devices are required to enable the evaluation of patients with severe systemic morbidity who are excluded from many randomised controlled trials. Objectives Stage 1 – replicate the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT), a surgical randomised controlled trial comparing unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Stage 2 – compare the risk benefits and cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement surgery in patients with severe systemic morbidity who would have been ineligible for TOPKAT using the validated methods from stage 1. Design This was a cohort study. Setting Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry database and linked to hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) and patient-reported outcome data. Participants Stage 1 – people undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery who met the TOPKAT eligibility criteria. Stage 2 – participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of ≥ 3. Intervention The patients were exposed to either unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the postoperative Oxford Knee Score. The secondary outcome measures were 90-day postoperative complications (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and prosthetic joint infection) and 5-year revision risk and mortality. The main outcome measures for the health economic analysis were health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) and NHS hospital costs. Results In stage 1, propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting replicated the results of TOPKAT. Propensity score adjustment, propensity score matching and instrumental variables did not. Stage 2 included 2256 unicompartmental knee replacement patients and 57,682 total knee replacement patients who had severe comorbidities, of whom 145 and 23,344 had linked Oxford Knee Scores, respectively. A statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference favouring unicompartmental knee replacement was observed, with a mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score difference of Limitations Although some propensity score methods successfully replicated TOPKAT, unresolved confounding may have affected stage 2. Missing Oxford Knee Scores may have led to information bias. Conclusions Propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting successfully replicated TOPKAT, implying that some (but not all) propensity score methods can be used to evaluate surgical innovations and implantable medical devices using routine NHS data. Unicompartmental knee replacement was safer and more cost-effective than total knee replacement for patients with severe comorbidity and should be considered the first option for suitable patients. Future work Further research is required to understand the performance of propensity score methods for evaluating surgical innovations and implantable devices. Trial registration This trial is registered as EUPAS17435. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Elevated blood pressure (BP) is prevalent and modifiable and has been hypothesized to lead to increased risk of dementia. DATA: Data on 2 593 629 people from the UK Clinical Practice Research Database aged ≥40 years with a BP measurement between 1992 and 2011 and no prior record of dementia were collected. METHODS: Poisson regression models were used to study the association between BP and physician-diagnosed dementia. BP is believed to fall during the prodromal phase of dementia development, so associations were investigated by categories of time since BP measurement ( 10 years) and by subtypes of dementia. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 8.2 years, 65 618 cases of dementia were observed: 49 161 Alzheimer's, 13 816 vascular dementia and 2541 other subtypes. For each 10 mmHg higher systolic BP, the future dementia risk was 9.2% (95% confidence interval 8.4%-10.0%) lower, but this association varied markedly by time since BP measurement. Short-term associations with dementia were inverse with a 15.8% (15.5%-17.0%) lower risk 0-5 years after BP measurement and a 5.8% (7.7%-4.4%) lower risk 5-10 years after BP measurement. During the period >10 years after BP measurement, dementia risk was only 1.6% (0.1%-3.0%) lower, with a 4.3% (2.5%-6.0%) lower risk of Alzheimer's disease and a 7.0% (3.8%-10.2%) higher risk of vascular dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated BP is associated with decreased risk of dementia in the short term, possibly due to reverse causation. Long-term associations of BP with dementia are less marked and differ by dementia subtype.

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.

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.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment is informed by randomised controlled trial results, but it is unclear if these findings apply to people excluded from these trials. We used data from the TORCH (TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health) randomised controlled trial to validate non-interventional methods for assessing the clinical effectiveness of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, before applying these methods to the analysis of people who would have been excluded from TORCH.To validate the use of non-interventional Clinical Practice Research Datalink data and methods for estimating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment effects against trial results, and, using validated methods, to determine treatment effects in people who would have been excluded from the TORCH trial.A historical non-interventional cohort design, including validation against randomised controlled trial results.The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.People aged ≥ 18 years with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease registered in Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD between January 2000 and January 2017. For objective 1, we prepared a cohort that was analogous to the TORCH trial cohort by applying TORCH trial inclusion/exclusion criteria followed by individual matching to TORCH trial participants. For objectives 2 and 3, we prepared cohorts that were analogous to the TORCH trial that, nevertheless, would not have been eligible for the TORCH trial because of age, asthma, comorbidity or mild disease.The long-acting beta-2 agonist and inhaled corticosteroid combination product Seretide (GlaxoSmithKline plc) [i.e. fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP-SAL)] compared with (1) no FP-SAL exposure or (2) exposure to salmeterol (i.e. the long-acting beta-2 agonist) only.Exacerbations, mortality, pneumonia and time to treatment change.For objective 1, the exacerbation rate ratio was comparable to that in the TORCH trial for FP-SAL compared with salmeterol (0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.97, vs. TORCH trial 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.95), but not for FP-SAL compared with no FP-SAL (1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.42, vs. TORCH trial 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.81). Active comparator results were also consistent with the TORCH trial for mortality (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.32, vs. TORCH trial hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.13) and pneumonia (risk ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.87, vs. TORCH trial risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.73). For objectives 2 and 3, active comparator results were consistent with the TORCH trial for exacerbations, with the exception of people with milder chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in whom we observed a stronger protective association (risk ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.70, vs. TORCH trial risk ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.97). For the analysis of mortality, we saw a lack of association with being prescribed FP-SAL (vs. being prescribed salmeterol), with the exception of those with prior asthma, for whom we observed an increase in mortality (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.85, vs. TORCH trial-analogous HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.32).Routinely collected electronic health record data can be used to successfully measure chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment effects when comparing two treatments, but not for comparisons between active treatment and no treatment. Analyses involving patients who would have been excluded from trials mostly suggests that treatment effects for FP-SAL are similar to trial effects, although further work is needed to characterise a small increased risk of death in those with concomitant asthma.Some of our analyses had small numbers.The differences in treatment effects that we found should be investigated further in other data sets. Currently recommended chronic obstructive pulmonary disease inhaled combination therapy (other than FP-SAL) should also be investigated using these methods.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inChronic obstructive pulmonary disease affects 3 million people in the UK and is characterised by breathing difficulties that get worse over time, with sudden acute symptoms (exacerbations), possibly requiring hospitalisation. The evidence for use of medicines for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease comes from randomised controlled trial results. Randomised controlled trials generally include younger people with severe disease who do not have any other illnesses apart from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, meaning that the effectiveness of these trials in all people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is unknown. Very large databases of anonymous electronic health records captured during NHS consultations can be used to study patients excluded from trials. However, confidence in results from studies using these data can be low because of fears of unaccounted bias, as patients are not randomised to treatment. In this project, we selected a group of patients from a very large electronic health record database called the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who were very similar to participants in a well-known large chronic obstructive pulmonary disease randomised controlled trial [the TORCH (TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health) trial]. When we analysed data from these patients, we found very similar results to the TORCH trial in relation to the reduction of exacerbations, development of pneumonia and time until death, when comparing one chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment with another. Having shown that our methods could be trusted to produce valid results when comparing one chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment with another, we then went on to analyse patients in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who would have been excluded from the TORCH trial for the following reasons: aged 80 years, having asthma as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or having only mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. For exacerbations, we found that, for people with milder chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, one of the treatments we studied seemed to work better than in the trial. For the analysis of mortality, we found that, for people with asthma as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, one of the treatments seemed not to work so well, with more people dying. Future studies are needed in different populations (such as in a database from another country) to confirm these results.

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