Healthcare utilisation in people with long COVID: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. METHODS: This study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. RESULTS: We identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.29, 95% CI: 7.74-8.87), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.48-1.51). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58-29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73-16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.66, 95% CI = 7.20-8.15), with costs being 44% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.39-1.50). The long COVID group costs approximately £2500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: £2562.50, 95% CI: £2335.60-£2819.22), and the comparator group costs £1500 (predicted mean cost: £1527.43, 95% CI: £1404.33-1664.45). Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

Weight trends among adults with diabetes or hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study using OpenSAFELY.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic restrictions may have influenced behaviours related to weight. AIM: To describe patterns of weight change among adults living in England with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and/or hypertension during the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational cohort study using the routinely collected health data of approximately 40% of adults living in England, accessed through the OpenSAFELY service inside TPP. METHOD: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with rapid weight gain (>0.5 kg/m2/year) were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Data were extracted on adults with T2D (n = 1 231 455, 43.9% female, and 76.0% White British) or hypertension (n = 3 558 405, 49.7% female, and 84.3% White British). Adults with T2D lost weight overall (median δ = -0.1 kg/m2/year [interquartile range {IQR} -0.7-0.4]). However, rapid weight gain was common (20.7%) and associated with the following: sex (male versus female: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.77 to 0.79]); age (older age reduced odds, for example, aged 60-69 years versus 18-29 years: aOR 0.66 [95% CI = 0.61 to 0.71]); deprivation (least deprived Index of Multiple Deprivation [IMD] quintile versus most deprived IMD quintile: aOR 0.87 [95% CI = 0.85 to 0.89]); White ethnicity (Black versus White: aOR 0.95 [95% CI = 0.92 to 0.98]); mental health conditions (for example, depression: aOR 1.13 [95% CI = 1.12 to 1.15]); and diabetes treatment (non-insulin treatment versus no pharmacological treatment: aOR 0.68 [95% CI = 0.67 to 0.69]). Adults with hypertension maintained stable weight overall (median δ = 0.0 kg/m2/year [IQR -0.6-0.5]); however, rapid weight gain was common (24.7%) and associated with similar characteristics as in T2D. CONCLUSION: Among adults living in England with T2D and/or hypertension, rapid pandemic weight gain was more common among females, younger adults, those living in more deprived areas, and those with mental health conditions.

Protocol for an OpenSAFELY cohort study collecting patient-reported outcome measures using the TPP Airmid smartphone application and linked big data to quantify the health and economic costs of long COVID (OpenPROMPT).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of long COVID on health-related quality of-life (HRQoL) and productivity is not currently known. It is important to understand who is worst affected by long COVID and the cost to the National Health Service (NHS) and society, so that strategies like booster vaccines can be prioritised to the right people. OpenPROMPT aims to understand the impact of long COVID on HRQoL in adults attending English primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will ask people to participate in this cohort study through a smartphone app (Airmid), and completing a series of questionnaires held within the app. Questionnaires will ask about HRQoL, productivity and symptoms of long COVID. Participants will be asked to fill in the questionnaires once a month, for 90 days. Questionnaire responses will be linked, where possible, to participants' existing health records from primary care, secondary care, and COVID testing and vaccination data. Analysis will take place using the OpenSAFELY data platform and will estimate the impact of long COVID on HRQoL, productivity and cost to the NHS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Proportionate Review Sub-Committee of the South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee has reviewed and approved the study and have agreed that we can ask people to take part (22/SC/0198). Our results will provide information to support long-term care, and make recommendations for prevention of long COVID in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05552612.

Gout incidence and management during the COVID-19 pandemic in England, UK: a nationwide observational study using OpenSAFELY.

BACKGROUND: Gout is the most prevalent inflammatory arthritis, yet one of the worst managed. Our objective was to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted incidence and quality of care for people with gout in England, UK. METHODS: With the approval of National Health Service England, we did a population-level cohort study using primary care and hospital electronic health record data for 17·9 million adults registered with general practices using TPP health record software, via the OpenSAFELY platform. The study period was from March 1, 2015, to Feb 28, 2023. Individuals aged 18-110 years were defined as having incident gout if they were assigned index diagnostic codes for gout, were registered with TPP practices in England for at least 12 months before diagnosis, did not receive prescriptions for urate-lowering therapy more than 30 days before diagnosis, and had not been admitted to hospital or attended an emergency department for gout flares more than 30 days before diagnosis. Outcomes assessed were incidence and prevalence of people with recorded gout diagnoses, incidence of gout hospitalisations, initiation of urate-lowering therapy, and attainment of serum urate targets (≤360 µmol/L). FINDINGS: From a reference population of 17 865 145 adults, 246 695 individuals were diagnosed with incident gout. The mean age of individuals with incident gout was 61·3 years (SD 16·2). 66 265 (26·9%) of 246 695 individuals were female, 180 430 (73·1%) were male, and 189 035 (90·9%) of 208 050 individuals with available ethnicity data were White. Incident gout diagnoses decreased by 30·9% in the year beginning March, 2020, compared with the preceding year (1·23 diagnoses vs 1·78 diagnoses per 1000 adults). Gout prevalence was 3·07% in 2015-16, and 3·21% in 2022-23. Gout hospitalisations decreased by 30·1% in the year commencing March, 2020, compared with the preceding year (9·6 admissions vs 13·7 admissions per 100 000 adults). Of 228 095 people with incident gout and available follow-up, 66 560 (29·2%) were prescribed urate-lowering therapy within 6 months. Of 65 305 individuals who initiated urate-lowering therapy with available follow-up, 16 790 (25·7%) attained a serum urate concentration of 360 µmol/L or less within 6 months of urate-lowering therapy initiation. In interrupted time-series analyses, urate-lowering therapy prescribing improved modestly during the pandemic, compared with pre-pandemic, whereas urate target attainment was similar. INTERPRETATION: Using gout as an exemplar disease, we showed the complexity of how health care was impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed a reduction in gout diagnoses but no effect on treatment metrics. We showed how country-wide, routinely collected data can be used to map disease epidemiology and monitor care quality. FUNDING: None.

Clinical and health inequality risk factors for non-COVID-related sepsis during the global COVID-19 pandemic: a national case-control and cohort study.

Background: Sepsis, characterised by significant morbidity and mortality, is intricately linked to socioeconomic disparities and pre-admission clinical histories. This study aspires to elucidate the association between non-COVID-19 related sepsis and health inequality risk factors amidst the pandemic in England, with a secondary focus on their association with 30-day sepsis mortality. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we harnessed the OpenSAFELY platform to execute a cohort study and a 1:6 matched case-control study. A sepsis diagnosis was identified from the incident hospital admissions record using ICD-10 codes. This encompassed 248,767 cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis from a cohort of 22.0 million individuals spanning January 1, 2019, to June 31, 2022. Socioeconomic deprivation was gauged using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score, reflecting indicators like income, employment, and education. Hospitalisation-related sepsis diagnoses were categorised as community-acquired or hospital-acquired. Cases were matched to controls who had no recorded diagnosis of sepsis, based on age (stepwise), sex, and calendar month. The eligibility criteria for controls were established primarily on the absence of a recorded sepsis diagnosis. Associations between potential predictors and odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis underwent assessment through conditional logistic regression models, with multivariable regression determining odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day mortality. Findings: The study included 224,361 (10.2%) cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis and 1,346,166 matched controls. The most socioeconomic deprived quintile was associated with higher odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis than the least deprived quintile (crude OR 1.80 [95% CI 1.77-1.83]). Other risk factors (after adjusting comorbidities) such as learning disability (adjusted OR 3.53 [3.35-3.73]), chronic liver disease (adjusted OR 3.08 [2.97-3.19]), chronic kidney disease (stage 4: adjusted OR 2.62 [2.55-2.70], stage 5: adjusted OR 6.23 [5.81-6.69]), cancer, neurological disease, immunosuppressive conditions were also associated with developing non-COVID-19 sepsis. The incidence rate of non-COVID-19 sepsis decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and rebounded to pre-pandemic levels (April 2021) after national lockdowns had been lifted. The 30-day mortality risk in cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis was higher for the most deprived quintile across all periods. Interpretation: Socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity and learning disabilities were associated with an increased odds of developing non-COVID-19 related sepsis and 30-day mortality in England. This study highlights the need to improve the prevention of sepsis, including more precise targeting of antimicrobials to higher-risk patients. Funding: The UK Health Security Agency, Health Data Research UK, and National Institute for Health Research.

Incidence and management of inflammatory arthritis in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-level cohort study using OpenSAFELY.

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Findings: 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 (5·1 vs 6·4 diagnoses per 10 000 adults). The median time to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (18 days; IQR 8-35) than before (21 days; 9-41). The proportion of patients prescribed DMARDs in primary care was similar before and during the pandemic; however, during the pandemic, fewer people were prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide, and more were prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine. Interpretation: Inflammatory 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. Funding: None.

Studying the Long-term Impact of COVID-19 in Kids (SLICK). Healthcare use and costs in children and young people following community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection: protocol for an observational study using linked primary and secondary routinely collected healthcare data from England, Scotland and Wales.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 infection rarely causes hospitalisation in children and young people (CYP), but mild or asymptomatic infections are common. Persistent symptoms following infection have been reported in CYP but subsequent healthcare use is unclear. We aim to describe healthcare use in CYP following community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify those at risk of ongoing healthcare needs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use anonymised individual-level, population-scale national data linking demographics, comorbidities, primary and secondary care use and mortality between 1 January 2019 and 1 May 2022. SARS-CoV-2 test data will be linked from 1 January 2020 to 1 May 2022. Analyses will use Trusted Research Environments: OpenSAFELY in England, Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales and Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 in Scotland (EAVE-II). CYP aged ≥4 and <18 years who underwent SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing between 1 January 2020 and 1 May 2021 and those untested CYP will be examined.The primary outcome measure is cumulative healthcare cost over 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 testing, stratified into primary or secondary care, and physical or mental healthcare. We will estimate the burden of healthcare use attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infections in the 12 months after testing using a matched cohort study of RT-PCR positive, negative or untested CYP matched on testing date, with adjustment for confounders. We will identify factors associated with higher healthcare needs in the 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection using an unmatched cohort of RT-PCR positive CYP. Multivariable logistic regression and machine learning approaches will identify risk factors for high healthcare use and characterise patterns of healthcare use post infection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the South-Central Oxford C Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (13/SC/0149). Findings will be preprinted and published in peer-reviewed journals. Analysis code and code lists will be available through public GitHub repositories and OpenCodelists with meta-data via HDR-UK Innovation Gateway.

Impact of first UK COVID-19 lockdown on hospital admissions: Interrupted time series study of 32 million people.

Background: Uncontrolled infection and lockdown measures introduced in response have resulted in an unprecedented challenge for health systems internationally. Whether such unprecedented impact was due to lockdown itself and recedes when such measures are lifted is unclear. We assessed the short- and medium-term impacts of the first lockdown measures on hospital care for tracer non-COVID-19 conditions in England, Scotland and Wales across diseases, sexes, and socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Methods: We used OpenSAFELY (for England), EAVEII (Scotland), and SAIL Databank (Wales) to extract weekly hospital admission rates for cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory conditions (excluding COVID-19) from the pre-pandemic period until 25/10/2020 and conducted a controlled interrupted time series analysis. We undertook stratified analyses and assessed admission rates over seven months during which lockdown restrictions were gradually lifted. Findings: Our combined dataset included 32 million people who contributed over 74 million person-years. Admission rates for all three conditions fell by 34.2% (Confidence Interval (CI): -43.0, -25.3) in England, 20.9% (CI: -27.8, -14.1) in Scotland, and 24.7% (CI: -36.7, -12.7) in Wales, with falls across every stratum considered. In all three nations, cancer-related admissions fell the most while respiratory-related admissions fell the least (e.g., rates fell by 40.5% (CI: -47.4, -33.6), 21.9% (CI: -35.4, -8.4), and 19.0% (CI: -30.6, -7.4) in England for cancer, cardiovascular-related, and respiratory-related admissions respectively). Unscheduled admissions rates fell more in the most than the least deprived quintile across all three nations. Some ethnic minority groups experienced greater falls in admissions (e.g., in England, unscheduled admissions fell by 9.5% (CI: -20.2, 1.2) for Whites, but 44.3% (CI: -71.0, -17.6), 34.6% (CI: -63.8, -5.3), and 25.6% (CI: -45.0, -6.3) for Mixed, Other and Black ethnic groups respectively). Despite easing of restrictions, the overall admission rates remained lower in England, Scotland, and Wales by 20.8%, 21.6%, and 22.0%, respectively when compared to the same period (August-September) during the pre-pandemic years. This corresponds to a reduction of 26.2, 23.8 and 30.2 admissions per 100,000 people in England, Scotland, and Wales respectively. Interpretation: Hospital care for non-COVID diseases fell substantially across England, Scotland, and Wales during the first lockdown, with reductions persisting for at least six months. The most deprived and minority ethnic groups were impacted more severely. Funding: This work was funded by the Medical Research Council as part of the Lifelong Health and Wellbeing study as part of National Core Studies (MC_PC_20030). SVK acknowledges funding from the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. BG has received research funding from the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme.

OpenSAFELY: impact of national guidance on switching anticoagulant therapy during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately coprescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change and associated monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe coprescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using routine clinical data from 24 million NHS patients in England. RESULTS: 20 000 of 164 000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in coprescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. International normalised ratio (INR) testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). CONCLUSIONS: Increased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people coprescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluating the impact of a very low-cost intervention to increase practices' engagement with data and change prescribing behaviour: a randomized trial in English primary care.

BACKGROUND: Unsolicited feedback can solicit changes in prescribing. OBJECTIVES: Determine whether a low-cost intervention increases clinicians' engagement with data, and changes prescribing; with or without behavioural science techniques. METHODS: Randomized trial (ISRCTN86418238). The highest prescribing practices in England for broad-spectrum antibiotics were allocated to: feedback with behavioural impact optimization; plain feedback; or no intervention. Feedback was sent monthly for 3 months by letter, fax and email. Each included a link to a prescribing dashboard. The primary outcomes were dashboard usage and change in prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 1401 practices were randomized: 356 behavioural optimization, 347 plain feedback, and 698 control. For the primary engagement outcome, more intervention practices had their dashboards viewed compared with controls [65.7% versus 55.9%; RD 9.8%, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 4.76% to 14.9%, P < 0.001]. More plain feedback practices had their dashboard viewed than behavioural feedback practices (69.1% versus 62.4%); but not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (6.8%, 95% CI: -0.19% to 13.8%, P = 0.069). For the primary prescribing outcome, intervention practices possibly reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than controls (1.42% versus 1.12%); but again not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (coefficient -0.31%, CI: -0.7% to 0.1%, P = 0.104). The behavioural impact group reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than plain feedback practices (1.63% versus 1.20%; coefficient 0.41%, CI: 0.007% to 0.8%, P = 0.046). No harms were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited feedback increased practices' engagement with data, with possible slightly reduced antibiotic prescribing (P = 0.104). Behavioural science techniques gave greater prescribing effects. The modest effects on prescribing may reflect saturation from similar initiatives on antibiotic prescribing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86418238.

The effect of statins on muscle symptoms in primary care: the StatinWISE series of 200 N-of-1 RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty persists about whether or not statins cause symptomatic muscle adverse effects (e.g. pain, stiffness and weakness) in the absence of severe myositis. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effect of statins on all muscle symptoms, and the effect of statins on muscle symptoms that are perceived to be statin related. DESIGN: A series of 200 double-blinded N-of-1 trials. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 50 general practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were considering discontinuing statin use and those who had discontinued statin use in the last 3 years because of perceived muscle symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they received 20 mg of atorvastatin daily or a matched placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported muscle symptoms rated using a visual analogue scale on the last week of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes included the participant's belief about the cause of their muscle symptoms, the site of muscle symptoms, how the muscle symptoms affected the participant, any other symptoms they experienced, adherence to medication, the participant's decision about statin treatment following the trial, and whether or not they found their own trial result helpful. RESULTS: A total of 151 out of 200 (75.5%) randomised participants provided one or more visual analogue scale measurements in a placebo period and one or more measurements in a statin period, and were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a difference in muscle symptom scores between statin and placebo periods (mean difference statin minus placebo -0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to 0.14; p = 0.398). Withdrawals, adherence and missing data were similar during the statin periods and the placebo periods. CONCLUSIONS: Among people who previously reported severe muscle symptoms while taking statins, this series of randomised N-of-1 trials found no overall effect of statins on muscle symptoms compared with the placebo. The slight difference in withdrawals due to muscle symptoms suggests that statins may contribute to symptoms in a small number of patients. The results are generalisable to patients who are considering discontinuing or have already discontinued statins because of muscle symptoms, and who are willing to re-challenge or participate in their own N-of-1 trial. FUTURE WORK: We recommend that additional statins and doses are explored using N-of-1 trials. More broadly, N-of-1 trials present a useful tool for exploring transient symptoms with other medications. LIMITATIONS: This study used 20-mg doses of atorvastatin only. Furthermore, a dropout rate of 43% was observed, but this was accounted for in the power calculations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30952488 and EudraCT 2016-000141-31. 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. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Statins are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the UK. There is strong evidence that they are effective in safely reducing heart disease; however, there is some doubt about whether or not statins cause muscle pain, stiffness or weakness. This research has been carried out to understand the effect of statins on muscle symptoms. To answer our question, we asked 200 volunteers from across England and Wales to participate in the study. Patients who joined the study either had recently stopped taking statins because of muscle symptoms or were considering stopping because of muscle symptoms. Patients who participated were randomly assigned to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they received either statins or a placebo. Neither patients nor their general practitioner knew which tablet they were receiving. This helped to reduce bias in the data. At the end of each treatment period, patients were asked to report any muscle symptoms, or any other symptoms, that they experienced. The key result of this work is that patients reported no difference, on average, in their muscle symptoms between periods of taking a statin and periods of taking a placebo. We also assessed the impact on the patient's quality of life by looking at how statins affected the following areas: general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep and enjoyment of life. As with muscle symptoms, there was no evidence of a difference between statin and placebo periods. The majority of patients who finished the trial decided to continue using statins after the trial. Future research should be carried out to assess different statin doses, as higher doses are often used following a heart attack. In addition, further work is needed to see how the approach we used could be adopted into everyday clinical care.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of death from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort analysis based on two cohorts.

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.

A comprehensive high cost drugs dataset from the NHS in England - An OpenSAFELY-TPP Short Data Report.

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.

Projected spending for brand-name drugs in English primary care given US prices: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate additional spending if NHS England paid the same prices as US Medicare Part D for the 50 single-source brand-name drugs with the highest expenditure in English primary care in 2018. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 2018 drug prescribing and spending in the NHS England prescribing data and the Medicare Part D Drug Spending Dashboard and Data. We examined the 50 costliest drugs in English primary care available as brand-name-only in the US and England. We performed cost projections of NHS England spending with US Medicare Part D prices. We estimated average 2018 US rebates as 1 minus the quotient of net divided by gross Medicare Part D spending. SETTING: England and US. PARTICIPANTS: NHS England and US Medicare systems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total spending, prescriptions and claims in NHS England and Medicare Part D. All spending and cost measures were reported in 2018 British pounds. RESULTS: NHS England spent £1.39 billion on drugs in the cohort. All drugs were more expensive under US Medicare Part D than NHS England. The US-England price ratios ranged from 1.3 to 9.9 (mean ratio 4.8). Accounting for prescribing volume, if NHS England had paid US Medicare Part D prices after adjusting for estimated US rebates, it would have spent 4.6 times as much in 2018 on drugs in the cohort (£6.42 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Spending by NHS England would be substantially higher if it paid US Medicare Part D prices. This could result in decreased access to medicines and other health services.

Suboptimal prescribing behaviour associated with clinical software design features: a retrospective cohort study in English NHS primary care.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) systems are used by clinicians to record patients' medical information, and support clinical activities such as prescribing. In England, healthcare professionals are advised to 'prescribe generically' because generic drugs are usually cheaper than branded alternatives, and have fixed reimbursement costs. 'Ghost-branded generics' are a new category of medicines savings, caused by prescribers specifying a manufacturer for a generic product, often resulting in a higher reimbursement price compared with the true generic. AIM: To describe time trends and practice factors associated with excess medication costs from ghost-branded generic prescribing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of English GP prescribing data and EHR deployment data. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, based on data from the OpenPrescribing.net database from May 2013 to May 2019. Total spending on ghost-branded generics across England was calculated, and excess spend on ghost-branded generics calculated as a percentage of all spending on generics for every CCG and general practice in England, for every month in the study period. RESULTS: There were 31.8 million ghost-branded generic items and £9.5 million excess cost in 2018, compared with 7.45 million ghost-branded generic items and £1.3 million excess cost in 2014. Most excess costs were associated with one EHR, SystmOne, and it was identified that SystmOne offered ghost-branded generic options as the default. After informing the vendor, the authors monitored for subsequent change in costs, and report a rapid decrease in ghost-branded generic expenditure. CONCLUSION: A design choice in a commonly used EHR has led to £9.5 million in avoidable excess prescribing costs for the NHS in 1 year. Notifying the vendor led to a change in user interface and a rapid, substantial spend reduction. This finding illustrates that EHR user interface design has a substantial impact on the quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness of clinical practice; this should be a priority for quantitative research.

Variation in responsiveness to warranted behaviour change among NHS clinicians: novel implementation of change detection methods in longitudinal prescribing data.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how clinicians vary in their response to new guidance on existing or new interventions, by measuring the timing and magnitude of change at healthcare institutions. DESIGN: Automated change detection in longitudinal prescribing data. SETTING: Prescribing data in English primary care. PARTICIPANTS: English general practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In each practice the following were measured: the timing of the largest changes, steepness of the change slope (change in proportion per month), and magnitude of the change for two example time series (expiry of the Cerazette patent in 2012, leading to cheaper generic desogestrel alternatives becoming available; and a change in antibiotic prescribing guidelines after 2014, favouring nitrofurantoin over trimethoprim for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI)). RESULTS: Substantial heterogeneity was found between institutions in both timing and steepness of change. The range of time delay before a change was implemented was large (interquartile range 2-14 months (median 8) for Cerazette, and 5-29 months (18) for UTI). Substantial heterogeneity was also seen in slope following a detected change (interquartile range 2-28% absolute reduction per month (median 9%) for Cerazette, and 1-8% (2%) for UTI). When changes were implemented, the magnitude of change showed substantially less heterogeneity (interquartile range 44-85% (median 66%) for Cerazette and 28-47% (38%) for UTI). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation was observed in the speed with which individual NHS general practices responded to warranted changes in clinical practice. Changes in prescribing behaviour were detected automatically and robustly. Detection of structural breaks using indicator saturation methods opens up new opportunities to improve patient care through audit and feedback by moving away from cross sectional analyses, and automatically identifying institutions that respond rapidly, or slowly, to warranted changes in clinical practice.

Do doctors in dispensing practices with a financial conflict of interest prescribe more expensive drugs? A cross-sectional analysis of English primary care prescribing data.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately one in eight practices in primary care in England are 'dispensing practices' with an in-house dispensary providing medication directly to patients. These practices can generate additional income by negotiating lower prices on higher cost drugs, while being reimbursed at a standard rate. They, therefore, have a potential financial conflict of interest around prescribing choices. We aimed to determine whether dispensing practices are more likely to prescribe high-cost options for four commonly prescribed classes of drug where there is no evidence of superiority for high-cost options. DESIGN: A list was generated of drugs with high acquisition costs that were no more clinically effective than those with the lowest acquisition costs, for all four classes of drug examined. Data were obtained prescribing of statins, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors (ACEis). Logistic regression was used to calculate ORs for prescribing high-cost options in dispensing practices, adjusting for Index of Multiple Deprivation score, practice list size and the number of doctors at each practice. SETTING: English primary care. PARTICIPANTS: All general practices in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean cost per dose was calculated separately for dispensing and non-dispensing practices. Dispensing practices can vary in the number of patients they dispense to; we, therefore, additionally compared practices with no dispensing patients, low, medium and high proportions of dispensing patients. Total cost savings were modelled by applying the mean cost per dose from non-dispensing practices to the number of doses prescribed in dispensing practices. RESULTS: Dispensing practices were more likely to prescribe high-cost drugs across all classes: statins adjusted OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.49 to 1.53, p<0.0001), PPIs OR 1.11 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.13, p<0.0001), ACEi OR 2.58 (95% CI 2.46 to 2.70, p<0.0001), ARB OR 5.11 (95% CI 5.02 to 5.20, p<0.0001). Mean cost per dose in pence was higher in dispensing practices (statins 7.44 vs 6.27, PPIs 5.57 vs 5.46, ACEi 4.30 vs 4.24, ARB 11.09 vs 8.19). For all drug classes, the more dispensing patients a practice had, the more likely it was to issue a prescription for a high-cost option. Total cost savings in England available from all four classes are £628 875 per month or £7 546 502 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors in dispensing practices are more likely to prescribe higher cost drugs. This is the largest study ever conducted on dispensing practices, and the first contemporary research suggesting some UK doctors respond to a financial conflict of interest in treatment decisions. The reimbursement system for dispensing practices may generate unintended consequences. Robust routine audit of practices prescribing higher volumes of unnecessarily expensive drugs may help reduce costs.