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 amongst 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. AIMS: To describe patterns of weight change amongst adults living in England with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) and/or hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design and Setting With the approval of NHS England, we conducted 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: We investigated clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with rapid weight gain (>0·5kg/m2/year) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We extracted data on adults with T2D (n=1,231,455, 44% female, 76% white British) or hypertension (n=3,558,405, 50% female, 84% white British). Adults with T2D lost weight overall (median δ = -0.1kg/m2/year [IQR: -0.7, 0.4]), however, rapid weight gain was common (20.7%) and associated with sex (male vs female: aOR 0.78[95%CI 0.77, 0.79]); age, older age reduced odds (e.g. 60-69-year-olds vs 18-29-year-olds: aOR 0.66[0.61, 0.71]); deprivation, (least-deprived-IMD vs most-deprived-IMD: aOR 0.87[0.85, 0.89]); white ethnicity (Black vs White: aOR 0.95[0.92, 0.98]); mental health conditions (e.g. depression: aOR 1.13 [1.12, 1.15]); and diabetes treatment (non-insulin treatment vs no pharmacological treatment: aOR 0.68[0.67, 0.69]). Adults with hypertension maintained stable weight overall (median δ = 0.0kg/m2/year [ -0.6, 0.5]), however, rapid weight gain was common (24.7%) and associated with similar characteristics as in T2D. CONCLUSION: Amongst adults living in England with T2D and/or hypertension, rapid pandemic weight gain was more common amongst females, younger adults, those living in more deprived areas, and those with mental health condition.

Trends in inequalities in avoidable hospitalisations across the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study of 23.5 million people in England.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether periods of disruption were associated with increased 'avoidable' hospital admissions and wider social inequalities in England. DESIGN: Observational repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: England (January 2019 to March 2022). PARTICIPANTS: With the approval of NHS England we used individual-level electronic health records from OpenSAFELY, which covered ~40% of general practices in England (mean monthly population size 23.5 million people). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated crude and directly age-standardised rates for potentially preventable unplanned hospital admissions: ambulatory care sensitive conditions and urgent emergency sensitive conditions. We considered how trends in these outcomes varied by three measures of social and spatial inequality: neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity and geographical region. RESULTS: There were large declines in avoidable hospitalisations during the first national lockdown (March to May 2020). Trends increased post-lockdown but never reached 2019 levels. The exception to these trends was for vaccine-preventable ambulatory care sensitive admissions which remained low throughout 2020-2021. While trends were consistent by each measure of inequality, absolute levels of inequalities narrowed across levels of neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, Asian ethnicity (compared with white ethnicity) and geographical region (especially in northern regions). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that periods of healthcare disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in more avoidable hospitalisations. Falling avoidable hospital admissions has coincided with declining inequalities most strongly by level of deprivation, but also for Asian ethnic groups and northern regions of England.

Private prescribing of controlled opioids in England, 2014-2021: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Trends in NHS opioid prescribing have been well published, yet trends in private prescribing of opioids have not been widely established. AIM: To assess trends and geographical variation in controlled opioids prescribed by private prescribers in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective observational study in English primary health care. METHOD: Data on Schedule 2 and 3 controlled opioids ('controlled opioids') were obtained from the NHS Business Services Authority (BSA) using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests between 1 January 2014 and 30 November 2021. Absolute counts and rates of the number of items dispensed per cumulative number of registered private prescribers were calculated and stratified over time, by opioid type, and geographical region. RESULTS: This study found that 128 341 items of controlled opioids were prescribed by private prescribers in England between January 2014 and November 2021, which decreased by 50% from 23 339 items (4.09 items/prescriber) in 2014 to 11 573 items (1.49 items/prescriber) in 2020. Methadone (36%, n = 46 660) was the most common controlled opioid prescribed privately, followed by morphine (18%, n = 22 543), buprenorphine (16%, n = 20 521), and oxycodone (12%, n = 15 319). Prescriptions were highest in London (74%, n = 94 438), followed by the South-East of England (7%, n = 9237). A proportion of items (n = 462; 0.36%) were prescribed by 'unidentified doctors' where the prescription is not readily attributable to an individual prescriber by the BSA. CONCLUSION: Controlled opioids prescribed by private prescribers in England decreased and were primarily prescribed in London. To ensure patient safety, the monitoring and surveillance of controlled opioids dispensed privately should continue and items linked to 'unidentified doctors' should be addressed further.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluation of policies and practices to support safe and appropriate analgesic and sedative prescribing: The CDRx (controlled drug prescribing) protocol.

Medications provide many therapeutic benefits; however, these must be balanced against the potential for patient harm. Two high-risk medications are benzodiazepine receptor agonists or BZRAs (including benzodiazepines and Z-drugs hypnotics) and opioid analgesics, which carry a risk of dependence, misuse, and abuse. Use of these medications has been growing internationally, along with associated morbidity and mortality. These medications are often classified as 'controlled drugs' and subject to legal restrictions in order to balance therapeutic benefits and risks of misuse. The aim of this project is to evaluate prescribing of analgesic and sedative drugs, in particular opioid and BZRA medications, to characterise time trends, the impact of policy changes, and regional and GP practice variation. This will be addressed across three workpackages, primarily using data on prescriptions dispensed to individuals eligible for the General Medical Services scheme in Ireland, held by the HSE Primary Care Reimbursement Service, along with other national and international data collections. Workpackage 1 will derive volume and patterns of utilisation indicators of controlled drugs and related medications and describe time trends in primary care in Ireland between 2014 and 2021 in two repeated cross-sectional studies. Workpackage 2 will consist of two interrupted time series studies on the impact of recent policy changes on prescribing. Workpackage 3 is a cohort study of GP practices, which will aim to quantify and explain regional and GP practice-level variation in analgesic and sedative prescribing, and, in relation to policy changes. This research will provide data-driven insights to inform policy-makers' decisions and clinical practice to optimise regulation and use of these medications for the benefit of patients and society.

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.

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.