Educational inequality in multimorbidity: causality and causal pathways. A mendelian randomisation study in UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, typically defined as having two or more long-term health conditions, is associated with reduced wellbeing and life expectancy. Understanding the determinants of multimorbidity, including whether they are causal, may help with the design and prioritisation of prevention interventions. This study seeks to assess the causality of education, BMI, smoking and alcohol as determinants of multimorbidity, and the degree to which BMI, smoking and alcohol mediate differences in multimorbidity by level of education. METHODS: Participants were 181,214 females and 155,677 males, mean ages 56.7 and 57.1 years respectively, from UK Biobank. We used a Mendelian randomization design; an approach that uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to interrogate causality. RESULTS: The prevalence of multimorbidity was 55.1%. Mendelian randomization suggests that lower education, higher BMI and higher levels of smoking causally increase the risk of multimorbidity. For example, one standard deviation (equivalent to 5.1 years) increase in genetically-predicted years of education decreases the risk of multimorbidity by 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5 to 11.4%). A 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically-predicted BMI increases the risk of multimorbidity by 9.2% (95% CI: 8.1 to 10.3%) and a one SD higher lifetime smoking index increases the risk of multimorbidity by 6.8% (95% CI: 3.3 to 10.4%). Evidence for a causal effect of genetically-predicted alcohol consumption on multimorbidity was less strong; an increase of 5 units of alcohol per week increases the risk of multimorbidity by 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2 to 2.5%). The proportions of the association between education and multimorbidity explained by BMI and smoking are 20.4% and 17.6% respectively. Collectively, BMI and smoking account for 31.8% of the educational inequality in multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Education, BMI, smoking and alcohol consumption are intervenable causal risk factors for multimorbidity. Furthermore, BMI and lifetime smoking make a considerable contribution to the generation of educational inequalities in multimorbidity. Public health interventions that improve population-wide levels of these risk factors are likely to reduce multimorbidity and inequalities in its occurrence.

Novel oral iron therapy for iron deficiency anaemia: How to value safety in a new drug?

AIMS: Novel oral iron supplements may be associated with a reduced incidence of adverse drug reactions compared to standard treatments of iron deficiency anaemia. The aim was to establish their value-based price under conditions of uncertainty surrounding their tolerability. METHODS: A discrete-time Markov model was developed to assess the value-based price of oral iron preparations based on their incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in the UK. Primary and secondary care resource use and health state occupancy probabilities were estimated from routine electronic health records; and unit costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Patients were pre-menopausal women with iron deficiency anaemia who were prescribed oral iron supplementation between 2000 and 2014. RESULTS: The model reflecting current use of iron salts yielded a mean total cost to the NHS of £779, and 0.84 QALYs over 12 months. If a new iron preparation were to reduce the risk of adverse drug reactions by 30-40%, then its value-based price, based on a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, would be in the region of £10-£13 per month, or about 7-9 times the average price of basic iron salts. CONCLUSIONS: There are no adequate, direct comparisons of new oral iron supplements to ferrous iron salts, and therefore other approaches are needed to assess their value. Our modelling shows that they are potentially cost-effective at prices that are an order of magnitude higher than existing iron salts.

The impact of a named GP scheme on continuity of care and emergency hospital admission: a cohort study among older patients in England, 2012-2016.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the introduction of a named general practitioner (GP, family physician) improved patients' healthcare for patients aged 75 and over in England. SETTING: Random sample of 27 500 patients aged 65 to 84 in 2012 within 139 English practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. DESIGN: Prospective cohort approach, measuring patients' GP consultations and emergency hospital admissions 2 years before/after the intervention. Patients were grouped in (i) aged over 74 and (ii) younger than 75 in both periods in order to compare who were or were not subject to the intervention. Adjusted associations between the named GP scheme, continuity of care and emergency hospital admission were examined using multilevel modelling. INTERVENTION: National Health Service policy to introduce a named accountable GP for patients aged over 74 in April 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (A) Continuity of care index-score, (B) risk of emergency hospital admissions, (C) number of emergency hospital admissions. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a decrease in continuity index-scores of -0.024 (95% CI -0.030 to -0.018, p<0.001); there were no differences in the decrease between the two age groups (-0.005, 95% CI -0.014 to 0.005). In the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods, respectively, 15.4% and 19.4% patients had an emergency admission. The probability of an emergency hospital admission increased after the intervention (OR 1.156, 95% CI 1.064 to 1.257, p=0.001); this increase was bigger for patients over 74 (relative OR 1.191, 95% CI 1.066 to 1.330, p=0.002). The average number of emergency hospital admissions increased after the intervention (rate ratio (RR) 1.178, 95% CI 1.103 to 1.259, p<0.001); this increase was greater for patients over 74 (relative RR 1.143, 95% CI 1.052 to 1.242, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of the named GP scheme was not associated with improvements in either continuity of care or rates of unplanned hospitalisation.

Breaking bread: examining the impact of policy changes in access to state-funded provisions of gluten-free foods in England.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease affects approximately 1% of the population and is increasingly diagnosed in the United Kingdom. A nationwide consultation in England has recommend that state-funded provisions for gluten-free (GF) food should be restricted to bread and mixes but not banned, yet financial strain has prompted regions of England to begin partially or fully ceasing access to these provisions. The impact of these policy changes on different stakeholders remains unclear. METHODS: Prescription data were collected for general practice services across England (n = 7176) to explore changes in National Health Service (NHS) expenditure on GF foods over time (2012-2017). The effects of sex, age, deprivation and rurality on GF product expenditure were estimated using a multi-level gamma regression model. Spending rate within NHS regions that had introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' was compared to spending in the same time periods amongst NHS regions which continued to fund prescriptions for GF products. RESULTS: Annual expenditure on GF products in 2012 (before bans were introduced in any area) was £25.1 million. Higher levels of GF product expenditure were found in general practices in areas with lower levels of deprivation, higher levels of rurality and higher proportions of patients aged under 18 and over 75. Expenditure on GF food within localities that introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' were reduced by approximately 80% within the 3 months following policy changes. If all regions had introduced a 'complete ban' policy in 2014, the NHS in England would have made an annual cost-saving of £21.1 million (equivalent to 0.24% of the total primary care medicines expenditure), assuming no negative sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of more restrictive GF prescribing policies has been associated with 'quick wins' for NHS regions under extreme financial pressure. However, these initial savings will be largely negated if GF product policies revert to recently published national recommendations. Better evidence of the long-term impact of restricting GF prescribing on patient health, expenses and use of NHS services is needed to inform policy.

Impact of issuing longer- versus shorter-duration prescriptions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Long-term conditions place a substantial burden on primary care services, with drug therapy being a core aspect of clinical management. However, the ideal frequency for issuing repeat prescriptions for these medications is unknown. AIM: To examine the impact of longer-duration (2-4 months) versus shorter-duration (28-day) prescriptions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of primary care studies. METHOD: Scientific and grey literature databases were searched from inception until 21 October 2015. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials and observational studies that examined longer prescriptions (2-4 months) compared with shorter prescriptions (28 days) in patients with stable, chronic conditions being treated in primary care. Outcomes of interest were: health outcomes, adverse events, medication adherence, medication wastage, professional administration time, pharmacists' time and/or costs, patient experience, and patient out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: From a search total of 24 876 records across all databases, 13 studies were eligible for review. Evidence of moderate quality from nine studies suggested that longer prescriptions are associated with increased medication adherence. Evidence from six studies suggested that longer prescriptions may increase medication waste, but results were not always statistically significant and were of very low quality. No eligible studies were identified that measured any of the other outcomes of interest, including health outcomes and adverse events. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence relating to the overall impact of differing prescription lengths on clinical and health service outcomes, although studies do suggest medication adherence may improve with longer prescriptions. UK recommendations to provide shorter prescriptions are not substantiated by the current evidence base.

Current and future cardiovascular disease risk assessment in the European Union: an international comparative study.

Background: Risk assessment is central to primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but there remains a need to better understand the use of evidence-based interventions in practice. This study examines: (i) the policies and guidelines for risk assessment in Europe, (ii) the use of risk assessment tools in clinical practice and (iii) the barriers to, and facilitators of, risk assessment. Methods: Data were collected from academics, clinicians and policymakers in an online questionnaire targeted at experts from all European Union member states, and in 8 in-depth country case studies that were developed from a targeted literature review and 36 interviews. Results: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) produces European guidelines for CVD risk assessment and recommends the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation tool, which is the most widely used risk assessment tool in Europe. The use of risk assessment tools is variable. Lack of time and resources are important barriers. Integrating risk assessment tools into clinical systems and providing financial incentives to carry out risk assessments could increase implementation. Novel biomarkers would need to be supported by evidence of their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to be introduced in clinical practice. These findings were consistent across Europe. Conclusions: Efforts to improve the assessment of CVD risk in clinical practice should be carried out by or in collaboration with, the ESC. Increasing the use of existing risk assessment tools is likely to offer greater gains in primary prevention than the development of novel biomarkers.

Financial incentives improve recognition but not treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVES: Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with premature cardiovascular disease, prompting the UK primary care payment-for-performance system (Quality and Outcomes Framework, QOF) to incentivise annual physical health reviews. This study aimed to assess the QOF's impact on detection and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in people with SMI. METHODS: A retrospective open cohort study of UK general practice was conducted between 1996 and 2014, using segmented logistic regression with 2004 and 2011 as break points, reflecting the introduction of relevant QOF incentives in these years. 67239 SMI cases and 359951 randomly-selected unmatched controls were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). RESULTS: There was strong evidence (p≤0.015) the 2004 QOF indicator (general health) resulted in an immediate increase in recording of elevated cholesterol (odds ratio 1.37 (95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.51)); obesity (OR 1.21 (1.06 to 1.38)); and hypertension (OR 1.19 (1.04 to 1.38)) in the SMI group compared with the control group, which was sustained in subsequent years. Similar findings were found for diabetes, although the evidence was weaker (p = 0.059; OR 1.21 (0.99 to 1.49)). There was evidence (p<0.001) of a further, but unsustained, increase in recording of elevated cholesterol and obesity in the SMI group following the 2011 QOF indicator (cardiovascular specific). There was no clear evidence that the QOF indicators affected the prescribing of lipid modifying medications or anti-diabetic medications. CONCLUSION: Incentivising general physical health review for SMI improves identification of cardiovascular risk factors, although the additional value of specifically incentivising cardiovascular risk factor assessment is unclear. However, incentives do not affect pharmacological management of these risks.

Adjusted indices of multiple deprivation to enable comparisons within and between constituent countries of the UK including an illustration using mortality rates.

OBJECTIVES: Social determinants can have a major impact on health and as a consequence substantial inequalities are seen between and within countries. The study of inequalities between countries relies on having accurate and consistent measures of deprivation across the country borders. However, in the UK most socioeconomic deprivation measures are not comparable between countries. We give a method of adjusting the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for use across the UK, describe the deprivation of each UK country, and show the problems introduced by naïvely using country-specific deprivation measures in a UK-wide analysis of mortality rates. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 42 148 geographic areas covering the population of the UK. OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted IMD scores based on the income and employment domains of country-specific IMD scores, adjusting for the contribution of other domains. The mortality rate among people aged under 75 years standardised to the UK age structure was compared between country-specific and UK-adjusted IMD quintiles. RESULTS: Of the constituent countries of the UK, Northern Ireland was the most deprived with 37% of the population living in areas in the most deprived fifth of the UK, followed by Wales with 22% of the population living in the most deprived fifth of the UK. England and Scotland had similar levels of deprivation. Deprivation-specific mortality rates were similar in England and Wales. Northern Ireland had lower mortality rates than England for each deprivation group, with similar differences for each group. Scotland had higher mortality rates than England for each deprivation group, with larger differences for more deprived groups. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of between-country and within-country inequalities by socioeconomic position should use consistent measures; failing to use consistent measures may give misleading results. The published adjusted IMD scores we describe allow consistent analysis across the UK.

Improving medication management in multimorbidity: development of the MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MY COMRADE) intervention using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, the presence of two or more chronic conditions, affects over 60 % of patients in primary care. Due to its association with polypharmacy, the development of interventions to optimise medication management in patients with multimorbidity is a priority. The Behaviour Change Wheel is a new approach for applying behavioural theory to intervention development. Here, we describe how we have used results from a review of previous research, original research of our own and the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention to improve medication management in multimorbidity by general practitioners (GPs), within the overarching UK Medical Research Council guidance on complex interventions. METHODS: Following the steps of the Behaviour Change Wheel, we sought behaviours associated with medication management in multimorbidity by conducting a systematic review and qualitative study with GPs. From the modifiable GP behaviours identified, we selected one and conducted a focused behavioural analysis to explain why GPs were or were not engaging in this behaviour. We used the behavioural analysis to determine the intervention functions, behavioural change techniques and implementation plan most likely to effect behavioural change. RESULTS: We identified numerous modifiable GP behaviours in the systematic review and qualitative study, from which active medication review (rather than passive maintaining the status quo) was chosen as the target behaviour. Behavioural analysis revealed GPs' capabilities, opportunities and motivations relating to active medication review. We combined the three intervention functions deemed most likely to effect behavioural change (enablement, environmental restructuring and incentivisation) to form the MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MY COMRADE) intervention. MY COMRADE primarily involves the technique of social support: two GPs review the medications prescribed to a complex multimorbid patient together. Four other behavioural change techniques are incorporated: restructuring the social environment, prompts/cues, action planning and self-incentives. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention targeting multimorbidity and confirms the usability and usefulness of the approach in a complex area of clinical care. The systematic development of the MY COMRADE intervention will facilitate a thorough evaluation of its effectiveness in the next phase of this work.

Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explain the primary care experiences of people with multiple long-term conditions in England. DESIGN AND METHODS: Using questionnaire data from 906,578 responders to the English 2012 General Practice Patient Survey, we describe the primary care experiences of patients with long-term conditions, including 583,143 patients who reported one or more long-term conditions. We employed mixed effect logistic regressions to analyse data on six items covering three care domains (access, continuity and communication) and a single item on overall primary care experience. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, and for general practice using a random effect, and further, controlled for, and explored the importance of, health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) scale. RESULTS: Most patients with long-term conditions report a positive experience of care at their general practice (after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and general practice, range 74.0-93.1% reporting positive experience of care across seven questions) with only modest variation by type of condition. For all three domains of patient experience, an increasing number of comorbid conditions is associated with a reducing percentage of patients reporting a positive experience of care. For example, compared with respondents with no long-term condition, the OR for reporting a positive experience is 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87) for respondents with four or more long-term conditions. However, this relationship is no longer observed after adjusting for health-related quality of life (OR (95% CI) single condition=1.23 (1.21 to 1.26); four or more conditions=1.31 (1.25 to 1.37)), with pain making the greatest difference among five quality of life variables included in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with multiple long-term conditions more frequently report worse experiences in primary care. However, patient-centred measures of health-related quality of life, especially pain, are more important than the number of conditions in explaining why patients with multiple long-term conditions report worse experiences of care.

Deprivation-based risk scores: the re-emergence of postcode prescribing in the UK?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Socioeconomic gradients exist in the prevalence of cardiovascular disease. This has prompted the development of risk scores such as ASSIGN and QRISK, which incorporate measures of deprivation, to address the issue of underprescribing of primary preventive medicines in the socially disadvantaged. The scores use area-based measures of deprivation rather than the socioeconomic status of the individual. We examined to what extent the decision to treat a patient might be influenced by where that individual lived. METHODS: On the basis of individual patient risk factor data from the Scottish Health Survey, we compared the theoretical level of deprivation [Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)] required to give a person an ASSIGN risk of 20% (the treatment cut-off), with the person's actual SIMD quintile. We assumed that patients are more likely to move between areas of similar deprivation (i.e. the same SIMD quintile). If the theoretical SIMD value for that individual fell within their actual SIMD quintile, we assumed that prescribing decisions could be influenced by the area of residence. RESULTS: If the ASSIGN risk score was implemented, the area of residence would affect the decision to initiate statins in the case of 15.7% of the population (aged 30-74 years), and for borderline hypertension, in 3.0%. This corresponds to 407 000 and 15 000 people, respectively, in Scotland and 4.6 million and 169 000 in the entire UK. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that by using cardiovascular risk scores based on area deprivation, primary prevention treatment decisions will be affected by the area of residence in a large number of individuals.