A Comparison of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitor Kidney Outcome Trial Participants with a Real-World Chronic Kidney Disease Primary Care Population.

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS: Observational studies suggest sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor kidney outcome trials are not representative of the broader population of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, there are limited data on the generalisability to those without co-existing type 2 diabetes (T2D), and the representativeness of the EMPA-KIDNEY trial has not been adequately explored. We hypothesised that SGLT2 inhibitor kidney outcome trials are more representative of people with co-existing T2D than those without, and that EMPA-KIDNEY is more representative than previous trials. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of adults with CKD in English primary care was conducted using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Information Digital Hub. The proportions that met the eligibility criteria of SGLT2 inhibitor kidney outcome trials were determined, and their characteristics described. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with trial eligibility. RESULTS: Of 6,670,829 adults, 516,491 (7.7%) with CKD were identified. In the real-world CKD population, 0.9%, 2.2%, and 8.0% met the CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY eligibility criteria, respectively. All trials were more representative of people with co-existing T2D than those without T2D. Trial participants were 9-14 years younger than the real-world CKD population, and had more advanced CKD, including higher levels of albuminuria. A higher proportion of the CREDENCE (100%), DAPA-CKD (67.6%) and EMPA-KIDNEY (44.5%) trial participants had T2D compared to the real-world CKD population (32.8%). Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were prescribed in almost all trial participants, compared to less than half of the real-world CKD population. Females were under-represented and less likely to be eligible for the trials. CONCLUSION: SGLT2 inhibitor kidney outcome trials represent a sub-group of people with CKD at high risk of adverse kidney events. Out study highlights the importance of complementing trials with real-world studies, exploring the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in the broader population of people with CKD.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: Are clinical trial benefits for heart failure reflected in real-world clinical practice? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

AIM: To determine the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of heart failure events in people treated with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science for observational studies published to 9 May 2022 that explored the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and any indication for heart failure (including new diagnosis or hospitalization for heart failure) in type 2 diabetes. Identified studies were independently screened by two reviewers and assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Eligible studies with comparable outcome data were pooled for meta-analysis using random-effects models, reporting hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The ARR per 100 person-years was determined overall, and in subgroups with and without baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD). RESULTS: From 43 eligible studies, with a total of 4 818 242 participants from 17 countries, 21 were included for meta-analysis. SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59-0.72) overall and both in those with CVD (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.89) and without CVD (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.71). Risk reduction for hospitalization for heart failure in people with a history of CVD (ARR 1.17, 95% CI 0.78-1.55) was significantly greater than for those without CVD (ARR 0.39, 95% CI 0.32-0.47). The number-needed-to-treat to prevent one event of hospitalization for heart failure was 86 (95% CI 65-128) person-years of treatment for the CVD group and 256 (95% CI 215-316) person-years for those without CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world SGLT2 inhibitor use supports randomized trial data for the size effect of reduced hospitalization for heart failure in type 2 diabetes, although with a much lower ARR in people without CVD.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and kidney outcomes in real-world type 2 diabetes populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

AIM: To conduct a systematic review of observational studies to explore the real-world kidney benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in a large and diverse population of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science for observational studies that investigated kidney disease progression in adults with T2D treated with SGLT2 inhibitors compared to other glucose-lowering therapies. Studies published from database inception to July 2022 were independently reviewed by two authors and evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on studies with comparable outcome data, reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 34 studies performed across 15 countries with a total population of 1 494 373 for inclusion. In the meta-analysis of 20 studies, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a 46% lower risk of kidney failure events compared with other glucose-lowering drugs (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47-0.63). This finding was consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses and was independent of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or albuminuria status. SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of kidney failure when compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and a combination of other glucose-lowering drug classes (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.67 and HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44-0.59, respectively). However, when compared to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of kidney failure (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: The reno-protective benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors apply to a broad population of adults with T2D treated in routine clinical practice, including those at lower risk of kidney events with normal eGFR and without albuminuria. These findings support the early use of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D for preservation of kidney health.

Mortality from angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in people infected with COVID-19: a cohort study of 3.7 million people.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) might facilitate transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 leading to more severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) disease and an increased risk of mortality. We aimed to investigate the association between ACE-I/ARB treatment and risk of death amongst people with COVID-19 in the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHODS: We identified a cohort of adults diagnosed with either confirmed or probable COVID-19 (from 1 January to 21 June 2020) using computerized medical records from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. This comprised 465 general practices in England, United Kingdom with a nationally representative population of 3.7 million people. We constructed mixed-effects logistic regression models to quantify the association between ACE-I/ARBs and all-cause mortality among people with COVID-19, adjusted for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, concurrent medication, smoking status, practice clustering, and household number. RESULTS: There were 9,586 COVID-19 cases in the sample and 1,463 (15.3%) died during the study period between 1 January 2020 and 21 June 2020. In adjusted analysis ACE-I and ARBs were not associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.21 and OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.07, respectively). CONCLUSION: Use of ACE-I/ARB, which are commonly used drugs, did not alter the odds of all-cause mortality amongst people diagnosed with COVID-19. Our findings should inform patient and prescriber decisions concerning continued use of these medications during the pandemic.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Early and ongoing stable glycaemic control is associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes: A primary care cohort study.

AIM: To determine whether achieving early glycaemic control, and any subsequent glycaemic variability, was associated with any change in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre database-a large, English primary care network-was conducted. We followed newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, on or after 1 January 2005, aged 25 years or older at diagnosis, with HbA1c measurements at both diagnosis and after 1 year, plus five or more measurements of HbA1c thereafter. Three glycaemic bands were created: groups A (HbA1c < 58 mmol/mol [<7.5%]), B (HbA1c ≥ 58 to 75 mmol/mol [7.5%-9.0%]) and C (HbA1c ≥ 75 mmol/mol [≥9.0%]). Movement between bands was determined from diagnosis to 1 year. Additionally, for data after the first 12 months, a glycaemic variability score was calculated from the number of successive HbA1c readings differing by 0.5% or higher (≥5.5 mmol/mol). Risk of MACE from 1 year postdiagnosis was assessed using time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, which included the first-year transition and the glycaemic variability score. RESULTS: From 26 180 patients, there were 2300 MACE. Compared with group A->A transition over 1 year, those with C->A transition had a reduced risk of MACE (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.94; P = .014), whereas group C->C had HR 1.21 (0.81-1.81; P = .34). Compared with the lowest glycaemic variability score, the greatest variability increased the risk of MACE (HR 1.51; 1.11-2.06; P = .0096). CONCLUSION: Early control of HbA1c improved cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes, although subsequent glycaemic variability had a negative effect on an individual's risk.

Mortality in COVID-19 among women on hormone replacement therapy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Limited recent observational data have suggested that there may be a protective effect of oestrogen on the severity of COVID-19 disease. Our aim was to investigate the association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) use and the likelihood of death in women with COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected computerized medical records from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. We identified a cohort of 1,863,478 women over 18 years of age from 465 general practices in England. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to quantify the association between HRT or COCP use and all-cause mortality among women diagnosed with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in unadjusted and adjusted models. RESULTS: There were 5,451 COVID-19 cases within the cohort. HRT was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94). There were no reported events for all-cause mortality in women prescribed COCPs. This prevented further examination of the impact of COCP. CONCLUSIONS: We found that HRT prescription within 6 months of a recorded diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. Further work is needed in larger cohorts to examine the association of COCP in COVID-19, and to further investigate the hypothesis that oestrogens may contribute a protective effect against COVID-19 severity.

Prescribing sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes in primary care: influence of renal function and heart failure diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) are licenced for initiation for glucose lowering in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2). However, recent trial data have shown that these medications have renal and cardio-protective effects, even for impaired kidney function. The extent to which trial evidence and updated guidelines have influenced real-world prescribing of SGLT-2is is not known, particularly with co-administration of diuretics. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of people with T2DM registered with practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database on the 31st July 2019. We calculated the percentage of people prescribed SGLT-2is according to eGFR categories (< 45, 45-59, and ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2), with a heart failure diagnosis and stratified by body mass index categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese), and with concomitant prescription of a diuretic. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether heart failure diagnosis and renal function were associated with SGLT-2i prescribing. RESULTS: From a population of 242,624 people with T2DM across 419 practices, 11.0% (n = 26,700) had been prescribed SGLT-2is. The majority of people initiated SGLT-2is had an eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (93.2%), and 4.3% had a heart failure diagnosis. 9,226 (3.8%) people were prescribed SGLT-2is as an add-on to their diuretic prescription. People in the highest eGFR category (≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2) were more likely to be prescribed SGLT-2is than those in eGFR lower categories. Overweight (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.841-2.274) and obese people (OR 3.84, 95% CI 3.472-4.250) were also more likely to be prescribed these medications, whilst use of diuretics (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.682-0.804) and heart failure (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.653-0.998) were associated with lower odds of being prescribed SGLT-2is. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing patterns of SGLT-2is for glucose lowering in T2DM in primary care generally concur with licenced indications according to recommended renal thresholds. A small percentage of people with heart failure were prescribed SGLT-2is for T2DM. An updated analysis is merited should UK National Institute for Health Care and Excellence prescribing guidelines for T2DM be revised to incorporate new data on the benefits for those with reduced renal function or with heart failure.

Effect of type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes on the risk of venous thromboembolism.

AIMS: Whether diabetes increases venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unclear. Any greater risk may relate to insulin resistance, but many studies did not differentiate between type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes for VTE risk. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre, comprising over 530 primary care practices. We determined whether type 1 diabetes and/or type 2 diabetes are independent risk factors for VTE. The index date was 1 January 2009, individuals were followed to 31 December 2018, or censoring. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to investigate the risk of VTE in people with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes relative to no diabetes. The primary outcome was occurrence of VTE. The model was adjusted for potential confounders for VTE. RESULTS: There were 7086 people with type 1 diabetes and 95,566 with type 2 diabetes, diagnosed before 1 January 2009. The non-diabetes group consisted of 1,407,699 people. In the unadjusted analysis, there was no increased risk of VTE with type 1 diabetes (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76-1.33) but there was for type 2 diabetes (HR 2.70, 95% CI 2.57-2.84). In the fully adjusted model, VTE risk was increased in type 1 diabetes (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11-1.92), but not with type 2 diabetes (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 diabetes was associated with a greater risk for VTE while type 2 diabetes was not. Further work is needed to determine the reason(s) for this.

Over-use of thyroid testing in Canadian and UK primary care in frequent attenders: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is a common test used to detect and monitor clinically significant hypo- and hyperthyroidism. Population-based screening of asymptomatic adults for thyroid disorders is not recommended. OBJECTIVE: The research objectives were to determine patterns of TSH testing in Canadian and English primary care practices, as well as patient and physician practice characteristics associated with testing TSH for primary care patients with no identifiable indication. METHODS: In this 2-year cross-sectional observational study, Canadian and English electronic medical record databases were used to identify patients and physician practices. Cohorts of patients aged 18 years or older, without identifiable indications for TSH testing, were generated from these databases. Analyses were performed using a random-effects logistic regression to determine patient and physician practice characteristics associated with increased testing. We determined the proportion of TSH tests performed concurrently with at least one common screening blood test (lipid profile or hemoglobin A1c). Standardised proportions of TSH test per family practice were used to examine the heterogeneity in the populations. RESULTS: At least one TSH test was performed in 35.97% (N = 489 663) of Canadian patients and 29.36% (N = 1 030 489) of English patients. Almost all TSH tests in Canada and England (95.69% and 99.23% respectively) were within the normal range (0.40-5.00 mU/L). A greater number of patient-physician encounters was the strongest predictor of TSH testing. It was determined that 51.40% of TSH tests in Canada and 76.55% in England were performed on the same day as at least one other screening blood test. There was no association between the practice size and proportion of asymptomatic patients tested. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative binational study found TSH patterns suggestive of over-testing and potentially thyroid disorder screening in both countries. There may be significant opportunities to improve the appropriateness of TSH ordering in Canada and England and therefore improve the allocation of limited system resources.

Linkage of the CHHiP randomised controlled trial with primary care data: a study investigating ways of supplementing cancer trials and improving evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice. However, RCTs can have limitations. For example, translation of findings into practice can be limited by design features, such as inclusion criteria, not accurately reflecting clinical populations. In addition, it is expensive to recruit and follow-up participants in RCTs. Linkage with routinely collected data could offer a cost-effective way to enhance the conduct and generalisability of RCTs. The aim of this study is to investigate how primary care data can support RCTs. METHODS: Secondary analysis following linkage of two datasets: 1) multicentre CHHiP radiotherapy trial (ISRCTN97182923) and 2) primary care database from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Comorbidities and medications recorded in CHHiP at baseline, and radiotherapy-related toxicity recorded in CHHiP over time were compared with primary care records. The association of comorbidities and medications with toxicity was analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Primary care records were extracted for 106 out of 2811 CHHiP participants recruited from sites in England (median age 70, range 44 to 82). Complementary information included longitudinal body mass index, blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as baseline smoking and alcohol usage but was limited by the considerable missing data. In the linked sample, 9 (8%) participants were recorded in CHHiP as having a history of diabetes and 38 (36%) hypertension, whereas primary care records indicated incidence prior to trial entry of 11 (10%) and 40 (38%) respectively. Concomitant medications were not collected in CHHiP but available in primary care records. This indicated that 44 (41.5%) men took aspirin, 65 (61.3%) statins, 14 (13.2%) metformin and 46 (43.4%) phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors at some point before or after trial entry. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a set of recommendations on linkage and supplementation of trials. Data recorded in primary care are a rich resource and linkage could provide near real-time information to supplement trials and an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for long-term follow-up. In addition, standardised primary care data extracts could form part of RCT recruitment and conduct. However, this is at present limited by the variable quality and fragmentation of primary care data.

Disparities in glycaemic control, monitoring, and treatment of type 2 diabetes in England: A retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in type 2 diabetes (T2D) care provision and clinical outcomes have been reported in the last 2 decades in the UK. Since then, a number of initiatives have attempted to address this imbalance. The aim was to evaluate contemporary data as to whether disparities exist in glycaemic control, monitoring, and prescribing in people with T2D. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A T2D cohort was identified from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre dataset: a nationally representative sample of 164 primary care practices (general practices) across England. Diabetes healthcare provision and glucose-lowering medication use between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016 were studied. Healthcare provision included annual HbA1c, renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]), blood pressure (BP), retinopathy, and neuropathy testing. Variables potentially associated with disparity outcomes were assessed using mixed effects logistic and linear regression, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and nested using random effects within general practices. Ethnicity was defined using the Office for National Statistics ethnicity categories: White, Mixed, Asian, Black, and Other (including Arab people and other groups not classified elsewhere). From the primary care adult population (n = 1,238,909), we identified a cohort of 84,452 (5.29%) adults with T2D. The mean age of people with T2D in the included cohort at 31 December 2016 was 68.7 ± 12.6 years; 21,656 (43.9%) were female. The mean body mass index was 30.7 ± SD 6.4 kg/m2. The most deprived groups (IMD quintiles 1 and 2) showed poorer HbA1c than the least deprived (IMD quintile 5). People of Black ethnicity had worse HbA1c than those of White ethnicity. Asian individuals were less likely than White individuals to be prescribed insulin (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.95; p < 0.01), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79; p < 0.001), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.44; p < 0.001). Black individuals were less likely than White individuals to be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39-0.65; p < 0.001) and GLP-1 agonists (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.57; p < 0.001). Individuals in IMD quintile 5 were more likely than those in the other IMD quintiles to have annual testing for HbA1c, BP, eGFR, retinopathy, and neuropathy. Black individuals were less likely than White individuals to have annual testing for HbA1c (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-0.99; p = 0.04) and retinopathy (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; p = 0.011). Asian individuals were more likely than White individuals to have monitoring for HbA1c (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20; p = 0.023) and eGFR (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.19; p = 0.048), but less likely for retinopathy (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.97; p = 0.01) and neuropathy (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97; p = 0.01). The study is limited by the nature of being observational and defined using retrospectively collected data. Disparities in diabetes care may show regional variation, which was not part of this evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that disparity in glycaemic control, diabetes-related monitoring, and prescription of newer therapies remains a challenge in diabetes care. Both SES and ethnicity were important determinants of inequality. Disparities in glycaemic control and other areas of care may lead to higher rates of complications and adverse outcomes for some groups.

Real-world prevalence of the inclusion criteria for the LEADER trial: Data from a national general practice network.

AIMS: To explore the prevalence and describe the clinical characteristics of people with type 2 diabetes with a similar cardiovascular (CV) profile to that of the LEADER trial participants in a primary care setting in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, using the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network database, we identified people with type 2 diabetes meeting the LEADER inclusion criteria. We identified people's CV risk factors using computerized medical records. Additionally, we assessed the prescription pattern of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in this cohort. RESULTS: Of 1 275 461 adults, we identified 84 394 with type 2 diabetes, of whom 14 000 (16.6%) met the LEADER inclusion criteria for established or high-risk CV disease (RCGP RSC-CVD group). The LEADER cohort was younger than the RCGP RSC-CVD group (64.2 vs 73.2 years), had higher mean glycated haemoglobin (71.6 vs 67.1 mmol/mol) and blood pressure (BP) values (systolic BP: 135.9 vs 132.9 mmHg; diastolic BP: 77.2 vs 72.7 mmHg), and a higher mean body mass index (32.5 vs 30.9 kg/m2 ). In the RCGP RSC-CVD group, only 1215 people (8.7%) had ever been prescribed a GLP-1RA and 760 (5.4%) had ever received liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of English general practice patients, one in six people with type 2 diabetes met the LEADER inclusion criteria, and less than one in 10 of these received liraglutide, a drug which has demonstrated CV benefits amongst others. There is scope to improve the outlook in people with type 2 diabetes and high CV risk through evidence-based use of specific GLP-1RAs.

Intensification to injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes: mixed methods study (protocol).

BACKGROUND: In the UK, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is largely managed in primary care. Delay in the intensification to injectable therapy, a form of clinical inertia, is associated with worse glycaemic control. UK general practice is highly computerised, with care being recorded on computerised medical record systems; this allows for quantitative analysis of clinical care but not of the underpinning decision-making process. The aim of this study is to investigate perceptions of patients and clinicians in primary care on the initiation of injectable therapies in T2D, and the context within which those decisions are made. METHODS: This is a mixed methods study, taking a "realist evaluation" approach. The qualitative components comprise focus groups, interviews, and video recordings of simulated surgeries; the quantitative analysis: an overview of participating practices, elements of the video recording, and an online survey. We will recruit primary care clinicians (general practitioners and nurses) and patients from a representative sample of practices within the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network. Participants will be patients with T2D, and primary care clinicians. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. The simulated surgeries will include cases that might be escalated to injectable therapy. The consultation will be reviewed using the Calgary-Cambridge model to assess communication and determination of adherence to national prescribing guidelines. We will conduct multi-channel video recording including screen capture, clinician and patient facial expressions, wide angle view of the consultation, and the computerised medical record screen. This allows annotation and qualitative analysis of the video recordings, and statistical analyses for the quantitative data. We will also conduct an online survey of primary care clinicians' attitudes to, and perceptions of, initiation of injectable therapies, which will be analysed using summary statistics. DISCUSSION: Results aim to provide a detailed insight into the dynamic two-way decision-making process underpinning use of injectable therapy for T2D. The study will provide insights into clinical practice and enable the development of training, interventions and guidelines that may facilitate, where appropriate, the intensification to injectable therapy.

Comparison of medication adherence and persistence in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Limited medication adherence and persistence with treatment are barriers to successful management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Register of Controlled Trials, PsychINFO and CINAHL for observational and interventional studies that compared the adherence or persistence associated with 2 or more glucose-lowering medications in people with T2D. Where 5 or more studies provided the same comparison, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed, reporting mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) for adherence or persistence, depending on the pooled study outcomes. We included a total of 48 studies. Compared with metformin, adherence (%) was better for sulphonylureas (5 studies; MD 10.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-14.7) and thiazolidinediones (TZDs; 6 studies; MD 11.3%, 95% CI 2.7%-20.0%). Adherence to TZDs was marginally better than adherence to sulphonylureas (5 studies; MD 1.5%, 95% CI 0.1-2.9). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors had better adherence than sulphonylureas and TZDs. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists had higher rates of discontinuation than long-acting analogue insulins (6 studies; OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.17-3.27). Long-acting insulin analogues had better persistence than human insulins (5 studies; MD 43.1 days; 95% CI 22.0-64.2). The methods used to define adherence and persistence were highly variable.

Implementation of chronic kidney disease guidelines for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor use in primary care in the UK: a cross-sectional study.

Background: The cardiovascular and kidney benefits of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are well established. The implementation of updated SGLT2 inhibitor guidelines and prescribing in the real-world CKD population remains largely unknown. Methods: A cross-sectional study of adults with CKD registered with UK primary care practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre network on the 31st December 2022 was undertaken. Pseudonymised data from electronic health records held securely within the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) were extracted. An update to a previously described ontological approach was used to identify the study population, using a combination of Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) indicating a diagnosis of CKD and laboratory confirmed CKD based on Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) diagnostic criteria. We examined the extent to which SGLT2 inhibitor guidelines apply to and are then implemented in adults with CKD. A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The four guidelines under investigation were the United Kingdom Kidney Association (UKKA) Clinical Practice Guideline SGLT2 Inhibition in Adults with Kidney Disease (October 2021), American Diabetes Association (ADA) and KDIGO Consensus Report on Diabetes Management in CKD (October 2022), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline Type 2 Diabetes in Adults: Management (June 2022), and NICE Technology Appraisal Dapagliflozin for Treating CKD (March 2022). Findings: Of 6,670,829 adults, we identified 516,491 (7.7%) with CKD, including 32.8% (n = 169,443) who had co-existing type 2 diabetes (T2D). 26.8% (n = 138,183) of the overall CKD population had a guideline directed indication for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment. A higher proportion of people with CKD and co-existing T2D were indicated for treatment, compared to those without T2D (62.8% [n = 106,468] vs. 9.1% [n = 31,715]). SGLT2 inhibitors were prescribed to 17.0% (n = 23,466) of those with an indication for treatment, and prescriptions were predominantly in those with co-existing T2D; 22.0% (n = 23,464) in those with T2D, and <0.1% (n = 2) in those without T2D. In adjusted multivariable analysis of people with CKD and T2D, females (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.72, p <0.0001), individuals of Black ethnicity (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.91, p <0.0001) and those of lower socio-economic status (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.76, p <0.0001) were less likely to be prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor. Those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 had a lower likelihood of receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared to those with an eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (eGFR 45-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68, p <0.0001, eGFR 30-45 mL/min/1.73 m2 OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.78, p <0.0001, eGFR 15-30 mL/min/1.73 m2 OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46-0.60, p <0.0001, eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.23, p = 0.0037, respectively). Those with albuminuria (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio 3-30 mg/mmol) were less likely to be prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared to those without albuminuria (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.75-0.82, p <0.0001). Interpretation: SGLT2 inhibitor guidelines in CKD have not yet been successfully implemented into clinical practice, most notably in those without co-existing T2D. Individuals at higher risk of adverse outcomes are paradoxically less likely to receive SGLT2 inhibitor treatment. The timeframe between the publication of guidelines and data extraction may have been too short to observe changes in clinical practice. Enhanced efforts to embed SGLT2 inhibitors equitably into routine care for people with CKD are urgently needed, particularly in those at highest risk of adverse outcomes and in the absence of T2D. Funding: None.

Phenotype execution and modeling architecture to support disease surveillance and real-world evidence studies: English sentinel network evaluation.

Objective: To evaluate Phenotype Execution and Modelling Architecture (PhEMA), to express sharable phenotypes using Clinical Quality Language (CQL) and intensional Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) Clinical Terms (CT) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) valuesets, for exemplar chronic disease, sociodemographic risk factor, and surveillance phenotypes. Method: We curated 3 phenotypes: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), excessive alcohol use, and incident influenza-like illness (ILI) using CQL to define clinical and administrative logic. We defined our phenotypes with valuesets, using SNOMED's hierarchy and expression constraint language, and CQL, combining valuesets and adding temporal elements where needed. We compared the count of cases found using PhEMA with our existing approach using convenience datasets. We assessed our new approach against published desiderata for phenotypes. Results: The T2DM phenotype could be defined as 2 intensionally defined SNOMED valuesets and a CQL script. It increased the prevalence from 7.2% to 7.3%. Excess alcohol phenotype was defined by valuesets that added qualitative clinical terms to the quantitative conceptual definitions we currently use; this change increased prevalence by 58%, from 1.2% to 1.9%. We created an ILI valueset with SNOMED concepts, adding a temporal element using CQL to differentiate new episodes. This increased the weekly incidence in our convenience sample (weeks 26-38) from 0.95 cases to 1.11 cases per 100 000 people. Conclusions: Phenotypes for surveillance and research can be described fully and comprehensibly using CQL and intensional FHIR valuesets. Our use case phenotypes identified a greater number of cases, whilst anticipated from excessive alcohol this was not for our other variable. This may have been due to our use of SNOMED CT hierarchy. Our new process fulfilled a greater number of phenotype desiderata than the one that we had used previously, mostly in the modeling domain. More work is needed to implement that sharing and warehousing domains.

AZD1222 effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in individuals with comorbidity or frailty: The RAVEN cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations. METHODS: Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity. RESULTS: Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1). CONCLUSIONS: Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed.

Hepatitis A Vaccination Coverage Among People With Chronic Liver Disease in England (HEALD): Protocol for a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis A outbreaks in the United Kingdom are uncommon. Most people develop mild to moderate symptoms that resolve, without sequelae, within months. However, in high-risk groups, including those with underlying chronic liver disease (CLD), hepatitis A infection can be severe, with a higher risk of mortality and morbidity. The Health Security Agency and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommend preexposure hepatitis A vaccination given in 2 doses to people with CLD, regardless of its cause. There are currently no published reports of vaccination coverage for people with CLD in England or internationally. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe hepatitis A vaccination coverage in adults with CLD in a UK primary care setting and compare liver disease etiology, sociodemographic characteristics, and comorbidities in people who are and are not exposed to the hepatitis A vaccine. METHODS: We will conduct a retrospective cohort study with data from the Primary Care Sentinel Cohort of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub database, which is nationally representative of the English population. We will include people aged 18 years and older who have been registered in general practices in the Research and Surveillance Centre network and have a record of CLD between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, including those with alcohol-related liver disease, chronic hepatitis B, chronic hepatitis C, nonalcohol fatty liver disease, Wilson disease, hemochromatosis, and autoimmune hepatitis. We will carefully curate variables using the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms. We will report the sociodemographic characteristics of those who are vaccinated. These include age, gender, ethnicity, population density, region, socioeconomic status (measured using the index of multiple deprivation), obesity, alcohol consumption, and smoking. Hepatitis A vaccination coverage for 1 and 2 doses will be calculated using an estimate of the CLD population as the denominator. We will analyze the baseline characteristics using descriptive statistics, including measures of dispersion. Pairwise comparisons of case-mix characteristics, comorbidities, and complications will be reported according to vaccination status. A multistate survival model will be fitted to estimate the transition probabilities among four states: (1) diagnosed with CLD, (2) first dose of hepatitis A vaccination, (3) second dose of hepatitis A vaccination, and (4) death. This will identify any potential disparities in how people with CLD get vaccinated. RESULTS: The Research and Surveillance Centre population comprises over 8 million people. The reported incidence of CLD is 20.7 cases per 100,000. International estimates of hepatitis A vaccine coverage vary between 10% and 50% in this group. CONCLUSIONS: This study will describe the uptake of the hepatitis A vaccine in people with CLD and report any disparities or differences in the characteristics of the vaccinated population. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51861.

Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. SETTING: England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. RESULTS: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3-7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44)). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.