OpenSAFELY: The impact of COVID-19 on azathioprine, leflunomide and methotrexate monitoring, and factors associated with change in monitoring rate.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented pressure on healthcare services. This study investigates whether disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) safety monitoring was affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A population-based cohort study was conducted using the OpenSAFELY platform to access electronic health record data from 24.2 million patients registered at general practices using TPP's SystmOne software. Patients were included for further analysis if prescribed azathioprine, leflunomide or methotrexate between November 2019 and July 2022. Outcomes were assessed as monthly trends and variation between various sociodemographic and clinical groups for adherence with standard safety monitoring recommendations. RESULTS: An acute increase in the rate of missed monitoring occurred across the study population (+12.4 percentage points) when lockdown measures were implemented in March 2020. This increase was more pronounced for some patient groups (70-79 year-olds: +13.7 percentage points; females: +12.8 percentage points), regions (North West: +17.0 percentage points), medications (leflunomide: +20.7 percentage points) and monitoring tests (blood pressure: +24.5 percentage points). Missed monitoring rates decreased substantially for all groups by July 2022. Consistent differences were observed in overall missed monitoring rates between several groups throughout the study. CONCLUSION: DMARD monitoring rates temporarily deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deterioration coincided with the onset of lockdown measures, with monitoring rates recovering rapidly as lockdown measures were eased. Differences observed in monitoring rates between medications, tests, regions and patient groups highlight opportunities to tackle potential inequalities in the provision or uptake of monitoring services. Further research should evaluate the causes of the differences identified between groups.

The impact of COVID-19 on medication reviews in English primary care. An OpenSAFELY-TPP analysis of 20 million adult electronic health records.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity ensuring safety and appropriateness of prescribing. A disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care. Using routinely collected data, our aim was first to describe codes used to record medication review activity and then to report the impact of COVID-19 on the rates of medication reviews. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 20 million adult patient records in general practice, in-situ using the OpenSAFELY platform. For each month, between April 2019 and March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months with breakdowns by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and those prescribed high-risk medications. RESULTS: In April 2019, 32.3% of patients had a medication review coded in the previous 12 months. During the first COVID-19 lockdown, monthly activity decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the 12-month rate was not substantially impacted (-10.5% March 2021). The rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high-risk groups (care home residents 34.1%, age 90+ years 13.1%, high-risk medications 10.2%). The most used medication review code was Medication review done 314530002 (59.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period. Structured medication reviews were prioritized for high-risk patients.

Inequalities in access to prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of a population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, access to prenatal care was lower among some socio-demographic groups. This pandemic caused disruptions to routine preventative care, which could have increased inequalities. OBJECTIVES: To investigate if the COVID-19 pandemic increased inequalities in access to prenatal care among those who are younger, live in rural areas, have a lower socio-economic situation (SES) and are recent immigrants. METHODS: We used linked administrative datasets from ICES to identify a population-based cohort of 455,245 deliveries in Ontario from January 2018 to December 2021. Our outcomes were first-trimester prenatal visits, first-trimester ultrasound and adequacy of prenatal care. We used joinpoint analysis to examine outcome time trends and identify trend change points. We stratified analyses by age, rural residence, SES and recent immigration, and examined risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between groups at the beginning and end of the study period. RESULTS: For all outcomes, we noted disruptions to care beginning in March or April 2020 and returning to previous trends by November 2020. Inequalities were stable across groups, except recent immigrants. In July 2017, 65.0% and 69.8% of recent immigrants and non-immigrants, respectively, received ultrasounds in the first trimester (RD -4.8%, 95% CI -8.0, -1.5). By October 2020, this had increased to 75.4%, with no difference with non-immigrants (RD 0.4%, 95% CI -2.4, 3.2). Adequacy of prenatal care showed more intensive care as of November 2020, reflecting a higher number of visits. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that inequalities between socio-economic groups that existed prior to the pandemic worsened after March 2020. The pandemic may be associated with increased access to care for recent immigrants. The introduction of virtual visits may have resulted in a higher number of prenatal care visits.

Budget Impact of RefluxStop™ as a Treatment for Patients with Refractory Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease in the United Kingdom.

Background: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common condition associated with heartburn and regurgitation. Standard of care for GORD patients in the UK involves initial treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and laparoscopic antireflux surgery in patients unwilling to continue or intolerant of long-term PPI treatment. Recently, RefluxStop™, a novel, implantable medical device, has proven to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for patients with GORD. The current analysis aimed to describe the budget impact of introducing RefluxStop™ within National Health Service (NHS) England and Wales. Objectives: To estimate the more immediate, short-term clinical and economic effects of introducing RefluxStop™ as a therapeutic option for patients with GORD treated within NHS England and Wales. Methods: A model adherent to international best practice guidelines was developed to estimate the budget impact of introducing RefluxStop™ over a 5-year time horizon, from an NHS perspective. Two hypothetical scenarios were considered, one without RefluxStop™ (comprising PPI treatment, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and magnetic sphincter augmentation using the LINX® system) and one with RefluxStop™ (adding RefluxStop™ to the aforementioned treatment options). Clinical benefits and costs associated with each intervention were included in the analysis. Results: Over 5 years, introducing RefluxStop™ allowed the avoidance of 347 surgical failures, 39 reoperations, and 239 endoscopic esophageal dilations. The financial impact of introducing RefluxStop™ was £3 029 702 in year 5, corresponding to a 1.68% increase in annual NHS spending on GORD treatment in England and Wales. Discussion: While the time horizon was too short to capture some of the adverse events of PPIs and complications of GORD, such as the development of Barrett's esophagus or esophageal cancer, the use of RefluxStop™ was associated with a substantial reduction in surgical complications, including surgical failures, reoperations, and endoscopic esophageal dilations. This favorable clinical profile resulted in cost offsets for the NHS and contributed to the marginal budget impact of RefluxStop™ estimated in the current analysis. Conclusions: Introducing RefluxStop™ as a treatment option for patients with GORD in England and Wales may be associated with clinical benefits at the expense of a marginal budget impact on the NHS.

Antenatal corticosteroids and newborn respiratory outcomes in twins: A regression discontinuity study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of antenatal corticosteroids on newborn respiratory morbidity in twins. DESIGN: Regression discontinuity applied to population-based birth registry data. SETTING: British Columbia, Canada, 2008-2018. POPULATION: Twin pregnancies admitted for birth between 31+0 and 36+6 weeks of gestation. METHODS: During our study period, Canadian clinical practice guidelines recommended antenatal corticosteroid administration for imminent preterm birth up to 33+6 weeks. We used a logistic model to compare the predicted risks of our outcomes among pregnancies admitted for birth immediately before this clinical cut-point (higher probability of exposure to antenatal corticosteroids) versus immediately after it (lower probability). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was a composite of newborn respiratory distress or in-hospital death. Our secondary outcome was a composite of newborn respiratory intervention or in-hospital death. RESULTS: Among 2524 pregnancies (5035 liveborn twins), 47% of admissions before 34+0 weeks of gestation were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids but only 4.2% of admissions after this cut-point were exposed. The risk of newborn respiratory distress or in-hospital mortality increased abruptly at 34+0 weeks, corresponding to a protective effect of treatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90; risk difference [RD] -12 cases per 100 births, 95% CI -20 to -4.1). There was no clear evidence for or against an effect on newborn respiratory intervention or in-hospital death (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70-1.13; RD -4.2 per 100, 95% CI -13 to +4.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids in preventing adverse newborn respiratory outcomes in twins.

Prevalence of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Human Papillomaviruses in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer and Noncancer Controls and Relation to Behavioral Factors.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause head and neck cancer (HNC), which is increasing in incidence in developed countries. We investigated the prevalence of alpha (α), beta (ß), and gamma (γ) HPVs among HNC cases and controls, and their relationship with sociodemographic, behavioral, and oral health factors. METHODS: We obtained oral rinse and brush samples from incident HNC cases (n = 369) and hospital-based controls (n = 439) and tumor samples for a subsample of cases (n = 121). We genotyped samples using polymerase chain reaction with PGMY09-PGMY11 primers and linear array for α-HPV and type-specific multiplex genotyping assay for ß-HPV and γ-HPV. Sociodemographic and behavioral data were obtained from interviews. RESULTS: The prevalence of α-, ß-, and γ-HPV among controls was 14%, 56%, and 24%, respectively, whereas prevalence among cases was 42%, 50%, and 33%, respectively. Prevalence of α- and γ-HPV, but not ß-HPV, increased with increase in sexual activity, smoking, and drinking habits. No HPV genus was associated with oral health. Tumor samples included HPV genotypes exclusively from the α-genus, mostly HPV-16, in 80% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of α- and γ-HPV, but not ß-HPV, seems to vary based on sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. We did not observe the presence of cutaneous HPV in tumor tissues.

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups. Findings: A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033). Interpretation: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Impact of a vaccine passport on first-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine coverage by age and area-level social determinants of health in the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, all provinces implemented vaccine passports in 2021 to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission in non-essential indoor spaces and increase vaccine uptake (policies active September 2021-March 2022 in Quebec and Ontario). We sought to evaluate the impact of vaccine passport policies on first-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage by age, and area-level income and proportion of racialized residents. METHODS: We performed interrupted time series analyses using data from Quebec's and Ontario's vaccine registries linked to census information (population of 20.5 million people aged ≥ 12 yr; unit of analysis: dissemination area). We fit negative binomial regressions to first-dose vaccinations, using natural splines adjusting for baseline vaccination coverage (start: July 2021; end: October 2021 for Quebec, November 2021 for Ontario). We obtained counterfactual vaccination rates and coverage, and estimated the absolute and relative impacts of vaccine passports. RESULTS: In both provinces, first-dose vaccination coverage before the announcement of vaccine passports was 82% (age ≥ 12 yr). The announcement resulted in estimated increases in coverage of 0.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-1.2) in Quebec and 0.7 percentage points (95% CI 0.5-0.8) in Ontario. This corresponds to 23% (95% CI 10%-36%) and 19% (95% CI 15%-22%) more vaccinations over 11 weeks. The impact was larger among people aged 12-39 years. Despite lower coverage in lower-income and more-racialized areas, there was little variability in the absolute impact by area-level income or proportion racialized in either province. INTERPRETATION: In the context of high vaccine coverage across 2 provinces, the announcement of vaccine passports had a small impact on first-dose coverage, with little impact on reducing economic and racial inequities in vaccine coverage. Findings suggest that other policies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among lower-income and racialized neighbourhoods and communities.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antipsychotic prescribing in individuals with autism, dementia, learning disability, serious mental illness or living in a care home: a federated analysis of 59 million patients' primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic affected how care was delivered to vulnerable patients, such as those with dementia or learning disability. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether this affected antipsychotic prescribing in at-risk populations. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we completed a retrospective cohort study, using the OpenSAFELY platform to explore primary care data of 59 million patients. We identified patients in five at-risk groups: autism, dementia, learning disability, serious mental illness and care home residents. We calculated the monthly prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing in these groups, as well as the incidence of new prescriptions in each month. FINDINGS: The average monthly rate of antipsychotic prescribing increased in dementia from 82.75 patients prescribed an antipsychotic per 1000 patients (95% CI 82.30 to 83.19) in January-March 2019 to 90.1 (95% CI 89.68 to 90.60) in October-December 2021 and from 154.61 (95% CI 153.79 to 155.43) to 166.95 (95% CI 166.23 to 167.67) in care homes. There were notable spikes in the rate of new prescriptions issued to patients with dementia and in care homes. In learning disability and autism groups, the rate of prescribing per 1000 decreased from 122.97 (95% CI 122.29 to 123.66) to 119.29 (95% CI 118.68 to 119.91) and from 54.91 (95% CI 54.52 to 55.29) to 51.04 (95% CI 50.74 to 51.35), respectively. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We observed a spike in antipsychotic prescribing in the dementia and care home groups, which correlated with lockdowns and was likely due to prescribing of antipsychotics for palliative care. We observed gradual increases in antipsychotic use in dementia and care home patients and decreases in their use in patients with learning disability or autism.

Eleven key measures for monitoring general practice clinical activity during COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study using 48 million adults' primary care records in England through OpenSAFELY.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on delivery of NHS care. We have developed the OpenSAFELY Service Restoration Observatory (SRO) to develop key measures of primary care activity and describe the trends in these measures throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we developed an open source software framework for data management and analysis to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across primary care electronic health record (EHR) data on 48 million adults.We developed SNOMED-CT codelists for key measures of primary care clinical activity such as blood pressure monitoring and asthma reviews, selected by an expert clinical advisory group and conducted a population cohort-based study to describe trends and variation in these measures January 2019-December 2021, and pragmatically classified their level of recovery one year into the pandemic using the percentage change in the median practice level rate. Results: We produced 11 measures reflective of clinical activity in general practice. A substantial drop in activity was observed in all measures at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. By April 2021, the median rate had recovered to within 15% of the median rate in April 2019 in six measures. The remaining measures showed a sustained drop, ranging from a 18.5% reduction in medication reviews to a 42.0% reduction in blood pressure monitoring. Three measures continued to show a sustained drop by December 2021. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a substantial change in primary care activity across the measures we developed, with recovery in most measures. We delivered an open source software framework to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. We will continue to expand the set of key measures to be routinely monitored using our publicly available NHS OpenSAFELY SRO dashboards with near real-time data. Funding: This research used data assets made available as part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC_PC_20058).The OpenSAFELY Platform is supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z); MRC (MR/V015757/1, MC_PC-20059, MR/W016729/1); NIHR (NIHR135559, COV-LT2-0073), and Health Data Research UK (HDRUK2021.000, 2021.0157).

Changes in medication safety indicators in England throughout the covid-19 pandemic using OpenSAFELY: population based, retrospective cohort study of 57 million patients using federated analytics.

Objective: To implement complex, PINCER (pharmacist led information technology intervention) prescribing indicators, on a national scale with general practice data to describe the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on safe prescribing. Design: Population based, retrospective cohort study using federated analytics. Setting: Electronic general practice health record data from 56.8 million NHS patients by use of the OpenSAFELY platform, with the approval of the National Health Service (NHS) England. Participants: NHS patients (aged 18-120 years) who were alive and registered at a general practice that used TPP or EMIS computer systems and were recorded as at risk of at least one potentially hazardous PINCER indicator. Main outcome measure: Between 1 September 2019 and 1 September 2021, monthly trends and between practice variation for compliance with 13 PINCER indicators, as calculated on the first of every month, were reported. Prescriptions that do not adhere to these indicators are potentially hazardous and can cause gastrointestinal bleeds; are cautioned against in specific conditions (specifically heart failure, asthma, and chronic renal failure); or require blood test monitoring. The percentage for each indicator is formed of a numerator of patients deemed to be at risk of a potentially hazardous prescribing event and the denominator is of patients for which assessment of the indicator is clinically meaningful. Higher indicator percentages represent potentially poorer performance on medication safety. Results: The PINCER indicators were successfully implemented across general practice data for 56.8 million patient records from 6367 practices in OpenSAFELY. Hazardous prescribing remained largely unchanged during the covid-19 pandemic, with no evidence of increases in indicators of harm as captured by the PINCER indicators. The percentage of patients at risk of potentially hazardous prescribing, as defined by each PINCER indicator, at mean quarter 1 (Q1) 2020 (representing before the pandemic) ranged from 1.11% (age ≥65 years and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) to 36.20% (amiodarone and no thyroid function test), while Q1 2021 (representing after the pandemic) percentages ranged from 0.75% (age ≥65 years and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) to 39.23% (amiodarone and no thyroid function test). Transient delays occurred in blood test monitoring for some medications, particularly angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (where blood monitoring worsened from a mean of 5.16% in Q1 2020 to 12.14% in Q1 2021, and began to recover in June 2021). All indicators substantially recovered by September 2021. We identified 1 813 058 patients (3.1%) at risk of at least one potentially hazardous prescribing event. Conclusion: NHS data from general practices can be analysed at national scale to generate insights into service delivery. Potentially hazardous prescribing was largely unaffected by the covid-19 pandemic in primary care health records in England.

First dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage amongst adolescents and children in England: an analysis of 3.21 million patients' primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programme in England was extended to include all adolescents and children by April 2022. The aim of this paper is to describe trends and variation in vaccine coverage in different clinical and demographic groups amongst adolescents and children in England by August 2022. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 3.21 million children and adolescents' records in general practice in England,  in situ and within the infrastructure of the electronic health record software vendor TPP using OpenSAFELY. Vaccine coverage across various demographic (sex, deprivation index and ethnicity) and clinical (risk status) populations is described. Results: Coverage is higher amongst adolescents than it is amongst children, with 53.5% adolescents and 10.8% children having received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Within those groups, coverage varies by ethnicity, deprivation index and risk status; there is no evidence of variation by sex. Conclusion: First dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage is shown to vary amongst various demographic and clinical groups of children and adolescents.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel, non-active implantable device as a treatment for refractory gastro-esophageal reflux disease.

AIMS: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, chronic gastrointestinal condition characterized by heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, and bloating. The current standard of care includes chronic treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or, in selected patients, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. RefluxStop is a novel implantable device indicated for GERD patients eligible for laparoscopic surgical treatment. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop against available treatment options for GERD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared with PPI-based medical management (MM) and two surgical management options, LNF and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA, LINX system), in people with GERD. Clinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective and an annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied. RESULTS: RefluxStop showed favorable surgical outcomes compared with both LNF and MSA. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with MM, LNF, and MSA were £4,156, £6,517, and £249 per QALY gained, respectively. At the UK cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability that RefluxStop was cost-effective against MM, LNF, and MSA was 100%, 93%, and 100%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The model presented the results of a comparison, with evidence for RefluxStop derived from its single-arm CE mark trial and that for comparators from the literature. The varied clinical care pathway of individual GERD patients was necessarily simplified for modeling purposes, and necessary assumptions were made; however, the model results proved robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of RefluxStop was estimated to extend life expectancy and improve quality-of-life of GERD patients when compared with MM, LNF, and MSA. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that RefluxStop is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment option within NHS England.

Impact evaluation of the TAMANI project to improve maternal and child health in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: The Tabora Maternal and Newborn Health Initiative project was a multicomponent intervention to improve maternal and newborn health in the Tabora region of Tanzania. Components included training healthcare providers and community health workers, infrastructure upgrades, and improvements to health management. This study aimed to examine the impact of trainings on four key outcomes: skilled birth attendance, antenatal care, respectful maternity care and patient-provider communication. METHODS: Trainings were delivered sequentially at four time points between 2018 and 2019 in eight districts (two districts at a time). Cross-sectional surveys were administered to a random sample of households in all districts at baseline and after each training wave. Due to practical necessities, the original stepped wedge cluster randomised design of the evaluation was altered mid-programme. Therefore, a difference-in-differences for multiple groups in multiple periods was adopted to compare outcomes in treated districts to not yet treated districts. Risk differences were estimated for the overall average treatment effect on the treated and group/time dynamic effects. RESULTS: Respondents reported 3895 deliveries over the course of the study. The intervention was associated with a 12.9 percentage point increase in skilled birth attendance (95% CI 0.4 to 25.4), which began to increase 4 months after the end of training in each district. There was little evidence of impact on antenatal care visits, respectful treatment during delivery and patient-provider communication. CONCLUSION: Interventions to train local healthcare workers in basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care increased skilled birth attendance but had limited impact on other pregnancy-related outcomes.

Changes in COVID-19-related mortality across key demographic and clinical subgroups in England from 2020 to 2022: a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been shown to differently affect various demographic and clinical population subgroups. We aimed to describe trends in absolute and relative COVID-19-related mortality risks across clinical and demographic population subgroups during successive SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study in England using the OpenSAFELY platform with the approval of National Health Service England, covering the first five SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves (wave one [wild-type] from March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave two [alpha (B.1.1.7)] from Sept 7, 2020, to April 24, 2021; wave three [delta (B.1.617.2)] from May 28 to Dec 14, 2021; wave four [omicron (B.1.1.529)] from Dec 15, 2021, to April 29, 2022; and wave five [omicron] from June 24 to Aug 3, 2022). In each wave, we included people aged 18-110 years who were registered with a general practice on the first day of the wave and who had at least 3 months of continuous general practice registration up to this date. We estimated crude and sex-standardised and age-standardised wave-specific COVID-19-related death rates and relative risks of COVID-19-related death in population subgroups. FINDINGS: 18 895 870 adults were included in wave one, 19 014 720 in wave two, 18 932 050 in wave three, 19 097 970 in wave four, and 19 226 475 in wave five. Crude COVID-19-related death rates per 1000 person-years decreased from 4·48 deaths (95% CI 4·41-4·55) in wave one to 2·69 (2·66-2·72) in wave two, 0·64 (0·63-0·66) in wave three, 1·01 (0·99-1·03) in wave four, and 0·67 (0·64-0·71) in wave five. In wave one, the standardised COVID-19-related death rates were highest in people aged 80 years or older, people with chronic kidney disease stage 5 or 4, people receiving dialysis, people with dementia or learning disability, and people who had received a kidney transplant (ranging from 19·85 deaths per 1000 person-years to 44·41 deaths per 1000 person-years, compared with from 0·05 deaths per 1000 person-years to 15·93 deaths per 1000 person-years in other subgroups). In wave two compared with wave one, in a largely unvaccinated population, the decrease in COVID-19-related mortality was evenly distributed across population subgroups. In wave three compared with wave one, larger decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were seen in groups prioritised for primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, including people aged 80 years or older and people with neurological disease, learning disability, or severe mental illness (90-91% decrease). Conversely, smaller decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were observed in younger age groups, people who had received organ transplants, and people with chronic kidney disease, haematological malignancies, or immunosuppressive conditions (0-25% decrease). In wave four compared with wave one, the decrease in COVID-19-related death rates was smaller in groups with lower vaccination coverage (including younger age groups) and conditions associated with impaired vaccine response, including people who had received organ transplants and people with immunosuppressive conditions (26-61% decrease). INTERPRETATION: There was a substantial decrease in absolute COVID-19-related death rates over time in the overall population, but demographic and clinical relative risk profiles persisted and worsened for people with lower vaccination coverage or impaired immune response. Our findings provide an evidence base to inform UK public health policy for protecting these vulnerable population subgroups. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Subgroup effects should be examined using both relative and absolute effect measures.

Treatment effects can be measured on the relative scale (eg, risk ratios, odds ratios) or the absolute scale (eg, risk differences). If the baseline risk of an outcome is different between subgroups, the effect of the treatment will differ between subgroups on at least one scale (relative, absolute, or both). We illustrate this using two examples from the literature where only relative effects were estimated, but conclusions about subgroup differences would likely have changed had absolute effects also been considered. To identify all meaningful subgroup differences, researchers and clinicians should compare effects on the relative and absolute scale.

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY.

Objective: To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England. Design: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England. Setting: Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants: Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes. Interventions: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. Results: 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%). Conclusions: Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.