Impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life: an OpenSAFELY population cohort study using patient-reported outcome measures (OpenPROMPT).

Background: Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. We aimed to evaluate and estimate the differences in health impacts of long COVID across sociodemographic categories and quantify this in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), widely used measures across health systems. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we utilised OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Findings: The total OpenPROMPT cohort consisted of 7575 individuals who consented to data collection, with which we used data from 6070 participants who completed a baseline research questionnaire where 24.6% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a higher likelihood or odds of reporting loss in quality-of-life (Odds Ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% CI: 3.72-5.93) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 10.37-30.33) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Interpretation: We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

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.

Identification of patients undergoing chronic kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data: validation study based on OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry.

Objective: To validate primary and secondary care codes in electronic health records to identify people receiving chronic kidney replacement therapy based on gold standard registry data. Design: Validation study using data from OpenSAFELY and the UK Renal Registry, with the approval of NHS England. Setting: Primary and secondary care electronic health records from people registered at 45% of general practices in England on 1 January 2020, linked to data from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, part of the NHS England OpenSAFELY covid-19 service. Participants: 38 745 prevalent patients (recorded as receiving kidney replacement therapy on 1 January 2020 in UKRR data, or primary or secondary care data) and 10 730 incident patients (starting kidney replacement therapy during 2020), from a population of 19 million people alive and registered with a general practice in England on 1 January 2020. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity and positive predictive values of primary and secondary care code lists for identifying prevalent and incident kidney replacement therapy cohorts compared with the gold standard UKRR data on chronic kidney replacement therapy. Agreement across the data sources overall, and by treatment modality (transplantation or dialysis) and personal characteristics. Results: Primary and secondary care code lists were sensitive for identifying the UKRR prevalent cohort (91.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.8% to 91.6%) and 92.0% (91.6% to 92.4%), respectively), but not the incident cohort (52.3% (50.3% to 54.3%) and 67.9% (66.1% to 69.7%)). Positive predictive values were low (77.7% (77.2% to 78.2%) for primary care data and 64.7% (64.1% to 65.3%) for secondary care data), particularly for chronic dialysis (53.7% (52.9% to 54.5%) for primary care data and 49.1% (48.0% to 50.2%) for secondary care data). Sensitivity decreased with age and index of multiple deprivation in primary care data, but the opposite was true in secondary care data. Agreement was lower in children, with 30% (295/980) featuring in all three datasets. Half (1165/2315) of the incident patients receiving dialysis in UKRR data had a kidney replacement therapy code in the primary care data within three months of the start date of the kidney replacement therapy. No codes existed whose exclusion would substantially improve the positive predictive value without a decrease in sensitivity. Conclusions: Codes used in primary and secondary care data failed to identify a small proportion of prevalent patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. Codes also identified many patients who were not recipients of chronic kidney replacement therapy in UKRR data, particularly dialysis codes. Linkage with UKRR kidney replacement therapy data facilitated more accurate identification of incident and prevalent kidney replacement therapy cohorts for research into this vulnerable population. Poor coding has implications for any patient care (including eligibility for vaccination, resourcing, and health policy responses in future pandemics) that relies on accurate reporting of kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data.

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.

During the COVID-19 pandemic 20 000 prostate cancer diagnoses were missed in England.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality in England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With the approval of NHS England and using the OpenSAFELY-TPP dataset of 24 million patients, we undertook a cohort study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We visualised monthly rates in prostate cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality per 100 000 adult men from January 2015 to July 2023. To assess the effect of the pandemic, we used generalised linear models and the pre-pandemic data to predict the expected rates from March 2020 as if the pandemic had not occurred. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the predicted values were used to estimate the significance of the difference between the predicted and observed rates. RESULTS: In 2020, there was a drop in recorded incidence by 4772 (31%) cases (15 550 vs 20 322; 95% CI 19 241-21 403). In 2021, the incidence started to recover, and the drop was 3148 cases (18%, 17 950 vs 21 098; 95% CI 19 740-22 456). By 2022, the incidence returned to the levels that would be expected. During the pandemic, the age at diagnosis shifted towards older men. In 2020, the average age was 71.6 (95% CI 71.5-71.8) years, in 2021 it was 71.8 (95% CI 71.7-72.0) years as compared to 71.3 (95% CI 71.1-71.4) years in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Given that our dataset represents 40% of the population, we estimate that proportionally the pandemic led to 20 000 missed prostate cancer diagnoses in England alone. The increase in incidence recorded in 2023 was not enough to account for the missed cases. The prevalence of prostate cancer remained lower throughout the pandemic than expected. As the recovery efforts continue, healthcare should focus on finding the men who were affected. The research should focus on investigating the potential harms to men diagnosed at older age.

Safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescribing: OpenSAFELY-TPP analysis of 20.5 million adults' electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic many patients were switched from warfarin to DOACs which require the creatinine clearance calculated to ensure the correct dose is prescribed to avoid bleeding or reduced efficacy. AIM: To identify the study population proportion prescribed a DOAC. Of these, the proportion with recorded: weight, estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), creatinine, creatinine clearance (CrCl) and atrial fibrillation (AF). To analyse the proportion of patients with recorded AF and CrCl prescribed a recommended DOAC dose. DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of 20.5 million adult NHS patients' electronic health records (EHRs) in England in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (January 2018 to February 2023). METHOD: Patients on DOACs were analysed for age, sex, recorded weight, eGFR, creatinine, CrCl and AF. Prescribed DOAC doses in patients with recorded AF were compared to recommended doses for recorded CrCl and determined as either recommended, underdose or overdose. RESULTS: In February 2023, weight, eGFR, creatinine, CrCl, AF and, AF and CrCl were recorded in 72.8%; 92.4%; 94.3%; 73.5%; 73.9% of study population respectively. Both AF and CrCl were recorded for 56.7% of patients. Of these, 86.2% received the recommended and 13.8% non-recommended DOAC doses. CONCLUSIONS: CrCl is not recorded for a substantial number of patients on DOACs. We recommend that national organisations tasked with safety, collectively update guidance on the appropriate weight to use in the Cockcroft-Gault equation, clarify that CrCl is not equivalent to eGFR and work with GP clinical system suppliers to standardise the calculation of CrCl in the EHR.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic restrictions may have influenced behaviours related to weight. AIMS: To describe patterns of weight change amongst adults living in England with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) and/or hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design and Setting With the approval of NHS England, we conducted an observational cohort study using the routinely collected health data of approximately 40% of adults living in England, accessed through the OpenSAFELY service inside TPP. METHOD: We investigated clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with rapid weight gain (>0·5kg/m2/year) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We extracted data on adults with T2D (n=1,231,455, 44% female, 76% white British) or hypertension (n=3,558,405, 50% female, 84% white British). Adults with T2D lost weight overall (median δ = -0.1kg/m2/year [IQR: -0.7, 0.4]), however, rapid weight gain was common (20.7%) and associated with sex (male vs female: aOR 0.78[95%CI 0.77, 0.79]); age, older age reduced odds (e.g. 60-69-year-olds vs 18-29-year-olds: aOR 0.66[0.61, 0.71]); deprivation, (least-deprived-IMD vs most-deprived-IMD: aOR 0.87[0.85, 0.89]); white ethnicity (Black vs White: aOR 0.95[0.92, 0.98]); mental health conditions (e.g. depression: aOR 1.13 [1.12, 1.15]); and diabetes treatment (non-insulin treatment vs no pharmacological treatment: aOR 0.68[0.67, 0.69]). Adults with hypertension maintained stable weight overall (median δ = 0.0kg/m2/year [ -0.6, 0.5]), however, rapid weight gain was common (24.7%) and associated with similar characteristics as in T2D. CONCLUSION: Amongst adults living in England with T2D and/or hypertension, rapid pandemic weight gain was more common amongst females, younger adults, those living in more deprived areas, and those with mental health condition.

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

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

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR and SRR databases.

Background: Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK. Methods: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR). Results: Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 1852) or molnupiravir (n = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.71]; P = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13-1.21); P = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P > .05). Conclusions: In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves.

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 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.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of common infections in primary care and the change to antibiotic prescribing in England.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic altered the management of common infections in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate infection-coded consultation rates and antibiotic use during the pandemic and how any change may have affected clinical outcomes. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform analysed routinely collected electronic health data from GP practices in England between January 2019 and December 2021. Infection coded consultations and antibiotic prescriptions were used estimate multiple measures over calendar months, including age-sex adjusted prescribing rates, prescribing by infection and antibiotic type, infection consultation rates, coding quality and rate of same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infections. Interrupted time series (ITS) estimated the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on infection-coded consultation rates. The impact of the pandemic on non- COVID-19 infection-related hospitalisations was also estimated. RESULTS: Records from 24 million patients were included. The rate of infection-related consultations fell for all infections (mean reduction of 39% in 2020 compared to 2019 mean rate), except for UTI which remained stable. Modelling infection-related consultation rates highlighted this with an incidence rate ratio of 0.44 (95% CI 0.36-0.53) for incident consultations and 0.43 (95% CI 0.33-0.54) for prevalent consultations. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) saw the largest reduction of 0.11 (95% CI 0.07-0.17). Antibiotic prescribing rates fell with a mean reduction of 118.4 items per 1000 patients in 2020, returning to pre-pandemic rates by summer 2021. Prescribing for LRTI decreased 20% and URTI increased 15.9%. Over 60% of antibiotics were issued without an associated same-day infection code, which increased during the pandemic. Infection-related hospitalisations reduced (by 62%), with the largest reduction observed for pneumonia infections (72.9%). Same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infection increased from 1 to 10.5% between the second and third national lockdowns and rose again during 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to consultations and hospital admissions may be driven by reduced transmission of non-COVID-19 infections due to reduced social mixing and lockdowns. Inconsistencies in coding practice emphasises the need for improvement to inform new antibiotic stewardship policies and prevent resistance to novel infections.

Repeated antibiotic exposure and risk of hospitalisation and death following COVID-19 infection (OpenSAFELY): a matched case-control study.

Background: Identifying potential risk factors related to severe COVID-19 outcomes is important. Repeated intermittent antibiotic use is known be associated with adverse outcomes. This study aims to examine whether prior frequent antibiotic exposure is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform, which integrated primary and secondary care, COVID-19 test, and death registration data. This matched case-control study included 0.67 million patients (aged 18-110 years) from an eligible 2.47 million patients with incident COVID-19 by matching with replacement. Inclusion criteria included registration within one general practice for at least 3 years and infection with incident COVID-19. Cases were identified according to different severity of COVID-19 outcomes. Cases and eligible controls were 1:6 matched on age, sex, region of GP practice, and index year and month of COVID-19 infection. Five quintile groups, based on the number of previous 3-year antibiotic prescriptions, were created to indicate the frequency of prior antibiotic exposure. Conditional logistic regression used to compare the differences between case and control groups, adjusting for ethnicity, body mass index, comorbidities, vaccination history, deprivation, and care home status. Sensitivity analyses were done to explore potential confounding and the effects of missing data. Findings: Based on our inclusion criteria, between February 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021, 98,420 patients were admitted to hospitals and 22,660 died. 55 unique antibiotics were prescribed. A dose-response relationship between number of antibiotic prescriptions and risk of severe COVID-19 outcome was observed. Patients in the highest quintile with history of prior antibiotic exposure had 1.80 times greater odds of hospitalisation compared to patients without antibiotic exposure (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.80, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.75-1.84). Similarly, the adjusted OR for hospitalised patients with death outcomes was 1.34 (95% CI 1.28-1.41). Larger number of prior antibiotic type was also associated with more severe COVID-19 related hospital admission. The adjusted OR of quintile 5 exposure (the most frequent) with more than 3 antibiotic types was around 2 times larger than quintile 1 (only 1 type; OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.75-1.84 vs. OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05). Interpretation: Our observational study has provided evidence that antibiotic exposure frequency and diversity may be associated with COVID-19 severity, potentially suggesting adverse effects of repeated intermittent antibiotic use. Future work could work to elucidate causal links and potential mechanisms. Antibiotic stewardship should put more emphasis on long-term antibiotic exposure and its adverse outcome to increase the awareness of appropriate antibiotics use. Funding: Health Data Research UK and National Institute for Health Research.

Healthcare in England was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic across the pancreatic cancer pathway: A cohort study using OpenSAFELY-TPP.

Background: Healthcare across all sectors, in the UK and globally, was negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We analysed healthcare services delivered to people with pancreatic cancer from January 2015 to March 2023 to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, and drawing from a nationally representative OpenSAFELY-TPP dataset of 24 million patients (over 40% of the English population), we undertook a cohort study of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. We queried electronic healthcare records for information on the provision of healthcare services across the pancreatic cancer pathway. To estimate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, we predicted the rates of healthcare services if the pandemic had not happened. We used generalised linear models and the pre-pandemic data from January 2015 to February 2020 to predict rates in March 2020 to March 2023. The 95% confidence intervals of the predicted values were used to estimate the significance of the difference between the predicted and observed rates. Results: The rate of pancreatic cancer and diabetes diagnoses in the cohort was not affected by the pandemic. There were 26,840 people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from January 2015 to March 2023. The mean age at diagnosis was 72 (±11 SD), 48% of people were female, 95% were of White ethnicity, and 40% were diagnosed with diabetes. We found a reduction in surgical resections by 25-28% during the pandemic. In addition, 20%, 10%, and 4% fewer people received body mass index, glycated haemoglobin, and liver function tests, respectively, before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. There was no impact of the pandemic on the number of people making contact with primary care, but the number of contacts increased on average by 1-2 per person amongst those who made contact. Reporting of jaundice decreased by 28%, but recovered within 12 months into the pandemic. Emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and deaths were not affected. Conclusions: The pandemic affected healthcare in England across the pancreatic cancer pathway. Positive lessons could be learnt from the services that were resilient and those that recovered quickly. The reductions in healthcare experienced by people with cancer have the potential to lead to worse outcomes. Current efforts should focus on addressing the unmet needs of people with cancer. Funding: This work was jointly funded by 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). This work was funded by Medical Research Council (MRC) grant reference MR/W021390/1 as part of the postdoctoral fellowship awarded to AL and undertaken at the Bennett Institute, University of Oxford. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

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).

Ethnic differences in the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical monitoring and hospitalisations for non-COVID conditions in England: a population-based, observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England. Methods: In this population-based, observational cohort study we used primary care electronic health record data with linkage to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data within OpenSAFELY, a data analytics platform created, with approval of NHS England, to address urgent COVID-19 research questions. We included adults aged 18 years and over registered with a TPP practice between March 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. We excluded those with missing age, sex, geographic region, or Index of Multiple Deprivation. We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, Asian, Black, Other, and Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (blood pressure and Hba1c measurements, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma annual reviews) before and after March 23, 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after March 23, 2020. Findings: Of 33,510,937 registered with a GP as of 1st January 2020, 19,064,019 were adults, alive and registered for at least 3 months, 3,010,751 met the exclusion criteria and 1,122,912 were missing ethnicity. This resulted in 14,930,356 adults with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to the White ethnic group (Pre-pandemic hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41, 0.60, Pandemic HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in those of White ethnicity (heart failure risk difference: 5.4). Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian (Pre-pandemic HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.49, 1.64, Pandemic HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19, 1.29) and Black ethnicity (Pre-pandemic HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.53, Pandemic HR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09, 1.25) compared with White ethnicity. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences. Interpretation: Our study suggests that ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes. Funding: LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912).

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.

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study.

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK.

Impact of COVID-19 on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing for common infections in primary care in England: a time-series analyses using OpenSAFELY and effects of predictors including deprivation.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the healthcare systems, adding extra pressure to reduce antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate changes in antibiotic prescription patterns after COVID-19 started. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform to access the TPP SystmOne electronic health record (EHR) system in primary care and selected patients prescribed antibiotics from 2019 to 2021. To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing, we evaluated prescribing rates and its predictors and used interrupted time series analysis by fitting binomial logistic regression models. Findings: Over 32 million antibiotic prescriptions were extracted over the study period; 8.7% were broad-spectrum. The study showed increases in broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.38) as an immediate impact of the pandemic, followed by a gradual recovery with a 1.1-1.2% decrease in odds of broad-spectrum prescription per month. The same pattern was found within subgroups defined by age, sex, region, ethnicity, and socioeconomic deprivation quintiles. More deprived patients were more likely to receive broad-spectrum antibiotics, which differences remained stable over time. The most significant increase in broad-spectrum prescribing was observed for lower respiratory tract infection (OR 2.33; 95% CI 2.1-2.50) and otitis media (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.80-2.13). Interpretation: An immediate reduction in antibiotic prescribing and an increase in the proportion of broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing in primary care was observed. The trends recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but the consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR needs further investigation. Funding: This work was supported by Health Data Research UK and by National Institute for Health Research.