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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

BMI and HbA1c are metabolic markers for pancreatic cancer: Matched case-control study using a UK primary care database.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss, hyperglycaemia and diabetes are known features of pancreatic cancer. We quantified the timing and the amount of changes in body mass index (BMI) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and their association with pancreatic cancer from five years before diagnosis. METHODS: A matched case-control study was undertaken within 590 primary care practices in England, United Kingdom. 8,777 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (cases) between 1st January 2007 and 31st August 2020 were matched to 34,979 controls by age, gender and diabetes. Longitudinal trends in BMI and HbA1c were visualised. Odds ratios adjusted for demographic and lifestyle factors (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with conditional logistic regression. Subgroup analyses were undertaken according to the diabetes status. RESULTS: Changes in BMI and HbA1c observed for cases on longitudinal plots started one and two years (respectively) before diagnosis. In the year before diagnosis, a 1 kg/m2 decrease in BMI between cases and controls was associated with aOR for pancreatic cancer of 1.05 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.06), and a 1 mmol/mol increase in HbA1c was associated with aOR of 1.06 (1.06 to 1.07). ORs remained statistically significant (p < 0.001) for 2 years before pancreatic cancer diagnosis for BMI and 3 years for HbA1c. Subgroup analysis revealed that the decrease in BMI was associated with a higher pancreatic cancer risk for people with diabetes than for people without (aORs 1.08, 1.06 to 1.09 versus 1.04, 1.03 to 1.05), but the increase in HbA1c was associated with a higher risk for people without diabetes than for people with diabetes (aORs 1.09, 1.07 to 1.11 versus 1.04, 1.03 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: The statistically significant changes in weight and glycaemic control started three years before pancreatic cancer diagnosis but varied according to the diabetes status. The information from this study could be used to detect pancreatic cancer earlier than is currently achieved. However, regular BMI and HbA1c measurements are required to facilitate future research and implementation in clinical practice.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Initiation of Injectable Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Mixed Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: Initiation of injectable therapies in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is often delayed, however the reasons why are not fully understood. METHODS: A mixed methods study performed in sequential phases. Phase 1: focus groups with people with T2D (injectable naïve [n = 12] and experienced [n = 5]) and healthcare professionals (HCPs; nurses [n = 5] and general practitioners (GPs) [n = 7]) to understand their perceptions of factors affecting initiation of injectables. Phase 2: video-captured GP consultations (n = 18) with actor-portrayed patient scenarios requiring T2D treatment escalation to observe the initiation in the clinical setting. Phase 3: HCP surveys (n = 87) to explore external validity of the themes identified in a larger sample. RESULTS: Focus groups identified patients' barriers to initiation; fear, lack of knowledge and misconceptions about diabetes and treatment aims, concerns regarding lifestyle restrictions and social stigma, and feelings of failure. Facilitators included education, good communication, clinician support and competence. HCP barriers included concerns about weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and limited consultation time. In simulated consultations, GPs performed high-quality consultations and recognised the need for injectable initiation in 9/12 consultations where this was the expert recommended option but did not provide support for initiation themselves. Survey results demonstrated HCPs believe injectable initiation should be performed in primary care, although many practitioners reported inability to do so or difficulty in maintaining skills. CONCLUSION: People with T2D have varied concerns and educational needs regarding injectables. GPs recognise the need to initiate injectables but lack practical skills and time to address patient concerns and provide education. Primary care nurses also report difficulties in maintaining these skills. Primary care HCPs initiating injectables require additional training to provide practical demonstrations, patient education and how to identify and address concerns. These skills should be concentrated in the hands of a small number of primary care providers to ensure they can maintain their skills.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Kidney End Points Real-world Study (COMBi-KID Study).

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are both considered to be part of standard care in the management of glycemia in type 2 diabetes. Recent trial evidence has indicated benefits on primary kidney end points for individual drugs within each medication class. Despite the potential benefits of combining SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs for glycemia management, according to national and international guideline recommendations, there is currently limited data on kidney end points for this drug combination. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study are to assess the real-world effects of combination SGLT2i and GLP-1RA therapies for diabetes management on kidney end points, glycemic control, and weight in people with type 2 diabetes who are being treated with renin-angiotensin system blockade medication. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study will use the electronic health records of people with type 2 diabetes that are registered with general practices covering over 15 million people in England and Wales and are included in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre network. A propensity score-matched cohort of prevalent new users of SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs and those who have been prescribed SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs in combination will be identified. They will be matched based on drug histories, comorbidities, and demographics. A repeated-measures, multilevel, linear regression analysis will be performed to compare the mean change (from baseline) in estimated glomerular filtration rate at 12 and 24 months between those who switched to combined therapy and those continuing monotherapy with an SGLT2i or GLP-1RA. The secondary end points will be albuminuria, serum creatinine level, glycated hemoglobin level, and BMI. These will also be assessed for change at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups. RESULTS: The study is due to commence in March 2022 and is expected to be complete by September 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Our study will be the first to assess the impact of combination SGLT2i and GLP-1RA therapy in type 2 diabetes on primary kidney end points from a real-world perspective. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/34206.

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.

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.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Glycemic Monitoring and Other Processes of Care for Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing and other nonpharmaceutical interventions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 infection in the United Kingdom have led to substantial changes in delivering ongoing care for patients with chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Clinical guidelines for the management and prevention of complications for people with T2DM delivered in primary care services advise routine annual reviews and were developed when face-to-face consultations were the norm. The shift in consultations from face-to-face to remote consultations caused a reduction in direct clinical contact and may impact the process of care for people with T2DM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic's first year on the monitoring of people with T2DM using routine annual reviews from a national primary care perspective in England. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of adults with T2DM will be performed using routinely collected primary care data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We will describe the change in the rate of monitoring of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the preceding year (2019). We will also report any change in the eight checks that make up the components of these reviews. The change in HbA1c monitoring rates will be determined using a multilevel logistic regression model, adjusting for patient and practice characteristics, and similarly, the change in a composite measure of the completeness of all eight checks will be modeled using ordinal regression. The models will be adjusted for the following patient-level variables: age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, COVID-19 shielding status, duration of diabetes, and comorbidities. The model will also be adjusted for the following practice-level variables: urban versus rural, practice size, Quality and Outcomes Framework achievement, the National Health Service region, and the proportion of face-to-face consultations. Ethical approval was provided by the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (September 2, 2021, reference R77306/RE001). RESULTS: The analysis of the data extract will include 3.96 million patients with T2DM across 700 practices, which is 6% of the available Oxford-RCGP RSC adult population. The preliminary results will be submitted to a conference under the domain of primary care. The resulting publication will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal on diabetes and endocrinology. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the delivery of care, but little is known about the process of caring for people with T2DM. This study will report the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these processes of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35971.

Dashboards to reduce inappropriate prescribing of metformin and aspirin: A quality assurance programme in a primary care sentinel network.

AIMS: To pilot two dashboards to monitor prescribing of metformin and aspirin according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'Do-Not-Do' recommendations. METHODS: This quality assurance programme was conducted in twelve general practices of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network. We developed dashboards to flag inappropriate prescribing of metformin and aspirin to people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In Phase 1, six practices (Group A) received a dashboard flagging suboptimal metformin prescriptions in people with reduced renal function. The other six practices (Group B) were controls. In Phase 2, Group B were provided a dashboard to flag inappropriate aspirin prescribing and Group A were controls. We used logistic regression to explore associations between dashboard exposure and inappropriate prescribing. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 5644 individuals (Group A, n = 2656; Group B, n = 2988). Half (51.6%, n = 2991) were prescribed metformin of which 15 (0.5%) were inappropriate (Group A, n = 10; Group B, n = 5). A fifth (17.6%, n = 986) were prescribed aspirin of which 828 (84.0%) were inappropriate. During Phase 1, metformin was stopped in 50% (n = 5) of people in Group A, compared with 20% (n = 1) in the control group (Group B); in Phase 2, the odds ratio of inappropriate aspirin prescribing was significantly lower in practices that received the dashboard versus control (0.44, 95%CI 0.27-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to use a dashboard to flag inappropriate prescribing. Whilst underpowered to report a change in metformin, we demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate aspirin prescribing.

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.

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.