Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly affected mortality worldwide1. There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, and this requires new approaches for the timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England, we created OpenSAFELY-a secure health analytics platform that covers 40% of all patients in England and holds patient data within the existing data centre of a major vendor of primary care electronic health records. Here we used OpenSAFELY to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19-related deaths. COVID-19-related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.53-1.65)); greater age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared with people of white ethnicity, Black and South Asian people were at higher risk, even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48 (1.29-1.69) and 1.45 (1.32-1.58), respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical factors associated with COVID-19-related death in one of the largest cohort studies on this topic so far. More patient records are rapidly being added to OpenSAFELY, we will update and extend our results regularly.

Consistency, completeness and external validity of ethnicity recording in NHS primary care records: a cohort study in 25 million patients' records at source using OpenSAFELY.

BACKGROUND: Ethnicity is known to be an important correlate of health outcomes, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, where some ethnic groups were shown to be at higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes. The recording of patients' ethnic groups in primary care can support research and efforts to achieve equity in service provision and outcomes; however, the coding of ethnicity is known to present complex challenges. We therefore set out to describe ethnicity coding in detail with a view to supporting the use of this data in a wide range of settings, as part of wider efforts to robustly describe and define methods of using administrative data. METHODS: We describe the completeness and consistency of primary care ethnicity recording in the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, containing linked primary care and hospital records in > 25 million patients in England. We also compared the ethnic breakdown in OpenSAFELY-TPP with that of the 2021 UK census. RESULTS: 78.2% of patients registered in OpenSAFELY-TPP on 1 January 2022 had their ethnicity recorded in primary care records, rising to 92.5% when supplemented with hospital data. The completeness of ethnicity recording was higher for women than for men. The rate of primary care ethnicity recording ranged from 77% in the South East of England to 82.2% in the West Midlands. Ethnicity recording rates were higher in patients with chronic or other serious health conditions. For each of the five broad ethnicity groups, primary care recorded ethnicity was within 2.9 percentage points of the population rate as recorded in the 2021 Census for England as a whole. For patients with multiple ethnicity records, 98.7% of the latest recorded ethnicities matched the most frequently coded ethnicity. Patients whose latest recorded ethnicity was categorised as Other were most likely to have a discordant ethnicity recording (32.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care ethnicity data in OpenSAFELY is present for over three quarters of all patients, and combined with data from other sources can achieve a high level of completeness. The overall distribution of ethnicities across all English OpenSAFELY-TPP practices was similar to the 2021 Census, with some regional variation. This report identifies the best available codelist for use in OpenSAFELY and similar electronic health record data.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines as First Booster Doses in England: An Observational Study in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

BACKGROUND: The UK delivered its first "booster" COVID-19 vaccine doses in September 2021, initially to individuals at high risk of severe disease, then to all adults. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, then also Moderna mRNA-1273. METHODS: With the approval of the National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses. We matched each booster recipient with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior COVID-19 immunization. We adjusted for additional factors in Cox models, estimating hazard ratios up to 182 days (6 months) following booster dose. We estimated hazard ratios overall and within the following periods: 1-14, 15-42, 43-69, 70-97, 98-126, 127-152, and 155-182 days. Outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 death, non-COVID-19 death, and fracture. RESULTS: We matched 8,198,643 booster recipients with unboosted controls. Adjusted hazard ratios over 6-month follow-up were: positive SARS-CoV-2 test 0.75 (0.74, 0.75); COVID-19 hospitalization 0.30 (0.29, 0.31); COVID-19 death 0.11 (0.10, 0.14); non-COVID-19 death 0.22 (0.21, 0.23); and fracture 0.77 (0.75, 0.78). Estimated effectiveness of booster vaccines against severe COVID-19-related outcomes peaked during the first 3 months following the booster dose. By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that COVID-19 booster vaccination, compared with no booster vaccination, provided substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death but only limited protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Lower rates of fracture in boosted than unboosted individuals may suggest unmeasured confounding. Observational studies should report estimated vaccine effectiveness against nontarget and negative control outcomes.

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.

Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

Severity of Severe Acute Respiratory System Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Alpha Variant (B.1.1.7) in England.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild-type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and Office for National Statistics all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases with wild-type diagnosed from 16 November 2020 to 11 January 2021. RESULTS: Using data from 185 234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha = 93 153; wild-type = 92 081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-2.13; P < .0001) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (1.62; 1.48-1.78; P < .0001) compared with wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to the intensive care unit, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the CI included the null (aHR: 1.20; 95% CI: .74-1.95; P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalization and mortality than wild-type virus.

Overall and cause-specific hospitalisation and death after COVID-19 hospitalisation in England: A cohort study using linked primary care, secondary care, and death registration data in the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: There is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: With the approval of NHS-England, we conducted a cohort study, using linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February to December 2020) and surviving at least 1 week, and (i) demographically matched controls from the 2019 general population; and (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017 to 2019. We used Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidities considered potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. We included 24,673 postdischarge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls, followed for ≤315 days. COVID-19 patients had median age of 66 years, 13,733 (56%) were male, and 19,061 (77%) were of white ethnicity. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30,968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.22, 2.14 to 2.30, p < 0.001) but slightly lower than the influenza group (aHR 0.95, 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.004). All-cause mortality (7,439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (aHR 4.82, 4.48 to 5.19 versus general population controls [p < 0.001] and 1.74, 1.61 to 1.88 versus influenza controls [p < 0.001]). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than in general population controls and largely similar or lower in COVID-19 compared with influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted or die due to their initial infection or other lower respiratory tract infection (aHR 1.37, 1.22 to 1.54, p < 0.001) and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission or death (aHR 1.37, 1.02 to 1.84, p = 0.039); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with preexisting dementia had higher risk of dementia hospitalisation or death (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2.47, 1.37 to 4.44, p = 0.002). Limitations of our study were that reasons for hospitalisation or death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes, and we did not have data to distinguish COVID-19 variants. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that people discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations, but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmission or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of postdischarge monitoring.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FINDINGS: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories. INTERPRETATION: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Recording of 'COVID-19 vaccine declined': a cohort study on 57.9 million National Health Service patients' records in situ using OpenSAFELY, England, 8 December 2020 to 25 May 2021.

BackgroundPriority patients in England were offered COVID-19 vaccination by mid-April 2021. Codes in clinical record systems can denote the vaccine being declined.AimWe describe records of COVID-19 vaccines being declined, according to clinical and demographic factors.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study between 8 December 2020 and 25 May 2021 with primary care records for 57.9 million patients using OpenSAFELY, a secure health analytics platform. COVID-19 vaccination priority patients were those aged ≥ 50 years or ≥ 16 years clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) or 'at risk'. We describe the proportion recorded as declining vaccination for each group and stratified by clinical and demographic subgroups, subsequent vaccination and distribution of clinical code usage across general practices.ResultsOf 24.5 million priority patients, 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline recorded, while 2,155,076 (8.8%) had neither a vaccine nor decline recorded. Those recorded as declining, who were subsequently vaccinated (n = 125,587; 18.9%) were overrepresented in the South Asian population (32.3% vs 22.8% for other ethnicities aged ≥ 65 years). The proportion of declining unvaccinated patients was highest in CEV (3.3%), varied strongly with ethnicity (black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, white 1.5% for ≥ 80 years) and correlated positively with increasing deprivation.ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are commonly used in England, but substantially more common among black and South Asian people, and in more deprived areas. Qualitative research is needed to determine typical reasons for recorded declines, including to what extent they reflect patients actively declining.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of death from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort analysis based on two cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform. METHODS: We conducted two cohort studies from 1 March to 14 June 2020. Working on behalf of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data in England linked to death data. In study 1, we identified people with an NSAID prescription in the last 3 years from the general population. In study 2, we identified people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. We defined exposure as current NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1 March 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate HRs for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications and geographical region. RESULTS: In study 1, we included 536 423 current NSAID users and 1 927 284 non-users in the general population. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14) in the multivariable-adjusted model. In study 2, we included 1 708 781 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175 495 (10%) were current NSAID users. In the multivariable-adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a harmful effect of routinely prescribed NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks of COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about the routine therapeutic use of NSAIDs.

Evaluating the impact of a very low-cost intervention to increase practices' engagement with data and change prescribing behaviour: a randomized trial in English primary care.

BACKGROUND: Unsolicited feedback can solicit changes in prescribing. OBJECTIVES: Determine whether a low-cost intervention increases clinicians' engagement with data, and changes prescribing; with or without behavioural science techniques. METHODS: Randomized trial (ISRCTN86418238). The highest prescribing practices in England for broad-spectrum antibiotics were allocated to: feedback with behavioural impact optimization; plain feedback; or no intervention. Feedback was sent monthly for 3 months by letter, fax and email. Each included a link to a prescribing dashboard. The primary outcomes were dashboard usage and change in prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 1401 practices were randomized: 356 behavioural optimization, 347 plain feedback, and 698 control. For the primary engagement outcome, more intervention practices had their dashboards viewed compared with controls [65.7% versus 55.9%; RD 9.8%, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 4.76% to 14.9%, P < 0.001]. More plain feedback practices had their dashboard viewed than behavioural feedback practices (69.1% versus 62.4%); but not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (6.8%, 95% CI: -0.19% to 13.8%, P = 0.069). For the primary prescribing outcome, intervention practices possibly reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than controls (1.42% versus 1.12%); but again not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (coefficient -0.31%, CI: -0.7% to 0.1%, P = 0.104). The behavioural impact group reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than plain feedback practices (1.63% versus 1.20%; coefficient 0.41%, CI: 0.007% to 0.8%, P = 0.046). No harms were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited feedback increased practices' engagement with data, with possible slightly reduced antibiotic prescribing (P = 0.104). Behavioural science techniques gave greater prescribing effects. The modest effects on prescribing may reflect saturation from similar initiatives on antibiotic prescribing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86418238.

Case fatality risk of the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.1.7 in England, 16 November to 5 February.

The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC) is increasing in prevalence across Europe. Accurate estimation of disease severity associated with this VOC is critical for pandemic planning. We found increased risk of death for VOC compared with non-VOC cases in England (hazard ratio: 1.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-2.09; p < 0.0001). Absolute risk of death by 28 days increased with age and comorbidities. This VOC has potential to spread faster with higher mortality than the pandemic to date.

Impact of Electronic Health Record Interface Design on Unsafe Prescribing of Ciclosporin, Tacrolimus, and Diltiazem: Cohort Study in English National Health Service Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: In England, national safety guidance recommends that ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem are prescribed by brand name due to their narrow therapeutic windows and, in the case of tacrolimus, to reduce the chance of organ transplantation rejection. Various small studies have shown that changes to electronic health record (EHR) system interfaces can affect prescribing choices. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to assess variation by EHR systems in breach of safety guidance around prescribing of ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem, and to conduct user-interface research into the causes of such breaches. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study using prescribing data in English primary care. Participants were English general practices and their respective EHR systems. The main outcome measures were (1) the variation in ratio of safety breaches to adherent prescribing in all practices and (2) the description of observations of EHR system usage. RESULTS: A total of 2,575,411 prescriptions were issued in 2018 for ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem (over 60 mg); of these, 316,119 prescriptions breached NHS guidance (12.27%). Breaches were most common among users of the EMIS EHR system (breaches in 18.81% of ciclosporin and tacrolimus prescriptions and in 17.99% of diltiazem prescriptions), but breaches were observed in all EHR systems. CONCLUSIONS: Design choices in EHR systems strongly influence safe prescribing of ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem, and breaches are prevalent in general practices in England. We recommend that all EHR vendors review their systems to increase safe prescribing of these medicines in line with national guidance. Almost all clinical practice is now mediated through an EHR system; further quantitative research into the effect of EHR system design on clinical practice is long overdue.

Impact of Chief Medical Officer activity on prescribing of antibiotics in England: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing problem, with the need for 'strong action' highlighted by the Chief Medical Officer for England in 2013, along with a 5 year antimicrobial resistance strategy. OBJECTIVES: Five years on, we set out to determine if there was a measurable impact from the 5 year antimicrobial resistance strategy on overall antibiotic prescribing in NHS primary care in England. METHODS: We calculated the volume of antibiotic prescription items using annual prescription cost analysis data from 1998 to 2017 and monthly prescribing data from October 2010 to June 2018. Antibiotic prescribing rate was calculated using an age- and sex-adjusted denominator (Specific Therapeutic group Age-sex Related Prescribing Units, STAR-PU). We conducted interrupted time series analysis to measure any change in prescribing rate after the intervention. RESULTS: After several years with a stable rate of antibiotic prescribing, there was a downward change in gradient after 2013: -46.4 items per 1000 STAR-PU per year (95% CI = -61.4 to -31.3). The prescribing rate dropped from 1378 per 1000 STAR-PU per year in 2013 to 1184 in 2017, representing a 14.1% reduction. The reduction is similar for monthly data (16.4%). Assuming causality, when compared with predicted prescribing if the rate of prescribing had continued at the pre-2013 trend, we estimate that 9.7 million antibiotic prescriptions were prevented over the past year by the 5 year antimicrobial resistance strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Though we cannot firmly attribute causality for the reduction in prescribing to the 5 year antimicrobial resistance strategy, the magnitude and timing of the change are noteworthy; the substantial change followed a long period of relatively static antibiotic prescribing.

Time trends and geographical variation in prescribing of antibiotics in England 1998-2017.

Background: Reducing antibiotic overuse is a key NHS priority. The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care. Objectives: To describe antibiotic prescribing trends in NHS England primary care for the years 1998-2017 using various measures. We investigated trends and variation between practices and geographical areas, out-of-hours prescribing, and seasonality. Methods: We used publicly available prescribing datasets and calculated antibiotic prescribing rates per 1000 age-sex-adjusted population units, percentage prescribed as broad-spectrum, and course length. We report national time trends for 1998-2016, geographical variation across 2017 and variation trends for 2010-17. We calculated percentiles and ranges, and plotted maps. Results: The overall rate of antibiotic prescribing has reduced by 18% since 2010, with the steepest decline since 2013. The percentage prescribed as broad-spectrum declined since 2006, from 18.0 to 8.4. Between the best and worst Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) there was 2-fold variation for total antibiotic prescribing, but 7-fold variation for cephalosporins. Variation across general practices has declined. The CCG to which a practice belongs accounted for 12.6% of current variation (P < 0.0001). Higher antibiotic prescribing was associated with greater practice size, proportion of patients >65 years or <18 years, ruralness and deprivation. Seasonal increases have been declining for most antibiotics. If every practice prescribed antibiotics at the lowest decile rate in 2017, 10.8 million fewer prescriptions could have been issued (34%). Compared with standard practices, out-of-hours practices prescribed a greater proportion of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusions: Despite a general trend towards more optimal antibiotic prescribing, considerable geographical variation persists across England's practices and CCGs.

Knockdown and replacement therapy mediated by artificial mirtrons in spinocerebellar ataxia 7.

We evaluate a knockdown-replacement strategy mediated by mirtrons as an alternative to allele-specific silencing using spinocerebellar ataxia 7 (SCA7) as a model. Mirtrons are introns that form pre-microRNA hairpins after splicing, producing RNAi effectors not processed by Drosha. Mirtron mimics may therefore avoid saturation of the canonical processing pathway. This method combines gene silencing mediated by an artificial mirtron with delivery of a functional copy of the gene such that both elements of the therapy are always expressed concurrently, minimizing the potential for undesirable effects and preserving wild-type function. This mutation- and single nucleotide polymorphism-independent method could be crucial in dominant diseases that feature both gain- and loss-of-function pathologies or have a heterogeneous genetic background. Here we develop mirtrons against ataxin 7 with silencing efficacy comparable to shRNAs, and introduce silent mutations into an ataxin 7 transgene such that it is resistant to their effect. We successfully express the transgene and one mirtron together from a single construct. Hence, we show that this method can be used to silence the endogenous allele of ataxin 7 and replace it with an exogenous copy of the gene, highlighting the efficacy and transferability across patient genotypes of this approach.

Measuring the Impact of an Open Web-Based Prescribing Data Analysis Service on Clinical Practice: Cohort Study on NHS England Data.

BACKGROUND: OpenPrescribing is a freely accessible service that enables any user to view and analyze the National Health Service (NHS) primary care prescribing data at the level of individual practices. This tool is intended to improve the quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness of prescribing. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to measure the impact of OpenPrescribing being viewed on subsequent prescribing. METHODS: Having preregistered our protocol and code, we measured three different metrics of prescribing quality (mean percentile across 34 existing OpenPrescribing quality measures, available "price-per-unit" savings, and total "low-priority prescribing" spend) to see whether they changed after the viewing of Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and practice pages. We also measured whether practices whose data were viewed on OpenPrescribing differed in prescribing, prior to viewing, compared with those who were not. We used fixed-effects and between-effects linear panel regression to isolate change over time and differences between practices, respectively. We adjusted for the month of prescribing in the fixed-effects model to remove underlying trends in outcome measures. RESULTS: We found a reduction in available price-per-unit savings for both practices and CCGs after their pages were viewed. The saving was greater at practice level (-£40.42 per thousand patients per month; 95% CI -54.04 to -26.81) than at CCG level (-£14.70 per thousand patients per month; 95% CI -25.56 to -3.84). We estimate a total saving since launch of £243 thosand at practice level and £1.47 million at CCG level between the feature launch and end of follow-up (August to November 2017) among practices viewed. If the observed savings from practices viewed were extrapolated to all practices, this would generate £26.8 million in annual savings for the NHS, approximately 20% of the total possible savings from this method. The other two measures were not different after CCGs or practices were viewed. Practices that were viewed had worse prescribing quality scores overall prior to viewing. CONCLUSIONS: We found a positive impact from the use of OpenPrescribing, specifically for the class of savings opportunities that can only be identified by using this tool. Furthermore, we show that it is possible to conduct a robust analysis of the impact of such a Web-based service on clinical practice.

Impact of NICE guidance on tamoxifen prescribing in England 2011-2017: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen was recommended by NICE in 2013 for chemoprevention of breast cancer, but a recent survey suggested only a quarter of GPs are aware of this. We set out to measure the uptake of tamoxifen, and the alternative raloxifene, in national prescribing data sets. METHODS: Tamoxifen and raloxifene data were extracted from England's monthly prescribing data sets, October 2010-October 2017. We used interrupted time series analysis to reveal national and local responses to guidelines. We investigated variation between practices by calculating percentiles for prescribing rates and ratios of change. RESULTS: We found an increase in monthly tamoxifen prescribing following release of the guidelines, with an increase in gradient (p = 0.001) but no step change (p = 0.342). Alongside a small change in raloxifene prescribing we estimate 8450 women took up chemoprevention between 2013 and 2016. We did not find evidence that this was limited to a small group of practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the uptake of new guidance on chemoprevention has been slow and has potentially left women exposed to avoidable risk. Improving dissemination of guidance to healthcare professionals and routinely monitoring implementation could help reduce this risk.

Time trends and geographical variation in prescribing of drugs for diabetes in England from 1998 to 2017.

AIMS: To measure the variation in prescribing of second-line non-insulin diabetes drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated time trends for the period 1998 to 2016, using England's publicly available prescribing datasets, and stratified these by the order in which they were prescribed to patients using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We calculated the proportion of each class of diabetes drug as a percentage of the total per year. We evaluated geographical variation in prescribing using general practice-level data for the latest 12 months (to August 2017), with aggregation to Clinical Commissioning Groups. We calculated percentiles and ranges, and plotted maps. RESULTS: Prescribing of therapy after metformin is changing rapidly. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use has increased markedly, with DPP-4 inhibitors now the most common second-line drug (43% prescriptions in 2016). The use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors also increased rapidly (14% new second-line, 27% new third-line prescriptions in 2016). There was wide geographical variation in choice of therapies and average spend per patient. In contrast, metformin was consistently used as a first-line treatment in accordance with guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: In England there is extensive geographical variation in the prescribing of diabetes drugs after metformin, and increasing use of higher-cost DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT-2 inhibitors compared with low-cost sulphonylureas. Our findings strongly support the case for comparative effectiveness trials of current diabetes drugs.