HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and opportunities for vaccination against hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus and human papillomavirus: an analysis of the Ontario PrEP cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Populations who seek HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are disproportionately affected by hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human papillomavirus (HPV). We examined immunity/vaccination against these infections among participants in the Ontario PrEP cohort study (ON-PrEP). METHODS: ON-PrEP is a prospective cohort of HIV-negative PrEP users from 10 Ontario clinics. We descriptively analysed baseline immunity/vaccination against HAV (IgG reactive), HBV (hepatitis B surface antibody >10) and HPV (self-reported three-dose vaccination). We further performed multivariable logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with baseline immunity/vaccination. We used cumulative incidence functions to describe vaccine uptake among participants non-immune at baseline. RESULTS: Of 633 eligible participants, 59.1% were white, 85.8% were male and 79.6% were gay. We found baseline evidence of immunity/vaccination against HAV, HBV and HPV in 69.2%, 81.2% and 16.8% of PrEP-experienced participants and 58.9%, 70.3% and 10.4% of PrEP-naïve participants, respectively. Characteristics associated with baseline HAV immunity were greater PrEP duration (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.41/year, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.84), frequent sexually transmitted and bloodborne infection (STBBI) testing (aOR 2.38, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.92) and HBV immunity (aOR 3.53, 95% CI 2.09 to 5.98). Characteristics associated with baseline HBV immunity were living in Toronto (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 1.87 to 6.70) or Ottawa (aOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.41 to 5.40), self-identifying as racialised (aOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.18), greater PrEP duration (aOR 1.39/year, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) and HAV immunity (aOR 3.75, 95% CI 2.19 to 6.41). Characteristics associated with baseline HPV vaccination were being aged ≤26 years (aOR 9.28, 95% CI 2.11 to 40.77), annual income between CAD$60 000 and CAD$119 000 (aOR 3.42, 95% CI 1.40 to 8.34), frequent STBBI testing (aOR 7.00, 95% CI 1.38 to 35.46) and HAV immunity (aOR 6.96, 95% CI 2.00 to 24.25). Among those non-immune at baseline, overall cumulative probability of immunity/vaccination was 0.70, 0.60 and 0.53 among PrEP-experienced participants and 0.93, 0.80 and 0.70 among PrEP-naïve participants for HAV, HBV and HPV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline immunity to HAV/HBV was common, and a sizeable proportion of non-immune participants were vaccinated during follow-up. However, HPV vaccination was uncommon. Continued efforts should be made to remove barriers to HPV vaccination such as cost, inclusion in clinical guidelines and provider recommendation.

Access to best-evidenced mental health support for care-experienced young people: Learnings from the implementation of cognitive therapy for PTSD.

OBJECTIVES: Rates of PTSD are up to 12 times higher in care-experienced young people (CEYP) compared to their peers. Trauma-focused CBTs (tf-CBT) are the best-evidenced treatment for youth with PTSD, yet, in practice, CEYP often struggle to access this treatment. We worked alongside services to understand barriers and facilitators of the implementation of cognitive therapy for PTSD (a type of tf-CBT) to CEYP. DESIGN: This was an active, open implementation trial. METHODS: We recruited 28 mental health teams across England, including general CAMHS, targeted CAMHS for CEYP and social care-based teams. From these teams, participants were 243 mental health professionals, from a wide variety of professional backgrounds. Following recruitment/intervention training, teams participated in rolling three monthly focus groups and individual interviews, to understand what helped and hindered implementation. Data were analysed using a framework analysis conducted using CFIR 2.0. RESULTS: Almost half of the teams were able to implement, but only approximately one quarter with CEYP, specifically. Universal barriers that were discussed by almost all teams particularly highlighted service structures and poor resourcing as major barriers to delivery to CEYP, as well as the complexities of the young person and their network. Unique factors that differentiated teams who did and did not implement included commissioning practices, the culture of the team, leadership engagement and style, and the development of supervision structures. CONCLUSIONS: Findings offer key considerations for mental health teams, service leads, commissioners and policy-makers to enhance delivery of best-evidenced mental health treatments like CT-PTSD, for CEYP.

Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme commissioning 2020-2023: associations with patient experience and QOF.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) was introduced by NHS England in 2020 alongside Primary Care Networks (PCNs) with aims of increasing the workforce and improving patient outcomes. AIM: Describe the uptake of direct-patient care (DPC)-ARRS roles and its impact on patients' experiences. DESIGN AND SETTING: Ecological study using 2020-2023 PCN and Practice workforce data, registered patient characteristics, the General Practice Patient Survey, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). METHODS: Descriptive statistics with associations examined using quantile and linear regression. RESULTS: By March 2023, 17,714 FTE DPC-ARRS roles were commissioned by 1,223 PCNs. PCNs with fewer constituent practices had more DPC-ARRS roles per population (p<0.001) as did PCNs with more FTE GPs per population (p=0.012). DPC-ARRS commissioning did not vary with age, proportion female or deprivation of practice populations. DPC-ARRS roles were associated with small increases in patient satisfaction (0.8 percentage points increase in patients satisfied per one DPC-ARRS FTE) and perceptions of access (0.7 percentage points increase in patients reporting 'good' experience of making an appointment per one DPC-ARRS FTE), but not with overall QOF achievement. CONCLUSIONS: The commissioning of DPC-ARRS roles was associated with small increases in patient satisfaction and perceptions of access, but not with QOF achievement. DPC-ARRS roles were employed in areas with more GPs rather than compensating for a shortage of doctors. Single practice PCNs commissioned more roles per registered population, which may be advantageous to single practice PCNs. Further evaluation of the scheme is warranted.

A qualitative investigation into care-leavers' experiences of accessing mental health support.

INTRODUCTION: People who grew up under the care of children's social services are a highly vulnerable group, with 50% of this population meeting the criteria for a mental health problem at any one time. Emerging evidence suggests that there is a disparity between the number of people who require support, and those that receive it, and that they face several barriers to accessing timely and effective mental health support. We have a limited understanding of how to support the mental health of this group as they 'age out' of children's social services, and the transition to independence, which occurs around the age of 18. We aimed to explore how care-leavers understand their experiences of help-seeking from formal mental health services. METHODS: We used qualitative interviews, and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis with 9 care-experienced young people aged between 18 and 25 years old. This work was co-produced by a team of care-experienced adults, from the conception of the study to write-up. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed several themes which centred around: (1) taking reluctant steps towards recovery, (2) challenges with being understood and the importance of gaining an understanding of yourself, (3) navigating trust and (4) the legacy of not having your mental health needs met. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several important implications for health and social care practice, across primary and secondary health care settings. This work highlights ways to better support this highly vulnerable group in accessing evidence-based mental health support, and how to maintain engagement.

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.

Risk of drug-related death associated with co-prescribing of gabapentinoids and Z-drugs among people receiving opioid-agonist treatment: A national retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing of gabapentinoids and Z-drug-hypnotics has increased in the population and among people receiving opioid-agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid dependence. Evidence is mixed on whether co-prescribing of sedatives such as gabapentinoids and Z-drugs during OAT increases risk of drug-related death (DRD). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals prescribed OAT between 2011 and 2020 in Scotland. Prescribing records were linked to mortality data and other healthcare datasets (sociodemographic, comorbidity). We identified episodes of treatment with gabapentinoids/Z-drugs and used multivariable quasi-Poisson regression to model associations between co-prescription and DRD risk. RESULTS: Among 46,602 individuals with 304,783 person-years of follow-up, we found that co-prescription was common, with 25 % and 34 % ever being co-prescribed gabapentinoids and Z-drugs, respectively. Gabapentinoid exposure was strongly associated (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=2·18, 95 % CI=1·92, 2·46) and Z-drug exposure moderately associated (aHR=1·39, 95 % CI=1·15, 1·66) with elevated risk of DRD. Gabapentinoid exposure was associated with DRD risk on and off OAT; Z-drug exposure was less strongly associated with DRD risk when on OAT. CONCLUSIONS: Co-prescription of gabapentinoids and Z-drugs is common among OAT patients. However, co-prescription is associated with increased risk of DRD. Alternatives to prescribing sedative medications to OAT patients and/or greater monitoring - if prescribed - are needed.

Changes in sick notes associated with COVID-19 from 2020 to 2022: a cohort study in 24 million primary care patients in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term sickness absence from employment has negative consequences for the economy and can lead to widened health inequalities. Sick notes (also called 'fit notes') are issued by general practitioners when a person cannot work for health reasons for more than 7 days. We quantified the sick note rate in people with evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022, as an indication of the burden for people recovering from COVID-19. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: With National Health Service (NHS) England approval, we used routine clinical data (primary care, hospital and COVID-19 testing records) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. PARTICIPANTS: People 18-64 years with a recorded positive test or diagnosis of COVID-19 in 2020 (n=365 421), 2021 (n=1 206 555) or 2022 (n=1 321 313); general population matched in age, sex and region in 2019 (n=3 140 326), 2020 (n=3 439 534), 2021 (n=4 571 469) and 2022 (n=4 818 870); people hospitalised with pneumonia in 2019 (n=29 673). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Receipt of a sick note in primary care. RESULTS: Among people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or COVID-19 diagnosis, the sick note rate was 4.88 per 100 person-months (95% CI 4.83 to 4.93) in 2020, 2.66 (95% CI 2.64 to 2.67) in 2021 and 1.73 (95% CI 1.72 to 1.73) in 2022. Compared with the age, sex and region-matched general population, the adjusted HR for receipt of a sick note over the entire follow-up period (up to 10 months) was 4.07 (95% CI 4.02 to 4.12) in 2020 decreasing to 1.57 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.58) in 2022. The HR was highest in the first 30 days postdiagnosis in all years. Among people hospitalised with COVID-19, after adjustment, the sick note rate was lower than in people hospitalised with pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Given the under-recording of postacute COVID-19-related symptoms, these findings contribute a valuable perspective on the long-term effects of COVID-19. Despite likely underestimation of the sick note rate, sick notes were issued more frequently to people with COVID-19 compared with those without, even in an era when most people are vaccinated. Most sick notes occurred in the first 30 days postdiagnosis, but the increased risk several months postdiagnosis may provide further evidence of the long-term impact.

Pilot postal birth cohort HCV Screening in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Birth cohort screening has been implemented in some countries to identify the potentially 'missed population' of undiagnosed chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) in people who may not be found through targeted approaches. AIM: To determine uptake of HCV antibody testing using an oral swab screening method, overall yield, whether those testing positive had risk markers in their primary care record, and cost per case detected. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pilot screening study set in general practices in the Southwest, South London and Yorkshire and Humber. METHOD: Participants consenting were sent an oral swab kit in the post and saliva samples were tested for antibody to HCV. RESULTS: 16,436/98,396 (16.7%) patients consented and were sent an oral swab kit. 12,216 (12.4%) returned a kit, with 31 participants (yield 0.03%) testing positive for HCV antibody. 45% of those positive had a risk marker for HCV on their primary care record. Two (yield 0.002%) were confirmed RNA positive and referred for treatment, both had HCV risk markers. Cost per case detected was £16,000 per HCV antibody and £247,997 per chronic HCV. CONCLUSIONS: Wide-scale screening could be delivered and identified people infected with HCV, however most of these individuals could have been detected through lower-cost targeted screening. Yield and cost per case found were substantially worse than model estimates and targeted screening studies. Birth cohort screening should not be rolled out in primary care in England.

COVID-19 and Mental Illnesses in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People.

Importance: Associations have been found between COVID-19 and subsequent mental illness in both hospital- and population-based studies. However, evidence regarding which mental illnesses are associated with COVID-19 by vaccination status in these populations is limited. Objective: To determine which mental illnesses are associated with diagnosed COVID-19 by vaccination status in both hospitalized patients and the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was conducted in 3 cohorts, 1 before vaccine availability followed during the wild-type/Alpha variant eras (January 2020-June 2021) and 2 (vaccinated and unvaccinated) during the Delta variant era (June-December 2021). With National Health Service England approval, OpenSAFELY-TPP was used to access linked data from 24 million people registered with general practices in England using TPP SystmOne. People registered with a GP in England for at least 6 months and alive with known age between 18 and 110 years, sex, deprivation index information, and region at baseline were included. People were excluded if they had COVID-19 before baseline. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to June 2024. Exposure: Confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis recorded in primary care secondary care, testing data, or the death registry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing the incidence of mental illnesses after diagnosis of COVID-19 with the incidence before or without COVID-19 for depression, serious mental illness, general anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, addiction, self-harm, and suicide. Results: The largest cohort, the pre-vaccine availability cohort, included 18 648 606 people (9 363 710 [50.2%] female and 9 284 896 [49.8%] male) with a median (IQR) age of 49 (34-64) years. The vaccinated cohort included 14 035 286 individuals (7 308 556 [52.1%] female and 6 726 730 [47.9%] male) with a median (IQR) age of 53 (38-67) years. The unvaccinated cohort included 3 242 215 individuals (1 363 401 [42.1%] female and 1 878 814 [57.9%] male) with a median (IQR) age of 35 (27-46) years. Incidence of most outcomes was elevated during weeks 1 through 4 after COVID-19 diagnosis, compared with before or without COVID-19, in each cohort. Incidence of mental illnesses was lower in the vaccinated cohort compared with the pre-vaccine availability and unvaccinated cohorts: aHRs for depression and serious mental illness during weeks 1 through 4 after COVID-19 were 1.93 (95% CI, 1.88-1.98) and 1.49 (95% CI, 1.41-1.57) in the pre-vaccine availability cohort and 1.79 (95% CI, 1.68-1.90) and 1.45 (95% CI, 1.27-1.65) in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.20) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98) in the vaccinated cohort. Elevation in incidence was higher and persisted longer after hospitalization for COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, incidence of mental illnesses was elevated for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated people. These findings suggest that vaccination may mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health.

Incidence of diabetes after SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and the implications of COVID-19 vaccination: a retrospective cohort study of 16 million people.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have shown that the incidence of type 2 diabetes increases after a diagnosis of COVID-19, although the evidence is not conclusive. However, the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on this association, or the effect on other diabetes subtypes, are not clear. We aimed to investigate the association between COVID-19 and incidence of type 2, type 1, gestational and non-specific diabetes, and the effect of COVID- 19 vaccination, up to 52 weeks after diagnosis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the diagnoses of incident diabetes following COVID-19 diagnosis in England in a pre-vaccination, vaccinated, and unvaccinated cohort using linked electronic health records. People alive and aged between 18 years and 110 years, registered with a general practitioner for at least 6 months before baseline, and with available data for sex, region, and area deprivation were included. Those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were excluded. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing diabetes incidence after COVID-19 diagnosis with diabetes incidence before or in the absence of COVID-19 up to 102 weeks after diagnosis. Results were stratified by COVID-19 severity (categorised as hospitalised or non-hospitalised) and diabetes type. FINDINGS: 16 669 943 people were included in the pre-vaccination cohort (Jan 1, 2020-Dec 14, 2021), 12 279 669 in the vaccinated cohort, and 3 076 953 in the unvaccinated cohort (both June 1-Dec 14, 2021). In the pre-vaccination cohort, aHRs for the incidence of type 2 diabetes after COVID-19 (compared with before or in the absence of diagnosis) declined from 4·30 (95% CI 4·06-4·55) in weeks 1-4 to 1·24 (1·14-1.35) in weeks 53-102. aHRs were higher in unvaccinated people (8·76 [7·49-10·25]) than in vaccinated people (1·66 [1·50-1·84]) in weeks 1-4 and in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (pre-vaccination cohort 28·3 [26·2-30·5]) in weeks 1-4 declining to 2·04 [1·72-2·42] in weeks 53-102) than in those who were not hospitalised (1·95 [1·78-2·13] in weeks 1-4 declining to 1·11 [1·01-1·22] in weeks 53-102). Type 2 diabetes persisted for 4 months after COVID-19 in around 60% of those diagnosed. Patterns were similar for type 1 diabetes, although excess incidence did not persist beyond 1 year after a COVID-19 diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: Elevated incidence of type 2 diabetes after COVID-19 is greater, and persists for longer, in people who were hospitalised with COVID-19 than in those who were not, and is markedly less apparent in people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Testing for type 2 diabetes after severe COVID-19 and the promotion of vaccination are important tools in addressing this public health problem. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Medical Research Council, UKRI Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Health Data Research UK, Diabetes UK, British Heart Foundation, and the Stroke Association.

Impact of vaccination on the association of COVID-19 with cardiovascular diseases: An OpenSAFELY cohort study.

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombotic events, but the implications of vaccination for this increased risk are uncertain. With the approval of NHS England, we quantified associations between COVID-19 diagnosis and cardiovascular diseases in different vaccination and variant eras using linked electronic health records for ~40% of the English population. We defined a 'pre-vaccination' cohort (18,210,937 people) in the wild-type/Alpha variant eras (January 2020-June 2021), and 'vaccinated' and 'unvaccinated' cohorts (13,572,399 and 3,161,485 people respectively) in the Delta variant era (June-December 2021). We showed that the incidence of each arterial thrombotic, venous thrombotic and other cardiovascular outcomes was substantially elevated during weeks 1-4 after COVID-19, compared with before or without COVID-19, but less markedly elevated in time periods beyond week 4. Hazard ratios were higher after hospitalised than non-hospitalised COVID-19 and higher in the pre-vaccination and unvaccinated cohorts than the vaccinated cohort. COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of cardiovascular events after COVID-19 infection. People who had COVID-19 before or without being vaccinated are at higher risk of cardiovascular events for at least two years.