Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. 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. 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.

Background NHS England issued commissioning guidance on 18 low-priority treatments which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care. We aimed to monitor the impact of an educational intervention delivered to regional prescribing advisors by senior pharmacists from NHS England on the primary care spend on low-priority items. Methods An opportunistic randomised, controlled parallel-group trial. Participants (clinical commissioning groups, CCGs) were randomised to intervention or control in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group were invited to participate. The intervention was a one-off educational session. Our primary outcomes concerned the total prescribing of low-priority items in primary care. Secondary outcomes concerned the prescribing of specific low-priority items. We also measured the impact on information-seeking behaviour. Results 40 CCGs were randomised, 20 allocated to intervention, with 11 receiving the intervention. There was no significant impact on any prescribing outcomes. There was some possible evidence of increased engagement with data, in the form of CCG email alert sign-ups ( p  = 0.077). No harms were detected. Conclusions A one-off intervention delivered to CCGs by NHS England did not significantly influence low-priority prescribing. This trial demonstrates how routine interventions planned to improve uptake or adherence to healthcare guidance can be delivered as low-cost randomised trials and how to robustly assess their effectiveness. Trial registration ISRCTN31218900, October 01 2018.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly affected mortality worldwide 1 . 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. OpenSAFELY, a new health analytics platform that includes data from over 17 million adult NHS patients in England, is used to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. Medical Research Council.

Background Thromboembolism has been reported as a consequence of severe COVID-19. Although warfarin is a commonly used anticoagulant, it acts by antagonising vitamin K, which is low in patients with severe COVID-19. To date, the clinical evidence on the impact of regular use of warfarin on COVID-19-related thromboembolism is lacking. Methods On behalf of NHS England, we conducted a population-based cohort study investigating the association between warfarin and COVID-19 outcomes compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse primary care data and pseudonymously linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions and death records from England. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19-related outcomes comparing warfarin with DOACs in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. We also conducted negative control outcome analyses (being tested for SARS-CoV-2 and non-COVID-19 death) to assess the potential impact of confounding. Results A total of 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users were included. We observed a lower risk of all outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs [testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.68–0.79); COVID-19-related hospital admission, HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.68–0.83); COVID-19-related deaths, HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.83)]. A lower risk of negative control outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs was also observed [being tested for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.79–0.81); non-COVID-19 deaths, HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.76–0.83)]. Conclusions Overall, this study shows no evidence of harmful effects of warfarin on severe COVID-19 disease.

ObjectiveTo characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England.DesignRetrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England.SettingIndividual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR).ParticipantsA cohort of adults with stage 3–5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR.Main outcome measuresDose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models.Results992 205 people with stage 3–5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness—associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake.ConclusionAlthough high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.

ObjectiveTo quantify the changes in opioid prescribing over time to a population with high rates of opioid use to understand the impact of longer elective wait times during the covid-19 pandemic.DesignWith the approval of NHS England, a retrospective cohort study using linked electronic health record data in OpenSAFELY-TPP.SettingPrimary and secondary care electronic health records of people registered at general practices in England that use TPP SystmOne software, covering about 43% of the total registered population in England, linked to data from the Waiting List Minimum Dataset (WLMDS) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, which is part of the NHS England OpenSAFELY covid-19 service.Participants63 850 eligible patients on the waiting list for elective trauma procedures or orthopaedic procedures whose wait ended in admission between May 2021 and April 2022.Main outcome measuresOpioid prescribing to eligible patients before referral to the waiting list, while waiting for treatment, and after discharge from treatment. Opioids were classified based on their strength (weak, moderate, or strong opioids) and duration of action (immediate release v modified release opioids).ResultsOf 63 850 people on elective trauma or orthopaedic waiting lists whose wait ended during the study period (median age 61 years, 54.6% female), 20.5% waited for more than 52 weeks to be admitted. In the three months before their waiting list referral date, 9890 (15.5%) participants had three or more opioid prescriptions, and 3790 (5.9%) were prescribed a strong opioid. Weekly opioid prescribing rates per 100 people on the waiting list were stable over time, with prescription rates peaking immediately after treatment and plateauing about three months after treatment. Comparing the three month period before the waiting list referral date to the period four to six months after the waiting list end date, changes in the proportion of people with three or more prescriptions for an opioid during that period were −1.6% (95% confidence interval −2.2% to −1.0%) for people on the waiting list for 18 weeks or less, −1.1% (−1.7% to −0.5%) for people waiting for 19-52 weeks, and −0.5% (−1.4% to 0.4%) for people waiting for more than 52 weeks.ConclusionsIn this study, one in five people who received treatment for an elective orthopaedic procedure between May 2021 and April 2022 waited for more than one year. Nearly one in seven people were prescribed opioids long term before their referral date to the waiting list, and only small reductions in long term opioid prescribing were observed after a patient’s procedure, regardless of length of time spent on the waiting list.

ObjectivesWe aimed to compile and normalise England’s national prescribing data for 1998–2016 to facilitate research on long-term time trends and create an open-data exploration tool for wider use.DesignWe compiled data from each individual year’s national statistical publications and normalised them by mapping each drug to its current classification within the national formulary where possible. We created a freely accessible, interactive web tool to allow anyone to interact with the processed data.Setting and participantsWe downloaded all available annual prescription cost analysis datasets, which include cost and quantity for all prescription items dispensed in the community in England. Medical devices and appliances were excluded.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe measured the extent of normalisation of data and aimed to produce a functioning accessible analysis tool.ResultsAll data were imported successfully. 87.5% of drugs were matched exactly on name to the current formulary and a further 6.5% to similar drug names. All drugs in core clinical chapters were reconciled to their current location in the data schema, with only 1.26% of drugs not assigned a current chemical code. We created an openly accessible interactive tool to facilitate wider use of these data.ConclusionsPublicly available data can be made accessible through interactive online tools to help researchers and policy-makers explore time trends in prescribing.

We have previously demonstrated that opioid prescribing increased by 127% between 1998 and 2016. New policies aimed at tackling this increasing trend have been recommended by public health bodies, and there is some evidence that progress is being made. We sought to extend our previous work and develop a data-driven approach to identify general practices and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) whose prescribing data suggest that interventions to reduce the prescribing of opioids may have been successfully implemented. We analyzed 5 years of prescribing data (December 2014 to November 2019) for 3 opioid prescribing measures-total opioid prescribing as oral morphine equivalent per 1000 registered population, the number of high-dose opioids prescribed per 1000 registered population, and the number of high-dose opioids as a percentage of total opioids prescribed. Using a data-driven approach, we applied a modified version of our change detection Python library to identify reductions in these measures over time, which may be consistent with the successful implementation of an intervention to reduce opioid prescribing. This analysis was carried out for general practices and CCGs, and organizations were ranked according to the change in prescribing rate. We identified a reduction in total opioid prescribing in 94 (49.2%) out of 191 CCGs, with a median reduction of 15.1 (IQR 11.8-18.7; range 9.0-32.8) in total oral morphine equivalence per 1000 patients. We present data for the 3 CCGs and practices demonstrating the biggest reduction in opioid prescribing for each of the 3 opioid prescribing measures. We observed a 40% proportional drop (8.9% absolute reduction) in the regular prescribing of high-dose opioids (measured as a percentage of regular opioids) in the highest-ranked CCG (North Tyneside); a 99% drop in this same measure was found in several practices (44%-95% absolute reduction). Decile plots demonstrate that CCGs exhibiting large reductions in opioid prescribing do so via slow and gradual reductions over a long period of time (typically over a period of 2 years); in contrast, practices exhibiting large reductions do so rapidly over a much shorter period of time. By applying 1 of our existing analysis tools to a national data set, we were able to identify rapid and maintained changes in opioid prescribing within practices and CCGs and rank organizations by the magnitude of reduction. Highly ranked organizations are candidates for further qualitative research into intervention design and implementation.