Search

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.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219517

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, “high-cost drugs” (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed; drug name; and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

BackgroundCOVID-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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsOf 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.InterpretationSome 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.FundingMedical Research Council.

Background: Care home residents have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic Health Records (EHR) hold significant potential for studying the healthcare needs of this vulnerable population; however, identifying care home residents in EHR is not straightforward. We describe and compare three different methods for identifying care home residents in the newly created OpenSAFELY-TPP data analytics platform. Methods: Working on behalf of NHS England, we identified individuals aged 65 years or older potentially living in a care home on the 1st of February 2020 using (1) a complex address linkage, in which cleaned GP registered addresses were matched to old age care home addresses using data from the Care and Quality Commission (CQC); (2) coded events in the EHR; (3) household identifiers, age and household size to identify households with more than 3 individuals aged 65 years or older as potential care home residents. Raw addresses were not available to the investigators. Results: Of 4,437,286 individuals aged 65 years or older, 2.27% were identified as potential care home residents using the complex address linkage, 1.96% using coded events, 3.13% using household size and age and 3.74% using either of these methods. 53,210 individuals (32.0% of all potential care home residents) were classified as care home residents using all three methods. Address linkage had the largest overlap with the other methods; 93.3% of individuals identified as care home residents using the address linkage were also identified as such using either coded events or household age and size. Conclusion: We have described the partial overlap between three methods for identifying care home residents in EHR, and provide detailed instructions for how to implement these in OpenSAFELY-TPP to support research into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care home residents.

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.

Objective To investigate whether risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) differed between adults living with and without children during the first two waves of the UK pandemic. Design Population based cohort study, on behalf of NHS England. Setting Primary care data and pseudonymously linked hospital and intensive care admissions and death records from England, during wave 1 (1 February to 31 August 2020) and wave 2 (1 September to 18 December 2020). Participants Two cohorts of adults (18 years and over) registered at a general practice on 1 February 2020 and 1 September 2020. Main outcome measures Adjusted hazard ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection, covid-19 related admission to hospital or intensive care, or death from covid-19, by presence of children in the household. Results Among 9 334 392 adults aged 65 years and under, during wave 1, living with children was not associated with materially increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, covid-19 related hospital or intensive care admission, or death from covid-19. In wave 2, among adults aged 65 years and under, living with children of any age was associated with an increased risk of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection (hazard ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.08) for living with children aged 0-11 years; 1.22 (1.20 to 1.24) for living with children aged 12-18 years) and covid-19 related hospital admission (1.18 (1.06 to 1.31) for living with children aged 0-11; 1.26 (1.12 to 1.40) for living with children aged 12-18). Living with children aged 0-11 was associated with reduced risk of death from both covid-19 and non-covid-19 causes in both waves; living with children of any age was also associated with lower risk of dying from non-covid-19 causes. For adults 65 years and under during wave 2, living with children aged 0-11 years was associated with an increased absolute risk of having SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded of 40-60 per 10 000 people, from 810 to between 850 and 870, and an increase in the number of hospital admissions of 1-5 per 10 000 people, from 160 to between 161 and 165. Living with children aged 12-18 years was associated with an increase of 160-190 per 10 000 in the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and an increase of 2-6 per 10 000 in the number of hospital admissions. Conclusions In contrast to wave 1, evidence existed of increased risk of reported SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19 outcomes among adults living with children during wave 2. However, this did not translate into a materially increased risk of covid-19 mortality, and absolute increases in risk were small.

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.

BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) systems are used by clinicians to record patients’ medical information, and support clinical activities such as prescribing. In England, healthcare professionals are advised to ‘prescribe generically’ because generic drugs are usually cheaper than branded alternatives, and have fixed reimbursement costs. ‘Ghost-branded generics’ are a new category of medicines savings, caused by prescribers specifying a manufacturer for a generic product, often resulting in a higher reimbursement price compared with the true generic.AimTo describe time trends and practice factors associated with excess medication costs from ghost-branded generic prescribing.Design and settingRetrospective cohort study of English GP prescribing data and EHR deployment data.MethodA retrospective cohort study was conducted, based on data from the OpenPrescribing.net database from May 2013 to May 2019. Total spending on ghost-branded generics across England was calculated, and excess spend on ghost-branded generics calculated as a percentage of all spending on generics for every CCG and general practice in England, for every month in the study period.ResultsThere were 31.8 million ghost-branded generic items and £9.5 million excess cost in 2018, compared with 7.45 million ghost-branded generic items and £1.3 million excess cost in 2014. Most excess costs were associated with one EHR, SystmOne, and it was identified that SystmOne offered ghost-branded generic options as the default. After informing the vendor, the authors monitored for subsequent change in costs, and report a rapid decrease in ghost-branded generic expenditure.ConclusionA design choice in a commonly used EHR has led to £9.5 million in avoidable excess prescribing costs for the NHS in 1 year. Notifying the vendor led to a change in user interface and a rapid, substantial spend reduction. This finding illustrates that EHR user interface design has a substantial impact on the quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness of clinical practice; this should be a priority for quantitative research.

BackgroundEstablishing who is at risk from a novel rapidly arising cause of death, and why, requires a new approach to epidemiological research with very large datasets and timely data. Working on behalf of NHS England we therefore set out to deliver a secure and pseudonymised analytics platform inside the data centre of a major primary care electronic health records vendor establishing coverage across detailed primary care records for a substantial proportion of all patients in England. The following results are preliminary.Data sourcesPrimary care electronic health records managed by the electronic health record vendor TPP, pseudonymously linked to patient-level data from the COVID-19 Patient Notification System (CPNS) for death of hospital inpatients with confirmed COVID-19, using the new OpenSAFELY platform.Population17,425,445 adults.Time period1st Feb 2020 to 25th April 2020.Primary outcomeDeath in hospital among people with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsCohort study analysed by Cox-regression to generate hazard ratios: age and sex adjusted, and multiply adjusted for co-variates selected prospectively on the basis of clinical interest and prior findings.ResultsThere were 5683 deaths attributed to COVID-19. In summary after full adjustment, death from COVID-19 was strongly associated with: being male (hazard ratio 1.99, 95%CI 1.88-2.10); older age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); uncontrolled diabetes (HR 2.36 95% CI 2.18-2.56); severe asthma (HR 1.25 CI 1.08-1.44); and various other prior medical conditions. Compared to people with ethnicity recorded as white, black people were at higher risk of death, with only partial attenuation in hazard ratios from the fully adjusted model (age-sex adjusted HR 2.17 95% CI 1.84-2.57; fully adjusted HR 1.71 95% CI 1.44-2.02); with similar findings for Asian people (age-sex adjusted HR 1.95 95% CI 1.73-2.18; fully adjusted HR 1.62 95% CI 1.431.82).ConclusionsWe have quantified a range of clinical risk factors for death from COVID-19, some of which were not previously well characterised, in the largest cohort study conducted by any country to date. People from Asian and black groups are at markedly increased risk of in-hospital death from COVID-19, and contrary to some prior speculation this is only partially attributable to pre-existing clinical risk factors or deprivation; further research into the drivers of this association is therefore urgently required. Deprivation is also a major risk factor with, again, little of the excess risk explained by co-morbidity or other risk factors. The findings for clinical risk factors are concordant with policies in the UK for protecting those at highest risk. Our OpenSAFELY platform is rapidly adding further NHS patients’ records; we will update and extend these results regularly.

Background: Failure to report the results of a clinical trial can distort the evidence base for clinical practice, breaches researchers' ethical obligations to participants, and represents an important source of research waste. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 now requires sponsors of applicable trials to report their results directly onto ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of completion. The first trials covered by the Final Rule of this act became due to report results in January, 2018. In this cohort study, we set out to assess compliance. Methods: We downloaded data for all registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. All cross-sectional analyses in this manuscript were performed on data extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on Sept 16, 2019; monthly trends analysis used archived data closest to the 15th day of each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. Our study cohort included all applicable trials due to report results under FDAAA. We excluded all non-applicable trials, those not yet due to report, and those given a certificate allowing for delayed reporting. A trial was considered reported if results had been submitted and were either publicly available, or undergoing quality control review at ClinicalTrials.gov. A trial was considered compliant if these results were submitted within 1 year of the primary completion date, as required by the legislation. We described compliance with the FDAAA 2007 Final Rule, assessed trial characteristics associated with results reporting using logistic regression models, described sponsor-level reporting, examined trends in reporting, and described time-to-report using the Kaplan-Meier method. Findings: 4209 trials were due to report results; 1722 (40·9%; 95% CI 39·4–42·2) did so within the 1-year deadline. 2686 (63·8%; 62·4–65·3) trials had results submitted at any time. Compliance has not improved since July, 2018. Industry sponsors were significantly more likely to be compliant than non-industry, non-US Government sponsors (odds ratio [OR] 3·08 [95% CI 2·52–3·77]), and sponsors running large numbers of trials were significantly more likely to be compliant than smaller sponsors (OR 11·84 [9·36–14·99]). The median delay from primary completion date to submission date was 424 days (95% CI 412–435), 59 days higher than the legal reporting requirement of 1 year. Interpretation: Compliance with the FDAAA 2007 is poor, and not improving. To our knowledge, this is the first study to fully assess compliance with the Final Rule of the FDAAA 2007. Poor compliance is likely to reflect lack of enforcement by regulators. Effective enforcement and action from sponsors is needed; until then, open public audit of compliance for each individual sponsor may help. We will maintain updated compliance data for each individual sponsor and trial at fdaaa.trialstracker.net.

BackgroundPrescribing high doses of methotrexate increases the potentially fatal risk of toxicity. To minimise risk, it is recommended that only 2.5 mg tablets are used.AimTo describe trends in GP prescribing of methotrexate over time; the harm associated with methotrexate errors at a national level; ascertain variation between practices and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in their implementation of the safety guidance; and map current variations at CCG and practice level.Design and settingA retrospective cohort study of English GP prescribing data (August 2010–April 2018), and data acquired via freedom of information (FOI) requests.MethodThe main outcome measures were: variation in ratio of non-adherent/adherent prescribing, geographically and over time, between practices and CCGs; and description of responses to FOI requests.ResultsOf 7349 practices in England, 1689 prescribed both 2.5 mg and 10 mg tablets to individual patients in 2017, breaching national guidance. In April 2018, 697 practices (≥90th percentile) prescribed >14.3% of all methotrexate as 10 mg tablets, likewise breaching national guidance. The 66 practices at ≥99th percentile gave >52.4% of all prescribed methotrexate in the form of 10 mg tablets. The prescribing of 10 mg tablets fell during the study period, with 10 mg tablets as a proportion of all prescribed methotrexate tablets falling from 9.1% to 3.4%. Twenty-one deaths caused by methotrexate poisoning were reported from 1993–2017 in England and Wales.ConclusionThe prevalence of unsafe methotrexate prescribing has reduced but remains common, with substantial variation between practices and CCGs. The authors recommend investment in better strategies around implementation. As 21 deaths that occurred from 1993–2017 in England and Wales were attributed to methotrexate poisoning, the coroners’ reports for these deaths should be reviewed to identify recurring themes.

Objectives To ascertain compliance rates with the European Commission’s requirement that all trials on the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) post results to the registry within 12 months of completion (final compliance date 21 December 2016); to identify features associated with non-compliance; to rank sponsors by compliance; and to build a tool for live ongoing audit of compliance. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting EUCTR. Participants 7274 of 11 531 trials listed as completed on EUCTR and where results could be established as due. Main outcome measure Publication of results on EUCTR. Results Of 7274 trials where results were due, 49.5% (95% confidence interval 48.4% to 50.7%) reported results. Trials with a commercial sponsor were substantially more likely to post results than those with a non-commercial sponsor (68.1% v 11.0%, adjusted odds ratio 23.2, 95% confidence interval 19.2 to 28.2); as were trials by a sponsor who conducted a large number of trials (77.9% v 18.4%, adjusted odds ratio 18.4, 15.3 to 22.1). More recent trials were more likely to report results (per year odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.07). Extensive evidence was found of errors, omissions, and contradictory entries in EUCTR data that prevented ascertainment of compliance for some trials. Conclusions Compliance with the European Commission requirement for all trials to post results on to the EUCTR within 12 months of completion has been poor, with half of all trials non-compliant. EU registry data commonly contain inconsistencies that might prevent even regulators assessing compliance. Accessible and timely information on the compliance status of each individual trial and sponsor may help to improve reporting rates.

Background The widely used OpenPrescribing.net service provides standard measures which compare prescribing of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and English General Practices against that of their peers. Detecting changes in prescribing behaviour compared with peers can help identify missed opportunities for medicines optimisation. Automating the process of detecting these changes is necessary due to the volume of data, but challenging due to variation in prescribing volume for different measures and locations. We set out to develop and implement a method of detecting change on all individual prescribing measures, in order to notify CCGs and practices of such changes in a timely manner. Methods We used the statistical process control method CUSUM to detect prescribing behaviour changes in relation to population trends for the individual standard measures on OpenPrescribing. Increases and decreases in percentile were detected separately, using a multiple of standard deviation as the threshold for detecting change. The algorithm was modified to continue re-triggering when trajectory persists. It was deployed, user-tested, and summary statistics generated on the number of alerts by CCG and practice. Results The algorithm detected changes in prescribing for 32 prespecified measures, across a wide range of CCG and practice sizes. Across the 209 English CCGs, a mean of 2.5 increase and 2.4 decrease alerts were triggered per CCG, per month. For the 7578 practices, a mean of 1.3 increase and 1.4 decrease alerts were triggered per practice, per month. Conclusions The CUSUM method appears to effectively discriminate between random noise and sustained change in prescribing behaviour. This method aims to allow practices and CCGs to be informed of important changes quickly, with a view to improve their prescribing behaviour. The number of alerts triggered for CCGs and practices appears to be appropriate. Prescribing behaviour after users are alerted to changes will be monitored in order to assess the impact of these alerts. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-018-0642-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives NHS England recently announced a consultation seeking to discourage the use of treatments it considers to be low-value. We set out to produce an interactive data resource to show savings in each NHS general practice and to assess the current use of these treatments, their change in use over time, and the extent and reasons for variation in such prescribing. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting English primary care. Participants English general practices. Main outcome measures We determined the cost per 1000 patients for prescribing of each of 18 treatments identified by NHS England for each month from July 2012 to June 2017, and also aggregated over the most recent year to assess total cost and variation among practices. We used mixed effects linear regression to determine factors associated with cost of prescribing. Results Spend on low-value treatments was £153.5 m in the last year, across 5.8 m prescriptions (mean, £26 per prescription). Among individual treatments, liothyronine had the highest prescribing cost at £29.6 m, followed by trimipramine (£20.2 m). Over time, the overall total number of low-value prescriptions decreased, but the cost increased, although this varied greatly between treatments. Three treatment areas increased in cost and two increased in volume, all others reduced in cost and volume. Annual practice level spending varied widely (median, £2262 per thousand patients; interquartile range £1439 to £3298). Proportion of patients over 65 was strongly associated with low-value prescribing, as was Clinical Commissioning Group. Our interactive data tool was deployed to OpenPrescribing.net where monthly updated figures and graphs can be viewed. Conclusions Prescribing of low-value treatments is extensive but varies widely by treatment, geographic area and individual practice. Despite a fall in prescription numbers, the overall cost of prescribing for low-value items has risen. Prescribing behaviour is clustered by Clinical Commissioning Group, which may represent variation in the optimisation efficiency of medicines, or in some cases access inequality.

Objectives Prescribing of homeopathy still occurs in a small minority of English general practices. We hypothesised that practices that prescribe any homeopathic preparations might differ in their prescribing of other drugs. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting English primary care. Participants English general practices. Main outcome measures We identified practices that made any homeopathy prescriptions over six months of data. We measured associations with four prescribing and two practice quality indicators using multivariable logistic regression. Results Only 8.5% of practices (644) prescribed homeopathy between December 2016 and May 2017. Practices in the worst-scoring quartile for a composite measure of prescribing quality (>51.4 mean percentile) were 2.1 times more likely to prescribe homeopathy than those in the best category (Conclusions Even infrequent homeopathy prescribing is strongly associated with poor performance on a range of prescribing quality measures, but not with overall patient recommendation or quality outcomes framework score. The association is unlikely to be a direct causal relationship, but may reflect underlying practice features, such as the extent of respect for evidence-based practice, or poorer stewardship of the prescribing budget.

BackgroundMinimising prescription costs while maintaining quality is a core element of delivering high-value healthcare. There are various strategies to achieve savings, but almost no research to date on determining the most effective approach. We describe a new method of identifying potential savings due to large national variations in drug cost, including variation in generic drug cost, and compare these with potential savings from an established method (generic prescribing).MethodsWe used English National Health Service (NHS) Digital prescribing data, from October 2015 to September 2016. Potential cost savings were calculated by determining the price per unit (eg, pill, millilitre) for each drug and dose within each general practice. This was compared against the same cost for the practice at the lowest cost decile to determine achievable savings. We compared these price-per-unit savings to the savings possible from generic switching and determined the chemicals with the highest savings nationally. A senior pharmacist manually assessed whether a random sample of savings were practically achievable.ResultsWe identified a theoretical maximum of £410 million of savings over 12 months. £273 million of these savings were for individual prescribing changes worth over £50 per practice per month (mean annual saving £33 433 per practice); this compares favourably with generic switching, where only £35 million of achievable savings were identified. The biggest savings nationally were on glucose blood testing reagents (£12 million), fluticasone propionate (£9 million) and venlafaxine (£8 million). Approximately half of all savings were deemed practically achievable.DiscussionWe have developed a new method to identify and enable large potential cost savings within NHS community prescribing. Given the current pressures on the NHS, it is vital that these potential savings are realised. Our tool enabling doctors to achieve these savings is now launched in pilot form at OpenPrescribing.net. However, savings could potentially be achieved more simply through national policy change.

BackgroundThere is substantial disagreement about whether gluten-free foods should be prescribed on the NHS. We aim to describe time trends, variation and factors associated with prescribing gluten-free foods in England.MethodsWe described long-term national trends in gluten-free prescribing, and practice and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) level monthly variation in the rate of gluten-free prescribing (per 1000 patients) over time. We used a mixed effect poisson regression model to determine factors associated with gluten-free prescribing rate.ResultsThere were 1.3 million gluten-free prescriptions between July 2016 and June 2017, down from 1.8 million in 2012/13, with a corresponding cost reduction from £25.4m to £18.7m. There was substantial variation in prescribing rates among practices (range 0 to 148 prescriptions per 1000 patients, interquartile range 7.3 to 31.8), driven in part by substantial variation at the CCG level, likely due to differences in prescribing policy. Practices in the most deprived quintile of deprivation score had a lower prescribing rate than those in the highest quintile (incidence rate ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.87-0.91). This is potentially a reflection of the lower rate of diagnosed coeliac disease in more deprived populations.ConclusionGluten-free prescribing is in a state of flux, with substantial clinically unwarranted variation between practices and CCGs.Strengths and weaknesses of the studyWe were able to measure the prescribing of gluten-free foods across all prescribing in England, eliminating bias. We also removed seasonal variation by aggregating savings over 12 months.As well as gluten-free prescribing variation at practice and CCG level, we have described long-term prescribing trends at national level, back to 1998.Using the available data, we were unable to look at gluten-free prescribing at prescriber level, or investigate factors associated with prescribing to individual patients