Search

BackgroundIn 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. ObjectiveOur 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsA 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. ConclusionsDesign 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.

Author(s): Miriam Samuel 1,*, Robin Y. Park 2, Sophie V. Eastwood 3, Fabiola Eto 1, Caroline E. Morton 1,2, Daniel Stow 1, Sebastian Bacon 2, Amir Mehrkar 2, Jessica Morley [...], Background Obesity and rapid weight gain are established risk factors for noncommunicable diseases and have emerged as independent risk factors for severe disease following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Restrictions imposed to reduce COVID-19 transmission resulted in profound societal changes that impacted many health behaviours, including physical activity and nutrition, associated with rate of weight gain. We investigated which clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were associated with rapid weight gain and the greatest acceleration in rate of weight gain during the pandemic among adults registered with an English National Health Service (NHS) general practitioner (GP) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and findings With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform inside TPP to conduct an observational cohort study of routinely collected electronic healthcare records. We investigated changes in body mass index (BMI) values recorded in English primary care between March 2015 and March 2022. We extracted data on 17,742,365 adults aged 18 to 90 years old (50.1% female, 76.1% white British) registered with an English primary care practice. We estimated individual rates of weight gain before ([delta]-prepandemic) and during ([delta]-pandemic) the pandemic and identified individuals with rapid weight gain (>0.5 kg/m.sup.2 /year) in each period. We also estimated the change in rate of weight gain between the prepandemic and pandemic period ([delta]-change = [delta]-pandemic-[delta]-prepandemic) and defined extreme accelerators as the 10% of individuals with the greatest increase in their rate of weight gain ([delta]-change [greater than or equal to]1.84 kg/m.sup.2 /year) between these periods. We estimated associations with these outcomes using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), and ethnicity. P-values were generated in regression models. The median BMI of our study population was 27.8 kg/m.sup.2, interquartile range (IQR) [24.3, 32.1] in 2019 (March 2019 to February 2020) and 28.0 kg/m.sup.2, IQR [24.4, 32.6] in 2021. Rapid pandemic weight gain was associated with sex, age, and IMD. Male sex (male versus female: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.76, 0.76], p < 0.001), older age (e.g., 50 to 59 years versus 18 to 29 years: aOR 0.60, 95% CI [0.60, 0.61], p < 0.001]); and living in less deprived areas (least-deprived-IMD-quintile versus most-deprived: aOR 0.77, 95% CI [0.77, 0.78] p < 0.001) reduced the odds of rapid weight gain. Compared to white British individuals, all other ethnicities had lower odds of rapid pandemic weight gain (e.g., Indian versus white British: aOR 0.69, 95% CI [0.68, 0.70], p < 0.001). Long-term conditions (LTCs) increased the odds, with mental health conditions having the greatest effect (e.g., depression (aOR 1.18, 95% CI [1.17, 1.18], p < 0.001)). Similar characteristics increased odds of extreme acceleration in the rate of weight gain between the prepandemic and pandemic periods. However, changes in healthcare activity during the pandemic may have introduced new bias to the data. Conclusions We found female sex, younger age, deprivation, white British ethnicity, and mental health conditions were associated with rapid pandemic weight gain and extreme acceleration in rate of weight gain between the prepandemic and pandemic periods. Our findings highlight the need to incorporate sociodemographic, physical, and mental health characteristics when formulating research, policies, and interventions targeting BMI in the period of post pandemic service restoration and in future pandemic planning.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic restrictions may have influenced behaviours related to weight. Aim: To describe patterns of weight change among adults living in England with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and/or hypertension during the pandemic. Design and setting: An observational cohort study using the routinely collected health data of approximately 40% of adults living in England, accessed through the OpenSAFELY service inside TPP. Method: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with rapid weight gain (>0.5 kg/m2/year) were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Data were extracted on adults with T2D (n = 1 231 455, 43.9% female, and 76.0% White British) or hypertension (n = 3 558 405, 49.7% female, and 84.3% White British). Adults with T2D lost weight overall (median δ = −0.1 kg/m2/year [interquartile range {IQR} −0.7–0.4]). However, rapid weight gain was common (20.7%) and associated with the following: sex (male versus female: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.77 to 0.79]); age (older age reduced odds, for example, aged 60–69 years versus 18–29 years: aOR 0.66 [95% CI = 0.61 to 0.71]); deprivation (least deprived Index of Multiple Deprivation [IMD] quintile versus most deprived IMD quintile: aOR 0.87 [95% CI = 0.85 to 0.89]); White ethnicity (Black versus White: aOR 0.95 [95% CI = 0.92 to 0.98]); mental health conditions (for example, depression: aOR 1.13 [95% CI = 1.12 to 1.15]); and diabetes treatment (non-insulin treatment versus no pharmacological treatment: aOR 0.68 [95% CI = 0.67 to 0.69]). Adults with hypertension maintained stable weight overall (median δ = 0.0 kg/m2/year [IQR −0.6–0.5]); however, rapid weight gain was common (24.7%) and associated with similar characteristics as in T2D. Conclusion: Among adults living in England with T2D and/or hypertension, rapid pandemic weight gain was more common among females, younger adults, those living in more deprived areas, and those with mental health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have demonstrated the association between antibiotic use and severe COVID-19 outcomes. This study aimed to explore detailed antibiotic exposure characteristics among COVID-19 patients. Using the OpenSAFELY platform, which integrates extensive health data and covers 40% of the population in England, the study analysed 3.16 million COVID-19 patients with at least two prior antibiotic prescriptions. These patients were compared to up to six matched controls without hospitalisation records. A machine learning model categorised patients into ten groups based on their antibiotic exposure history over the three years before their COVID-19 diagnosis. The study found that for COVID-19 patients, the total number of prior antibiotic prescriptions, diversity of antibiotic types, broad-spectrum antibiotic prescriptions, time between first and last antibiotics, and recent antibiotic use were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Patients in the highest decile of antibiotic exposure had an adjusted odds ratio of 4.8 for severe outcomes compared to those in the lowest decile. These findings suggest a potential link between extensive antibiotic use and the risk of severe COVID-19. This highlights the need for more judicious antibiotic prescribing in primary care, primarily for patients with higher risks of infection-related complications, which may better offset the potential adverse effects of repeated antibiotic use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author(s): Krishnan Bhaskaran 1,*, Christopher T. Rentsch 1, George Hickman 2, William J. Hulme 2, Anna Schultze 1, Helen J. Curtis 2, Kevin Wing 1, Charlotte Warren-Gash 1, Laurie Tomlinson [...], 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 [less than or equal to]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.

The article discusses a study which examined the effectiveness of two doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine beyond six months in England. Topics include increase in the cumulative incidence of receiving a third dose of vaccine during the eight weeks following eligibility, basis of the effectiveness of two doses during later comparison periods, and important factors in interpreting estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE).