ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in healthcare delivery, including postponement of elective procedures and difficulty accessing in-person care, which may have increased the need for strong pharmacological pain relief in some patients. Methods: With NHS England approval, we used routine clinical data from >20 million general practice adult patients in OpenSAFELY-TPP. We used interrupted time series analysis to quantify trends in prevalent and incident opioid prescribing prior to the pandemic (January 2018-February 2020) and changes during the COVID-19 lockdown period (March 2020-March 2021) and recovery period (April 2021-June 2022). We identified how these changes varied in people living in care homes, and by age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, and geographic region. Results: The median number of people prescribed an opioid per month was 50.9 per 1000 patients prior to the pandemic. We observed little change in overall prescribing after the start of the pandemic, except for a temporary increase in March 2020. There was a 9.8% (95%CI -14.5%, -6.5%) reduction in new opioid prescribing from March 2020, sustained to the end of the study period. Reductions in new prescribing were observed for all demographics except people 80+ years. Among care home residents, in April 2020 new opioid prescribing increased by 112.5% (95%CI 92.2%, 134.9%) and parenteral opioid prescribing increased by 186.3% (95%CI 153.1%, 223.9%). Conclusion: Changes in opioid prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic were mostly consistent across subgroups with the exception of differences by age and care home residence. Among people in care homes, increases in parenteral opioid prescribing likely reflect use to treat end-of-life COVID-19 symptoms. Further research is needed to understand what is driving the reduction in new opioid prescribing and its relation to changes to health care provision during the pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , PainABSTRACT
Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly effective in preventing severe COVID-19 but require boosting to maintain protection. Changes to circulating variants and prevalent natural immunity may impact on real-world effectiveness of boosters in different time periods and in different populations. Methods: With NHS England approval, we used linked routine clinical data from >24 million patients to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2022 combined COVID-19 autumn booster and influenza vaccine campaign in non-clinically vulnerable 50-year-olds in England using a regression discontinuity design. Our primary outcome was a composite of 6-week COVID-19 emergency attendance, COVID-19 unplanned hospitalisation, or death. The secondary outcomes were: respiratory hospitalisations or death; any unplanned hospitalisation; and any death. Results: Our study included 1,917,375 people aged 45-54 years with no evidence of being in a high-risk group prioritised for vaccination. By 26 November 2022, booster vaccine coverage was 11.1% at age 49.75 years increasing to 39.7% at age 50.25 years. The estimated effect of the campaign on the risk of the primary outcome in 50-year-olds during weeks 7-12 after the campaign start was -0.4 per 100,000 (95% CI -7.8, 7.1). For the secondary outcomes the estimated effects were: -0.6 per 100,000 (95%CI -13.5, 12.3) for respiratory outcomes; 5.0 per 100,000 (95%CI -40.7, 50.8) for unplanned hospitalisations; and 3.0 per 100,000 (95%CI -2.7, 8.6) for any death. The results were similar when using different follow-up start dates, different bandwidths, or when estimating the effect of vaccination (rather than the campaign). Conclusion: This study found little evidence that the autumn 2022 vaccination campaign in England was associated with a reduction in severe COVID-19-related outcomes among non-clinically vulnerable 50-year-olds. Possible explanations include the low risk of severe outcomes due to substantial pre-existing vaccine- and infection-induced immunity. Modest booster coverage reduced the precision with which we could estimate effectiveness. The booster campaign may have had effects beyond those estimated, including reducing virus transmission and incidence of mild or moderate COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
Background: Fit notes ("sick notes") are issued by general practitioners (GPs) when a person can't work for health reasons and is an indication of the public health and economic burden for people recovering from COVID-19. Methods: With NHS England approval, we used routine clinical data from >24 million patients to compare fit note incidence in people 18-64 years with and without evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022. We fit Cox regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios, overall and by time post-diagnosis and within demographic subgroups. Results: We identified 365,421, 1,206,555 and 1,321,313 people with evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022. The fit note rate was 4.88 per 100 person-months (95%CI 4.83-4.93) in 2020, 2.66 (95%CI 2.64-2.67) in 2021, and 1.73 (95%CI 1.72-1.73) in 2022. Compared with the age, sex and region matched general population, the hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for demographics and clinical characteristics over the follow-up period was 4.07 (95%CI 4.02-4.12) in 2020 decreasing to 1.57 (95%CI 1.56-1.58) in 2022. The HR was highest in the first 30 days in all years. Conclusions: Despite likely underestimation of the fit note rate, we identified a considerable increase among people with COVID-19, even in an era when most people are vaccinated. Most fit notes are associated with the acute phase of the disease, but the increased risk several months post-diagnosis provides further evidence of the long-term impact.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity to ensure safety and appropriateness of ongoing prescribing and a disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care. Aim Using routinely collected data, our aim was to i) describe the SNOMED CT codes used to report medication review activity ii) report the impact of COVID-19 on the volume and variation of medication reviews. Design and setting 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. Method For each month between April 2019 - March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months. These measures were broken down by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and amongst 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 substantially decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the rate of patients with a medication review coded in the previous 12 months was not substantially impacted according to our classification (-10.5% March 2021). There was regional and ethnic variation (March 2022 - London 21.9% vs North West 33.6%; Chinese 16.8% vs British 33.0%). Following the introduction of "structured medication reviews", the rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high risk groups (March 2022 - care home residents 34.1%, 90+ years 13.1%, high risk medications 10.2%). The most used SNOMED CT medication review code across the study period was Medication review done - 314530002 (59.5%). Conclusion We have reported a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented pressure on healthcare services. This study aimed to investigate if disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) safety monitoring was affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A population-based cohort study was conducted with the approval of NHS England, using the OpenSAFELY platform to access electronic health record data from 24.2 million patients registered at general practices using TPP's SystmOne software. Patients were included for further analysis if prescribed azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate between November 2019 and July 2022. Outcomes were assessed as monthly trends and variation between various sociodemographic and clinical groups for adherence with standard safety monitoring recommendations. Findings: An acute increase in the rate of missed monitoring occurred across the study population (+12.4 percentage points) when lockdown measures were implemented in March 2020. This increase was more pronounced for some patient groups (70-79 year-olds: +13.7 percentage points; females: +12.8 percentage points), regions (North West: +17.0 percentage points), medications (Leflunomide: +20.7 percentage points), and monitoring tests (Blood Pressure: +24.5 percentage points). Missed monitoring rates decreased substantially for all groups by July 2022. Substantial and consistent differences were observed in overall missed monitoring rates between several groups throughout the study. Interpretation: DMARD monitoring rates temporarily deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deterioration coincided with the onset of lockdown measures, with monitoring rates recovering rapidly as lockdown measures were eased. Differences observed in monitoring rates between medications, tests, regions, and patient groups, highlight opportunities to tackle potential inequalities in the provision or uptake of monitoring services. Further research should aim to evaluate the causes of the differences identified between groups. Funding: None. Keywords COVID-19, electronic health records, general practice, primary health care, antirheumatic agents, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Depression and anxiety affect 4% to 14% of Australians every year; symptoms may have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined recent patterns of antidepressant use in Australia in the period 2015 to 2021, which includes the first year of the pandemic. Methods: We used national dispensing claims for people aged [≥]10 years to investigate annual trends in prevalent and new antidepressant use (no antidepressants dispensed in the year prior). We conducted stratified analyses by sex, age group and antidepressant class. We report outcomes from 2015 to 2019 and used time series analysis to quantify changes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). Results: In 2019 the annual prevalence of antidepressant use was 170.4 per 1,000 women and 101.8 per 1,000 men, an increase of 7.0% and 9.2% from 2015, respectively. New antidepressant use also increased for both sexes (3.0% for women and 4.9% for men) and across most age groups, particularly among adolescents (aged 10-17 years; 46%-57%). During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed higher than expected prevalent use (+2.2%, 95%CI 0.3%, 4.2%) among females, corresponding to a predicted excess of 45,217 (95%CI 5,819, 84,614) females dispensed antidepressants. The largest increases during the first year of the pandemic occurred among female adolescents for both prevalent (+11.7%, 95%CI 4.1%, 20.5%) and new antidepressant use (+15.6%, 95%CI 8.5%, 23.7%). Conclusion: Antidepressant use continues to increase in Australia overall and especially among young people. We found a differential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in treated depression and anxiety, greater among females than males, and greater among young females than other age groups, suggesting an increased mental health burden in populations already on a trajectory of increased use of antidepressants prior to the pandemic. Reasons for these differences require further investigation.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety Disorders , Depressive DisorderABSTRACT
ObjectiveWe quantified changes in dispensing of common medicines proposed for "re-purposing" due to their perceived benefits as therapeutic or preventive for COVID-19 in Australia, a country with relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the first year of the pandemic. MethodsWe performed an interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study using nationwide dispensing claims data (January 2017-November 2020). We focused on six subsidised medicines proposed for re-purposing: hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, colchicine, corticosteroids, and calcitriol (Vitamin D analogue). We quantified changes in monthly dispensing and initiation trends during COVID-19 (March-November 2020) using autoregressive integrated moving average models (ARIMA) and compared characteristics of initiators in 2020 and 2019. ResultsIn March 2020, we observed a 99% (95%CI 96%-103%) increase in hydroxychloroquine dispensing (of which approximately 22% attributable to new use), and a 199% increase (95%CI 184%-213%) in initiation, with a shift towards prescribing by general practitioners (42% in 2020 vs 25% in 2019) rather than specialists. These increases subsided following regulatory restrictions on prescribing to relevant specialties. There was a small but sustained increase in ivermectin dispensing over multiple months, with a 80% (95%CI 42%-118%) increase in initiation in May 2020 following its first identification as potentially disease-modifying in April. Other than increases in March related to stockpiling, we observed no increases in initiation of calcitriol or colchicine during COVID-19. Dispensing of corticosteroids and azithromycin remained lower than expected in April through November 2020. ConclusionsWhile most increases in dispensing observed early on during COVID-19 were temporary and appear to be related to stockpiling among existing users, we did observed increases in initiation of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and a shift in prescribing patterns which may be related to media hype around these medicines. A quick response by regulators can help limit inappropriate repurposing to lessen the impact on medicine supply and patient harms.