Antidepressant Advisor (ADeSS): a decision support system for antidepressant treatment for depression in UK primary care - a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and probe the first computerised decision-support tool to provide antidepressant treatment guidance to general practitioners (GPs) in UK primary care. DESIGN: A parallel group, cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial, where individual participants were blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: South London NHS GP practices. PARTICIPANTS: Ten practices and eighteen patients with treatment-resistant current major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: Practices were randomised to two treatment arms: (a) treatment-as-usual, (b) computerised decision support tool. RESULTS: Ten GP practices participated in the trial, which was within our target range (8-20). However, practice and patient recruitment were slower than anticipated and only 18 of 86 intended patients were recruited. This was due to fewer than expected patients being eligible for the study, as well as disruption resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Only one patient was lost to follow-up. There were no serious or medically important adverse events during the trial. GPs in the decision tool arm indicated moderate support for the tool. A minority of patients fully engaged with the mobile app-based tracking of symptoms, medication adherence and side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, feasibility was not shown in the current study and the following modifications would be needed to attempt to overcome the limitations found: (a) inclusion of patients who have only tried one Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor, rather than two, to improve recruitment and pragmatic relevance of the study; (b) approaching community pharmacists to implement tool recommendations rather than GPs; (c) further funding to directly interface between the decision support tool and self-reported symptom app; (d) increasing the geographic reach by not requiring detailed diagnostic assessments and replacing this with supported remote self-report. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03628027.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and management.

How the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected prevention and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is not fully understood. In this study, we used medication data as a proxy for CVD management using routinely collected, de-identified, individual-level data comprising 1.32 billion records of community-dispensed CVD medications from England, Scotland and Wales between April 2018 and July 2021. Here we describe monthly counts of prevalent and incident medications dispensed, as well as percentage changes compared to the previous year, for several CVD-related indications, focusing on hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes. We observed a decline in the dispensing of antihypertensive medications between March 2020 and July 2021, with 491,306 fewer individuals initiating treatment than expected. This decline was predicted to result in 13,662 additional CVD events, including 2,281 cases of myocardial infarction and 3,474 cases of stroke, should individuals remain untreated over their lifecourse. Incident use of lipid-lowering medications decreased by 16,744 patients per month during the first half of 2021 as compared to 2019. By contrast, incident use of medications to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, other than insulin, increased by approximately 623 patients per month for the same time period. In light of these results, methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment for CVD risk factors and remain undiagnosed are urgently required to avoid large numbers of excess future CVD events, an indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ethnic inequalities in the impact of COVID-19 on primary care consultations: a time series analysis of 460,084 individuals with multimorbidity in South London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused rapid changes in primary care delivery in the UK, with concerns that certain groups of the population may have faced increased barriers to access. This study assesses the impact of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care consultations for individuals with multimorbidity and identifies ethnic inequalities. METHODS: A longitudinal study based on monthly data from primary care health records of 460,084 patients aged ≥18 years from 41 GP practices in South London, from February 2018 to March 2021. Descriptive analysis and interrupted time series (ITS) models were used to analyse the effect of the pandemic on primary care consultations for people with multimorbidity and to identify if the effect varied by ethnic groups and consultation type. RESULTS: Individuals with multimorbidity experienced a smaller initial fall in trend at the start of the pandemic. Their primary care consultation rates remained stable (879 (95% CI 869-890) per 1000 patients in February to 882 (870-894) March 2020), compared with a 7% decline among people without multimorbidity (223 consultations (95% CI 221-226) to 208 (205-210)). The gap in consultations between the two groups reduced after July 2020. The effect among individuals with multimorbidity varied by ethnic group. Ethnic minority groups experienced a slightly larger fall at the start of the pandemic. Individuals of Black, Asian, and Other ethnic backgrounds also switched from face-to-face to telephone at a higher rate than other ethnic groups. The largest fall in face-to-face consultations was observed among people from Asian backgrounds (their consultation rates declined from 676 (659-693) in February to 348 (338-359) in April 2020), which may have disproportionately affected their quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected primary care utilisation in patients with multimorbidity. While there is evidence of a successful needs-based prioritisation of multimorbidity patients within primary care at the start of the pandemic, inequalities among ethnic minority groups were found. Strengthening disease management for these groups may be necessary to control widening inequalities in future health outcomes.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on secondary care for cardiovascular disease in the UK: an electronic health record analysis across three countries.

BACKGROUND: Although morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 have been widely reported, the indirect effects of the pandemic beyond 2020 on other major diseases and health service activity have not been well described. METHODS: Analyses used national administrative electronic hospital records in England, Scotland and Wales for 2016-2021. Admissions and procedures during the pandemic (2020-2021) related to six major cardiovascular conditions (acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysm, and venous thromboembolism) were compared to the annual average in the pre-pandemic period (2016-2019). Differences were assessed by time period and urgency of care. RESULTS: In 2020, there were 31 064 (-6%) fewer hospital admissions (14 506 [-4%] fewer emergencies, 16 560 [-23%] fewer elective admissions) compared to 2016-2019 for the six major cardiovascular diseases combined. The proportional reduction in admissions was similar in all three countries. Overall, hospital admissions returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021. Elective admissions remained substantially below expected levels for almost all conditions in all three countries (-10 996 [-15%] fewer admissions). However, these reductions were offset by higher than expected total emergency admissions (+25 878 [+6%] higher admissions), notably for heart failure and stroke in England, and for venous thromboembolism in all three countries. Analyses for procedures showed similar temporal variations to admissions. CONCLUSION: This study highlights increasing emergency cardiovascular admissions during the pandemic, in the context of a substantial and sustained reduction in elective admissions and procedures. This is likely to increase further the demands on cardiovascular services over the coming years.

IT Evaluation of Foundation Healthcare Group NHS Vanguard programme: IT simultaneously an enabler and a rate limiting factor.

The goal of the Foundation Healthcare Group (FHG) Vanguard model was to develop a sustainable local hospital model between two National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (a London Teaching Hospital Trust and a District General Hospital Trust) that makes best use of scarce resources and can be replicated across the NHS, UK. The aim of this study was to evaluate the provision, use, and implementation of the IT infrastructure based on qualitative interviews focused mainly on the perspectives of the IT staff and the clinicians' perspectives. METHODS: In total, 24 interview transcripts, along with 'Acute Care Collaboration' questionnaire responses, were analyzed using a thematic framework for IT infrastructure, sharing themes across the vascular, pediatric, and cardiovascular strands of the FHG programme. RESULTS: Findings indicated that Skype for Business had been an innovative and helpful development widely available to be used between the two Trusts. Clinicians initially reported lack of IT support and infrastructure expected at the outset for a national Vanguard project but later appreciated that remote access to most clinical applications including scans between the two Trusts became operational. The Local Care Record (LCR), an IT project was perceived to have been delivered successfully in South London. Shared technology reduced patient traveling time by providing locally based shared care. CONCLUSION: Lesson learnt is that ensuring patient benefit and priorities is a strong driver to implementation and one needs to identify IT rate-limiting steps at an early stage and on a regular basis and then focus on rapid implementation of solutions. In fact, future work may also assess how the IT infrastructure developed by FHG vanguard project might have helped/boosted the 'digital health' practice during the COVID-19 times. Spreading and scaling-up innovations from the Vanguard sites was the aspiration and challenge for system leaders. After COVID-19, the use of IT is scaled up and now, the challenges in the use of IT are much less compared to the pre-COVID-19 time when this project was evaluated.

Epilepsy and mortality: a retrospective cohort analysis with a nested case-control study identifying causes and risk factors from primary care and linkage-derived data.

OBJECTIVES: People with epilepsy (PWE) have a higher mortality rate than the general population. Epilepsy-related deaths have increased despite all-cause mortality decreasing in the general population pre-COVID-19. We hypothesised that clinical and lifestyle factors may identify people more at risk. DESIGN: We used a retrospective cohort study to explore cause of death and a nested case-control study to identify risk factors. SETTING: We explored factors associated with mortality using primary care population data from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2014. Data were obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink which compiles anonymised patient data from primary care in the UK. Cause of death data was supplemented from the Office of National Statistics when available. PARTICIPANTS: The analysis included 70 431 PWE, with 11 241 registered deaths. RESULTS: The number of deaths within the database increased by 69% between the first and last year of the study. Epilepsy was considered as a contributing cause in approximately 45% of deaths of PWE under 35. Factors associated with increased risk of death included attendance at emergency departments and/or emergency admissions (OR 3.48, 95% CI 3.19 to 3.80), antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy (2 AEDs: OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.51 to 1.71; 3 AEDs: OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.29; 4+AEDs: OR 2.62, 95% CI 2.23 to 3.08), status epilepticus (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.71), depression (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.57 to 1.76) and injuries (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.67). No seizures in the prior year (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65). CONCLUSION: Our results add to existing evidence that deaths in epilepsy are increasing. Future studies could focus on identifying PWE at high risk and addressing them with clinical interventions or better self-management. Identifying specific risk factors for younger people should be a priority as epilepsy may be a factor in close to half of deaths of PWE under 35 years of age.

Cancer detection via primary care urgent referral and association with practice characteristics: a retrospective cross-sectional study in England from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variation in the use of urgent suspected cancer referral (2-week wait [2WW]) between practices. AIM: To examine the change in use of 2WW referrals in England over 10 years (2009/2010 to 2018/2019) and the practice and population factors associated with cancer detection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practices and their 2WW referral and Cancer Waiting Times database detection data (all cancers other than non-melanoma skin cancers) from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019. METHOD: A retrospective study conducted using descriptive statistics of changes over 10 years in 2WW referral data. Yearly linear regression models were used to determine the association between cancer detection rates and quintiles of practice and population characteristics. Predicted cancer detection rates were calculated, as well as the difference between lowest to highest quintiles. RESULTS: Over the 10 years studied there were 14.89 million 2WW referrals (2.24 million in 2018/2019), and 2.68 million new cancer diagnoses, of which 1.26 million were detected following 2WW. The detection rate increased from 41% to 52% over the time period. In 2018/2019 an additional 66 172 cancers were detected via 2WW compared with 2009/2010. Higher cancer detection via 2WW referrals was associated with larger practices and those with younger GPs. From 2016/2017 onwards more deprived practice populations were associated with decreased cancer detection. CONCLUSION: From 2009/2010 to 2018/2019 2WW referrals increased on average by 10% year on year. The most consistent association with higher cancer detection was found for larger practices and those with younger GPs, though these differences became attenuated over time. The more recent association between increased practice deprivation and lower cancer detection is a cause for concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant impacts on 2WW referral activity and the impact on patient outcomes will need to be studied.

COVID-19 lockdown impact on the physical activity of adults with progressive muscle diseases.

INTRODUCTION: This short article summarises findings about reduced physical activity of adults with progressive muscle disease as a result of COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: As part of an ongoing longitudinal cohort study, we prospectively and objectively measured physical activity using accelerometry at baseline in 2019 and follow-up in 2020. A subset of 85 participants incidentally had follow-up data collected during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown from 23 March to 4 July 2020. Thus, for this cohort we had activity data from before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and we were able to prospectively and accurately quantify the changes in their physical activity. RESULTS: Our data highlighted reduced overall activity intensity and reduced light activity time in particular. CONCLUSIONS: From our findings, we can infer specific evidence-based recommendations about how to redress inactivity secondary to COVID-19 restrictions for adults with progressive muscle diseases. These recommendations are likely to be generalisable to other groups who are vulnerable to functional decline secondary to prolonged inactivity.

A case-control and cohort study to determine the relationship between ethnic background and severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: People of minority ethnic backgrounds may be disproportionately affected by severe COVID-19. Whether this relates to increased infection risk, more severe disease progression, or worse in-hospital survival is unknown. The contribution of comorbidities or socioeconomic deprivation to ethnic patterning of outcomes is also unclear. METHODS: We conducted a case-control and a cohort study in an inner city primary and secondary care setting to examine whether ethnic background affects the risk of hospital admission with severe COVID-19 and/or in-hospital mortality. Inner city adult residents admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 (n = 872 cases) were compared with 3,488 matched controls randomly sampled from a primary healthcare database comprising 344,083 people residing in the same region. For the cohort study, we studied 1827 adults consecutively admitted with COVID-19. The primary exposure variable was self-defined ethnicity. Analyses were adjusted for socio-demographic and clinical variables. FINDINGS: The 872 cases comprised 48.1% Black, 33.7% White, 12.6% Mixed/Other and 5.6% Asian patients. In conditional logistic regression analyses, Black and Mixed/Other ethnicity were associated with higher admission risk than white (OR 3.12 [95% CI 2.63-3.71] and 2.97 [2.30-3.85] respectively). Adjustment for comorbidities and deprivation modestly attenuated the association (OR 2.24 [1.83-2.74] for Black, 2.70 [2.03-3.59] for Mixed/Other). Asian ethnicity was not associated with higher admission risk (adjusted OR 1.01 [0.70-1.46]). In the cohort study of 1827 patients, 455 (28.9%) died over a median (IQR) of 8 (4-16) days. Age and male sex, but not Black (adjusted HR 1.06 [0.82-1.37]) or Mixed/Other ethnicity (adjusted HR 0.72 [0.47-1.10]), were associated with in-hospital mortality. Asian ethnicity was associated with higher in-hospital mortality but with a large confidence interval (adjusted HR 1.71 [1.15-2.56]). INTERPRETATION: Black and Mixed ethnicity are independently associated with greater admission risk with COVID-19 and may be risk factors for development of severe disease, but do not affect in-hospital mortality risk. Comorbidities and socioeconomic factors only partly account for this and additional ethnicity-related factors may play a large role. The impact of COVID-19 may be different in Asians. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation; the National Institute for Health Research; Health Data Research UK.

Prevalence of suspected COVID-19 infection in patients from ethnic minority populations: a cross-sectional study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The first wave of the London COVID-19 epidemic peaked in April 2020. Attention initially focused on severe presentations, intensive care capacity, and the timely supply of equipment. While general practice has seen a rapid uptake of technology to allow for virtual consultations, little is known about the pattern of suspected COVID-19 presentations in primary care. AIM: To quantify the prevalence and time course of clinically suspected COVID-19 presenting to general practices, to report the risk of suspected COVID-19 by ethnic group, and to identify whether differences by ethnicity can be explained by clinical data in the GP record. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study using anonymised data from the primary care records of approximately 1.2 million adults registered with 157 practices in four adjacent east London clinical commissioning groups. The study population includes 55% of people from ethnic minorities and is in the top decile of social deprivation in England. METHOD: Suspected COVID-19 cases were identified clinically and recorded using SNOMED codes. Explanatory variables included age, sex, self-reported ethnicity, and measures of social deprivation. Clinical factors included data on 16 long-term conditions, body mass index, and smoking status. RESULTS: GPs recorded 8985 suspected COVID-19 cases between 10 February and 30 April 2020.Univariate analysis showed a two-fold increase in the odds of suspected COVID-19 for South Asian and black adults compared with white adults. In a fully adjusted analysis that included clinical factors, South Asian patients had nearly twice the odds of suspected infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.83 to 2.04). The OR for black patients was 1.47 (95% CI = 1.38 to 1.57). CONCLUSION: Using data from GP records, black and South Asian ethnicity remain as predictors of suspected COVID-19, with levels of risk similar to hospital admission reports. Further understanding of these differences requires social and occupational data.