The safety of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies used in prehospital treatment of Covid-19 (preprint)

Objective This proof-of-principle pharmacovigilance study used Electronic Health Record (EHR) data to examine the safety of sotrovimab, paxlovid and molnupiravir in prehospital treatment of Covid-19. Method With NHS England approval, we conducted an observational cohort study using OpenSAFELY-TPP, a secure software-platform which executes analyses across EHRs for 24 million people in England. High-risk individuals with Covid-19 eligible for prehospital treatment were included. Adverse events (AEs) were categorised into events in the drugs Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), drug-reactions and immune-mediated. Cox models compared risk across treatments. A pre-pandemic record analysis was performed for comparative purposes. Results Between 2021-2023, 37,449 patients received sotrovimab, paxlovid or molnupiravir whilst 109,647 patients made up an eligible-but-untreated population. The 29-day rates of AEs were low: SmPC 0.34 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 0.32-0.36); drug-reactions 0.01 (95% CI 0.01-0.02) and immune-mediated 0.03 (95% CI 0.03-0.04), and similar or lower than the pre-pandemic period. Compared with the eligible but untreated population, sotrovimab and paxlovid associated with a risk of SmPC AE [adjHR 1.36 (95% CI 1.15-1.62) and 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.55), respectively], whilst sotrovimab associated with a risk of drug-reactions [adjHR 2.95 (95% CI 1.56-5.55)] and immune-mediated events [adjHR 3.22 (95% CI 1.86-5.57)]. Conclusion Sotrovimab, paxlovid and molnupiravir demonstrate acceptable safety profiles. Although the risk of AEs was greatest with sotrovimab, event rates were lower than comparative pre-pandemic period.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Antipsychotic Prescribing in individuals with autism, dementia, learning disability, serious mental illness or living in a care home: A federated analysis of 59 million patients primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected health and social care services. We aimed to explore whether this impacted the prescribing rates of antipsychotics within at-risk populations. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we completed a retrospective cohort study, using the OpenSAFELY platform to explore primary care data of 59 million patients. We identified patients in five at-risk groups: autism, dementia, learning disability, serious mental illness and care home residents. We then calculated the monthly prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing in the population, as well as the incidence of new prescriptions in each month over the study period (Jan 2019-Dec 2021). Results The average monthly rate of antipsychotic prescribing increased in dementia from 82.75 patients prescribed an antipsychotic per 1000 patients (95% CI 82.30-83.19) in Q1 2019 to 90.1 (95% CI 89.68-90.60) in Q4 2021 and from 154.61 (95% CI 153.79-155.43) in Q1 2019 to 166.95 (95% CI 166.23-167.67) in Q4 2021 in care homes . There were notable spikes in the rate of new prescriptions issued to patients with dementia and in care homes. In learning disability and autism groups, the average monthly rate of prescribing per 1000 decreased from 122.97 (95% CI 122.29-123.66) in Q1 2019 to 119.29 (95% CI 118.68-119.91) in Q4 2021, and from 54.91 (95% CI 54.52-55.29) in Q1 2019 to 51.04 (95% CI 50.74-51.35) in Q4 2021 respectively. Conclusions During each of the lockdowns in 2020, we observed a significant spike in antipsychotic prescribing in the dementia and care home groups. We have shown that these peaks are likely due to prescribing of antipsychotics for palliative care purposes and may have been linked to pre-emptive prescribing, when on-site medical visits would have been restricted. Over the study period, we observed gradual increases in antipsychotic use in patients with dementia and in care homes and a decrease in their use in patients with learning disability or autism.

Eleven key measures for monitoring general practice clinical activity during COVID-19 using federated analytics on 48 million adults' primary care records through OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on delivery of NHS care. We have developed the OpenSAFELY Service Restoration Observatory (SRO) to describe this impact on primary care activity and monitor its recovery. Objectives To develop key measures of primary care activity and describe the trends in these measures throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods With the approval of NHS England we developed an open source software framework for data management and analysis to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across primary care electronic health record (EHR) data on 48 million adults. We developed SNOMED-CT codelists for key measures of primary care clinical activity selected by a expert clinical advisory group and conducted a population cohort-based study to describe trends and variation in these measures January 2019-December 2021, and pragmatically classified their level of recovery one year into the pandemic using the percentage change in the median practice level rate. Results We produced 11 measures reflective of clinical activity in general practice. A substantial drop in activity was observed in all measures at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. By April 2021, the median rate had recovered to within 15% of the median rate in April 2019 in six measures. The remaining measures showed a sustained drop, ranging from a 18.5% reduction in medication reviews to a 42.0% reduction in blood pressure monitoring. Three measures continued to show a sustained drop by December 2021. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a substantial change in primary care activity across the measures we developed, with recovery in most measures. We delivered an open source software framework to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. We will continue to expand the set of key measures to be routinely monitored using our publicly available NHS OpenSAFELY SRO dashboards with near real-time data.

Changes in English medication safety indicators throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: a federated analysis of 57 million patients' primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Objective: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on safe prescribing, using the PINCER prescribing indicators; to implement complex prescribing indicators at national scale using GP data. Design: Population based cohort study, with the approval of NHS England using the OpenSAFELY platform. Setting: Electronic health record data from 56.8 million NHS patients' general practice records. Participants: All NHS patients registered at a GP practice using TPP or EMIS computer systems and recorded as at risk of at least one potentially hazardous PINCER indicator between September 2019 and September 2021. Main outcome measure: Monthly trends and between-practice variation for compliance with 13 PINCER measures between September 2019 and September 2021. Results: The indicators were successfully implemented across GP data in OpenSAFELY. Hazardous prescribing remained largely unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic, with only small reductions in achievement of the PINCER indicators. There were transient delays in blood test monitoring for some medications, particularly ACE inhibitors. All indicators exhibited substantial recovery by September 2021. We identified 1,813,058 patients at risk of at least one hazardous prescribing event. Conclusion: Good performance was maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic across a diverse range of widely evaluated measures of safe prescribing.

Waning effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines over six months since second dose: a cohort study using linked electronic health records (preprint)

Summary Background The rate at which COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes over time is crucial for vaccination policies, but is incompletely understood with conflicting results from different studies. Methods This cohort study, using the OpenSAFELY-TPP database and approved by NHS England, included individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection assigned to vaccines priority groups 2-12 defined by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We compared individuals who had received two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 with unvaccinated individuals during six 4-week comparison periods, separately for subgroups aged 65+ years; 16-64 years and clinically vulnerable; 40-64 years and 18-39 years. We used Cox regression, stratified by first dose eligibility and geographical region and controlled for calendar time, to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated individuals, and quantified waning vaccine effectiveness as ratios of aHRs per-4-week period. The outcomes were COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and non-COVID-19 death. Findings The BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 and unvaccinated groups comprised 1,773,970, 2,961,011 and 2,433,988 individuals, respectively. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was similar across outcomes and vaccine brands: e.g. in the 65+ years subgroup ratios of aHRs versus unvaccinated for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test ranged from 1.23 (95% CI 1.15-1.32) to 1.27 (1.20-1.34) for BNT162b2 and 1.16 (0.98-1.37) to 1.20 (1.14-1.27) for ChAdOx1. Despite waning, rates of COVID-19 hospitalisation and COVID-19 death were substantially lower among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to 26 weeks after second dose, with estimated aHRs <0.20 (>80% vaccine effectiveness) for BNT162b2, and <0.26 (>74%) for ChAdOx1. By weeks 23-26, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated individuals were similar to or higher than those in unvaccinated individuals: aHRs ranged from 0.85 (0.78-0.92) to 1.53 (1.07-2.18) for BNT162b2, and 1.21 (1.13-1.30) to 1.99 (1.94-2.05) for ChAdOx1. Interpretation The rate at which estimated vaccine effectiveness waned was strikingly consistent for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and similar across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. If sustained to outcomes of infection with the Omicron variant and to booster vaccination, these findings will facilitate scheduling of booster vaccination doses.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and immune modifying therapies: a nationwide cohort study in the OpenSAFELY platform (preprint)

BackgroundIt is unclear if people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) (joint, bowel and skin) and on immune modifying therapy have increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we conducted a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY, analysing routinely-collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders) to estimate hazard ratios (HR) comparing risk of COVID-19-death, death/critical care admission, and hospitalisation (March to September 2020) in: 1) people with IMIDs compared to the general population; and 2) people with IMIDs on targeted immune modifying drugs (e.g., biologics) compared to standard systemic treatment (e.g., methotrexate). FindingsWe identified 17,672,065 adults; of 1,163,438 (7%) with IMIDs, 19,119 people received targeted immune modifying drugs, and 200,813 received standard systemics. We saw evidence of increased COVID-19-death (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27), and COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35) in individuals with IMIDs overall compared to individuals without IMIDs of the same age, sex, deprivation and smoking status. We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19 deaths with targeted compared to standard systemic treatments (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.80, 1.33). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in those prescribed TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23, IL7, IL-6 or JAK inhibitors compared to standard systemics. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19 death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56); however, this finding may relate to confounding. InterpretationCOVID-19 death and hospitalisation was higher in people with IMIDs. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune modifying drugs for IMIDs compared to standard systemics. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed on May 19th, 2021, using the terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2" and "rheumatoid arthritis", "psoriatic arthritis" "ankylosing spondylitis", "Crohns disease" "ulcerative colitis" "hidradenitis suppurativa" and "psoriasis", to identify primary research articles examining severe COVID-19 outcome risk in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and those on immune modifying therapy. The studies identified (including matched cohort studies and studies in disease-specific registries) were limited by small sample sizes and number of outcomes. Most studies did not show a signal of increased adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on targeted therapies, with the exception of rituximab. Additionally, disease- specific registries are subject to selection bias and lack denominator populations. Added value of the studyIn our large population-based study of 17 million individuals, including 1 million people with IMIDs and just under 200,000 receiving immune modifying medications, we saw evidence that people with IMIDs had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared to the general population after adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, deprivation, smoking status) (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27). We saw differences by IMID type, with COVID-19-related death being increased by the most in people with inflammatory joint disease (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.40, 1.54). We also saw some evidence that those with IMIDs were more likely, compared to the general population, to have COVID-19-related critical care admission/death (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.21, 1.28) and hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35). Compared to people with IMIDs taking standard systemics, we saw no evidence of differences in severe COVID-19-related outcomes with TNF inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors and JAK inhibitors. However, there was some evidence that rituximab was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56) and death/critical care admission (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.31, 2.81). We also saw evidence of an increase in COVID-19-related hospital admissions in people prescribed rituximab (HR 1.59, 95%CI 1.16, 2.18) or JAK inhibition (HR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09, 3.01) compared to those on standard systemics, although this could be related to worse underlying health rather than the drugs themselves, and numbers of events were small. This is the first study to our knowledge to use high-cost drug data on medicines supplied by hospitals at a national scale in England (to identify targeted therapies). The availability of these data fills an important gap in the medication record of those with more specialist conditions treated by hospitals creating an important opportunity to generate insights to these conditions and these medications Implications of all of the available evidenceOur study offers insights into future risk mitigation strategies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination priorities for individuals with IMIDs, as it highlights that those with IMIDs and those taking rituximab may be at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Critically, our study does not show a link between most targeted immune modifying medications compared to standard systemics and severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, the increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes that we saw in people with IMIDs and those treated with rituximab merits further study.