Research And Surveillance Centre Research Articles

Postpandemic Sentinel Surveillance of Respiratory Diseases in the Context of the World Health Organization Mosaic Framework: Protocol for a Development and Evaluation Study Involving the English Primary Care Network 2023-2024.

Prepandemic sentinel surveillance focused on improved management of winter pressures, with influenza-like illness (ILI) being the key clinical indicator. The World Health Organization (WHO) global standards for influenza surveillance include monitoring acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI. The WHO's mosaic framework recommends that the surveillance strategies of countries include the virological monitoring of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential such as influenza. The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioner Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) in collaboration with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has provided sentinel surveillance since 1967, including virology since 1993. We aim to describe the RSC's plans for sentinel surveillance in the 2023-2024 season and evaluate these plans against the WHO mosaic framework. Our approach, which includes patient and public involvement, contributes to surveillance objectives across all 3 domains of the mosaic framework. We will generate an ARI phenotype to enable reporting of this indicator in addition to ILI. These data will support UKHSA's sentinel surveillance, including vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease studies. The panel of virology tests analyzed in UKHSA's reference laboratory will remain unchanged, with additional plans for point-of-care testing, pneumococcus testing, and asymptomatic screening. Our sampling framework for serological surveillance will provide greater representativeness and more samples from younger people. We will create a biomedical resource that enables linkage between clinical data held in the RSC and virology data, including sequencing data, held by the UKHSA. We describe the governance framework for the RSC. We are co-designing our communication about data sharing and sampling, contextualized by the mosaic framework, with national and general practice patient and public involvement groups. We present our ARI digital phenotype and the key data RSC network members are requested to include in computerized medical records. We will share data with the UKHSA to report vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 and influenza, assess the disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus, and perform syndromic surveillance. Virological surveillance will include COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other common respiratory viruses. We plan to pilot point-of-care testing for group A streptococcus, urine tests for pneumococcus, and asymptomatic testing. We will integrate test requests and results with the laboratory-computerized medical record system. A biomedical resource will enable research linking clinical data to virology data. The legal basis for the RSC's pseudonymized data extract is The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, and all nonsurveillance uses require research ethics approval. The RSC extended its surveillance activities to meet more but not all of the mosaic framework's objectives. We have introduced an ARI indicator. We seek to expand our surveillance scope and could do more around transmissibility and the benefits and risks of nonvaccine therapies.

Exploring the value of in-practice point-of-care testing (POCT) for high-risk groups.

Mounting evidence for poorer seroconversion and accelerating vaccine waning in clinical risk groups (CRGs) suggests that, even if vaccinated, monoclonals and antivirals may still be required. However, the efficacy of said alternatives are highly time sensitive. As such, a clinical workflow that unlocks access to these treatments in both a timely and antimicrobially-responsible manner is essential. In-practice point-of-care testing (POCT) may offer a solution to this dual challenge. The present study investigated the uptake and prescription outcomes of POCT in a past patient cohort that attended primary care with symptoms of influenza-like illness (ILI). This work extracted CRG patient data from the overall cohort with a special emphasis on the immunosuppressed. Researchers utilised data gathered between October 2019 and March 2020 where POCT was instituted in 12 practices within the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network. Researchers subdivided full cohort data (n = 648) by CRG and, specifically, immunosuppressed status. Patients in CRGs constituted 24.8% of swabbed patients; the immunosuppressed constituted 1.9%. Key predictors for POCT positivity in CRG patients were similar to those of the underlying cohort. Evidence was found for increased - and sometimes inappropriate - antibiotic prescription in CRGs via inflated odds ratios (ORs) between POCT positivity and antibiotic prescribing in these patients versus the full cohort (OR 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31 to 1.80, P = 0.52 versus OR 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.99, P = 0.03). Antivirals were consistently underutilised. This work highlights the value of POCT for vulnerable patients.

P67 Overall lifetime risk for alopecia areata is 2.1% and is higher in women, non-White ethnic groups and the most deprived: a UK population-based cohort study

Abstract Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune-mediated nonscarring alopecia often associated with substantial morbidity. However, there are limited population-based data on potential disparities in the burden of AA, including across different ethnicities and sociodemographic classifications. We aimed to provide the first large-scale, population-based evaluation of lifetime risk of AA across sociodemographic subgroups. This study used routinely collected data from a large UK population-based database: the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). All children and adults registered with general practices contributing to the RCGP RSC network in the period 2009–2018 without a prior diagnosis of AA were included. People were considered to develop AA if they had an AA diagnosis and, in the subsequent 365 days, no code for an alternative diagnosis (e.g. traction alopecia and scarring alopecia). The cumulative lifetime risk of AA was estimated at age 80 years using survival models, with age as the timescale and accounting for the competing risk of death. Lifetime risk was calculated for the whole population and by sociodemographic subgroups comprising sex, major UK ethnicity groups and socioeconomic deprivation. In a total population of 4 052 231, 6961 developed new-onset AA. The lifetime risk in the overall population was 2.11% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06–2.16]. There was substantial difference in lifetime risk of AA by ethnicity; lifetime risk was 1.74% (95% CI 1.68–1.80) in the White subgroup, 5.87% (95% CI 5.51–6.24) in Asian, 3.03% (95% CI 2.63–3.42) in Black, 4.44% (95% CI 3.50–5.37) in mixed and 4.47% (95% CI 3.63–5.31) in other ethnic groups. Females had a higher lifetime risk of AA than males: 2.35% (95% CI 2.28–2.43) vs. 1.88% (95% CI 1.81–1.94). Lifetime risk was greater with increasing socioeconomic deprivation: least-deprived 1.68% (95% CI 1.59–1.78) vs. most-deprived quintile 2.92% (95% CI 2.77–3.07). Our findings demonstrate that AA affects nearly 1 in 50 people over a lifetime. Lifetime risk is substantially greater in people of non-White ethnicity and is highest in those of Asian ethnicity (one in 17 people). The lifetime risk is also higher in females and those with the greatest socioeconomic deprivation. Clinicians should be aware of the disproportionate distribution of AA across the population and support the provision of healthcare resource to groups with the highest burden. Funding sources: this research was sponsored by Pfizer. Project management, medical writing and statistical support were provided by Momentum Data, UK, and were funded by Pfizer.

Representativeness, Vaccination Uptake, and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes 2020-2021 in the UK Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Network: Cohort Profile Summary

The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) is one of Europe's oldest sentinel systems, working with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and its predecessor bodies for 55 years. Its surveillance report now runs twice weekly, supplemented by online observatories. In addition to conducting sentinel surveillance from a nationally representative group of practices, the RSC is now also providing data for syndromic surveillance. The aim of this study was to describe the cohort profile at the start of the 2021-2022 surveillance season and recent changes to our surveillance practice. The RSC's pseudonymized primary care data, linked to hospital and other data, are held in the Oxford-RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, a Trusted Research Environment. We describe the RSC's cohort profile as of September 2021, divided into a Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC)-collecting virological and serological specimens-and a larger group of syndromic surveillance general practices (SSGPs). We report changes to our sampling strategy that brings the RSC into alignment with European Centre for Disease Control guidance and then compare our cohort's sociodemographic characteristics with Office for National Statistics data. We further describe influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coverage for the 2020-2021 season (week 40 of 2020 to week 39 of 2021), with the latter differentiated by vaccine brand. Finally, we report COVID-19-related outcomes in terms of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. As a response to COVID-19, the RSC grew from just over 500 PCSC practices in 2019 to 1879 practices in 2021 (PCSC, n=938; SSGP, n=1203). This represents 28.6% of English general practices and 30.59% (17,299,780/56,550,136) of the population. In the reporting period, the PCSC collected >8000 virology and >23,000 serology samples. The RSC population was broadly representative of the national population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, National Health Service Region, socioeconomic status, obesity, and smoking habit. The RSC captured vaccine coverage data for influenza (n=5.4 million) and COVID-19, reporting dose one (n=11.9 million), two (n=11 million), and three (n=0.4 million) for the latter as well as brand-specific uptake data (AstraZeneca vaccine, n=11.6 million; Pfizer, n=10.8 million; and Moderna, n=0.7 million). The median (IQR) number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and ICU admissions was 1181 (559-1559) and 115 (50-174) per week, respectively. The RSC is broadly representative of the national population; its PCSC is geographically representative and its SSGPs are newly supporting UKHSA syndromic surveillance efforts. The network captures vaccine coverage and has expanded from reporting primary care attendances to providing data on onward hospital outcomes and deaths. The challenge remains to increase virological and serological sampling to monitor the effectiveness and waning of all vaccines available in a timely manner.

Alopecia areata and risk of atopic and autoimmune conditions: population-based cohort study.

Alopecia areata (AA) has features of both autoimmune and atopic pathogenesis, but information on the risk of people with AA developing autoimmune and atopic conditions is limited. To assess the prevalence and incidence of atopic and autoimmune conditions in people with AA. This was a population-based cohort study of 8051 adults with newly diagnosed AA (AA group) and 32 204 adults in the matched control group, using the UK Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network primary care database, 2009-2018 (trial registration number: NCT04239521). Baseline prevalence of common atopic and autoimmune conditions, and risk of new-onset atopic and autoimmune disease, were estimated. Atopic and autoimmune conditions were more prevalent in the AA group than the control group (atopic 37.2% vs. 26.7%, autoimmune 11.5% vs. 7.9%). The AA group were 43% more likely to develop any new-onset atopic condition [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.43. 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-1.61] and 45% more likely to develop any autoimmune condition (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.28-1.66) compared with the control group. When examining individual conditions, the AA group were at increased risk of atopic dermatitis (aHR 1.91, 95% CI 1.67-2.19), allergic rhinitis (aHR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.54), autoimmune hypothyroidism (aHR 1.65, 95% CI 1.35-2.02), systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR 4.51, 95% CI 1.88-10.82) and vitiligo (aHR 2.39, 95% CI 1.49-3.82). There was no evidence for a higher incidence of other conditions examined. People with AA have an increased burden of atopic and autoimmune comorbidity. This supports previous work suggesting that both T helper cell (Th)1 and Th2 immune responses may be implicated in the pathogenesis of AA.

Long term follow up of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin therapy on stroke, with all-cause mortality as a competing risk, in people with atrial fibrillation: Sentinel network database study.

We investigated differences in risk of stroke, with all-cause mortality as a competing risk, in people newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) who were commenced on either direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin treatment. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database (a network of 500 English general practices). We compared long term exposure to DOAC (n = 5,168) and warfarin (n = 7,451) in new cases of AF not previously treated with oral anticoagulants. Analyses included: survival analysis, estimating cause specific hazard ratios (CSHR), Fine-Gray analysis for factors affecting cumulative incidence of events occurring over time and a cumulative risk regression with time varying effects.We found no difference in CSHR between stroke 1.08 (0.72-1.63, p = 0.69) and all-cause mortality 0.93 (0.81-1.08, p = 0.37), or between the anticoagulant groups. Fine-Gray analysis produced similar results 1.07 (0.71-1.6 p = 0.75) for stroke and 0.93 (0.8-1.07, p = 0.3) mortality. The cumulative risk of mortality with DOAC was significantly elevated in early follow-up (67 days), with cumulative risk decreasing until 1,537 days and all-cause mortality risk significantly decreased coefficient estimate:: -0.23 (-0.38-0.01, p = 0.001); which persisted over seven years of follow-up. In this large, contemporary, real world primary care study with longer follow-up, we found no overall difference in the hazard of stroke between warfarin and DOAC treatment for AF. However, there was a significant time-varying effect between anti-coagulant regimen on all-cause mortality, with DOACs showing better survival. This is a key methodological observation for future follow-up studies, and reassuring for patients and health care professionals for longer duration of therapy.

Interdisciplinary Informatics to Support Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance of Respiratory Infectious Disease Including COVID-19: Donabedian Evaluation.

The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) is one of Europe's oldest sentinel systems, providing sentinel surveillance since 1967. We report the interdisciplinary informatics required to run such a system. We used the Donabedian framework to describe the interdisciplinary informatics roles that support the structures, processes and outcomes of the RSC. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic University, RCGP, information technology specialists, SQL developers, analysts, practice liaison team, network member primary care providers, and their registered patients have nearly quadrupled the size of the RSC from working with 5 million to 19 million peoples pseudonymised health data. We have produced outputs used by the UK Health Security Agency to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 and report vaccine effectiveness. We have also supported a trial of community-based therapies for COVID-19 and other observational studies. The home of the primary care sentinel surveillance network is with a clinical informatics research group. Interdisciplinary informatics teamwork was required to support primary care sentinel surveillance; such teams can accelerate the scale, scope and digital maturity of surveillance systems as demonstrated by the RSC across the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mortality from angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in people infected with COVID-19: a cohort study of 3.7 million people.

BackgroundConcerns have been raised that angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) might facilitate transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 leading to more severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) disease and an increased risk of mortality. We aimed to investigate the association between ACE-I/ARB treatment and risk of death amongst people with COVID-19 in the first 6 months of the pandemic.MethodsWe identified a cohort of adults diagnosed with either confirmed or probable COVID-19 (from 1 January to 21 June 2020) using computerized medical records from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. This comprised 465 general practices in England, United Kingdom with a nationally representative population of 3.7 million people. We constructed mixed-effects logistic regression models to quantify the association between ACE-I/ARBs and all-cause mortality among people with COVID-19, adjusted for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, concurrent medication, smoking status, practice clustering, and household number.ResultsThere were 9,586 COVID-19 cases in the sample and 1,463 (15.3%) died during the study period between 1 January 2020 and 21 June 2020. In adjusted analysis ACE-I and ARBs were not associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.21 and OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67–1.07, respectively).ConclusionUse of ACE-I/ARB, which are commonly used drugs, did not alter the odds of all-cause mortality amongst people diagnosed with COVID-19. Our findings should inform patient and prescriber decisions concerning continued use of these medications during the pandemic.

Developing a Long COVID Phenotype for Postacute COVID-19 in a National Primary Care Sentinel Cohort: Observational Retrospective Database Analysis.

BackgroundFollowing COVID-19, up to 40% of people have ongoing health problems, referred to as postacute COVID-19 or long COVID (LC). LC varies from a single persisting symptom to a complex multisystem disease. Research has flagged that this condition is underrecorded in primary care records, and seeks to better define its clinical characteristics and management. Phenotypes provide a standard method for case definition and identification from routine data and are usually machine-processable. An LC phenotype can underpin research into this condition.ObjectiveThis study aims to develop a phenotype for LC to inform the epidemiology and future research into this condition. We compared clinical symptoms in people with LC before and after their index infection, recorded from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021. We also compared people recorded as having acute infection with those with LC who were hospitalized and those who were not.MethodsWe used data from the Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC) of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database. This network was recruited to be nationally representative of the English population. We developed an LC phenotype using our established 3-step ontological method: (1) ontological step (defining the reasoning process underpinning the phenotype, (2) coding step (exploring what clinical terms are available, and (3) logical extract model (testing performance). We created a version of this phenotype using Protégé in the ontology web language for BioPortal and using PhenoFlow. Next, we used the phenotype to compare people with LC (1) with regard to their symptoms in the year prior to acquiring COVID-19 and (2) with people with acute COVID-19. We also compared hospitalized people with LC with those not hospitalized. We compared sociodemographic details, comorbidities, and Office of National Statistics–defined LC symptoms between groups. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression.ResultsThe long-COVID phenotype differentiated people hospitalized with LC from people who were not and where no index infection was identified. The PCSC (N=7.4 million) includes 428,479 patients with acute COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by a laboratory test and 10,772 patients with clinically diagnosed COVID-19. A total of 7471 (1.74%, 95% CI 1.70-1.78) people were coded as having LC, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.7-14.3) had a hospital admission related to acute COVID-19, and 6462 (86.5%, 95% CI 85.7-87.3) were not hospitalized, of whom 2728 (42.2%) had no COVID-19 index date recorded. In addition, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.73-14.28) people with LC were hospitalized compared to 17,993 (4.5%, 95% CI 4.48-4.61; P<.001) with uncomplicated COVID-19.ConclusionsOur LC phenotype enables the identification of individuals with the condition in routine data sets, facilitating their comparison with unaffected people through retrospective research. This phenotype and study protocol to explore its face validity contributes to a better understanding of LC.

Mortality in COVID-19 among women on hormone replacement therapy: a retrospective cohort study.

BackgroundLimited recent observational data have suggested that there may be a protective effect of oestrogen on the severity of COVID-19 disease. Our aim was to investigate the association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) use and the likelihood of death in women with COVID-19.MethodsWe undertook a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected computerized medical records from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. We identified a cohort of 1,863,478 women over 18 years of age from 465 general practices in England. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to quantify the association between HRT or COCP use and all-cause mortality among women diagnosed with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in unadjusted and adjusted models.ResultsThere were 5,451 COVID-19 cases within the cohort. HRT was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94). There were no reported events for all-cause mortality in women prescribed COCPs. This prevented further examination of the impact of COCP.ConclusionsWe found that HRT prescription within 6 months of a recorded diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. Further work is needed in larger cohorts to examine the association of COCP in COVID-19, and to further investigate the hypothesis that oestrogens may contribute a protective effect against COVID-19 severity.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Glycemic Monitoring and Other Processes of Care for Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BackgroundSocial distancing and other nonpharmaceutical interventions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 infection in the United Kingdom have led to substantial changes in delivering ongoing care for patients with chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Clinical guidelines for the management and prevention of complications for people with T2DM delivered in primary care services advise routine annual reviews and were developed when face-to-face consultations were the norm. The shift in consultations from face-to-face to remote consultations caused a reduction in direct clinical contact and may impact the process of care for people with T2DM.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic’s first year on the monitoring of people with T2DM using routine annual reviews from a national primary care perspective in England.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of adults with T2DM will be performed using routinely collected primary care data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We will describe the change in the rate of monitoring of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the preceding year (2019). We will also report any change in the eight checks that make up the components of these reviews. The change in HbA1c monitoring rates will be determined using a multilevel logistic regression model, adjusting for patient and practice characteristics, and similarly, the change in a composite measure of the completeness of all eight checks will be modeled using ordinal regression. The models will be adjusted for the following patient-level variables: age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, COVID-19 shielding status, duration of diabetes, and comorbidities. The model will also be adjusted for the following practice-level variables: urban versus rural, practice size, Quality and Outcomes Framework achievement, the National Health Service region, and the proportion of face-to-face consultations. Ethical approval was provided by the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (September 2, 2021, reference R77306/RE001).ResultsThe analysis of the data extract will include 3.96 million patients with T2DM across 700 practices, which is 6% of the available Oxford-RCGP RSC adult population. The preliminary results will be submitted to a conference under the domain of primary care. The resulting publication will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal on diabetes and endocrinology.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the delivery of care, but little is known about the process of caring for people with T2DM. This study will report the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these processes of care.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/35971

Sociodemographic disparities in COVID-19 seroprevalence across England in the Oxford RCGP primary care sentinel network

ObjectivesTo monitor changes in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in populations over time and between different demographic groups.MethodsA subset of practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network provided serum samples, collected when volunteer patients had routine blood tests. We tested these samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using Abbott (Chicago, USA), Roche (Basel, Switzerland) and/or Euroimmun (Luebeck, Germany) assays, and linked the results to the patients’ primary care computerised medical records.We report seropositivity by region and age group, and additionally examined the effects of gender, ethnicity, deprivation, rurality, shielding recommendation and smoking status.ResultsWe estimated seropositivity from patients aged 18-100 years old, which ranged from 4.1% (95% CI 3.1–5.3%) to 8.9% (95% CI 7.8–10.2%) across the different assays and time periods. We found higher Euroimmun seropositivity in younger age groups, people of Black and Asian ethnicity (compared to white), major conurbations, and non-smokers. We did not observe any significant effect by region, gender, deprivation, or shielding recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that prior to the vaccination programme, most of the population remained unexposed to SARS-CoV-2.

Valproate prescription to women of childbearing age in English primary care: repeated cross-sectional analyses and retrospective cohort study

BackgroundValproate is a teratogenic drug that should be avoided during the preconception period and pregnancy. The aim was to explore general practitioners’ (GPs) prescription patterns over time, describe trends, and explore inter-practice variation within primary care.MethodsWe identified women of childbearing age (12–46 years old) in the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network. We performed repeated cross-sectional analyses from 2004 to 2018 to determine rates of prescription and a retrospective cohort estimated the prevalence of use of valproate during pregnancy.ResultsIn 2004, 0.31% (95% Confidence Interval (95%CI):0.18 to 0.44%) women were prescribed valproate, decreasing to 0.16% (95%CI:0.07 to 0.24%) by 2018. Among women with epilepsy, the rate fell from 15.2% (95%CI:14.4 to 16.0%) to 8.8% (95% CI:8.2 to 9.7%) over the same period. In 2018, almost two thirds (62.2%) of women who were prescribed valproate had epilepsy only, whereas bipolar disorder and migraine accounted for 15.8% and 7.4% respectively. Contraceptive prescriptions did not increase over time, and only in 2018 was there greater odds of being prescribed contraception (OR 1.41, 95%CI:1.08 to 1.45). Just under a fifth (19.7%) of women were prescribed valproate during their pregnancy; two out of three of these pregnancies were preceded by folic acid prescription (5 mg). While some practices reduced their rate of valproate prescription, others did not.ConclusionsRegulatory guidelines have changed GPs' prescription patterns in women of childbearing potential for valproate but not for contraception. Further research is needed to identify the barriers of GPs and women of childbearing potential to undertaking contraception.

Adherence to the paediatric immunisation schedule in England

Both adequate coverage and adherence to paediatric immunisation schedules are required for optimal protection against vaccine preventable diseases. We studied the timeliness of routine paediatric vaccinations according to the NHS’s immunisation schedule and potential factors of schedule adherence. Immunisation data was obtained from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We collected vaccine types, doses, and dates for all routine paediatric vaccines between 2008 and 2018: DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB, DTaP/IPV/Hib, DTaP/IPV, dTaP/IPV, Td/IPV, MMR, PCV, MenB, MenC, MenACWY, Hib/MenC, RV, HPV. Adherence to the immunisation schedule was calculated for each vaccine and dose. Differences in adherence between genders, NHS regions, and IMD quintiles were analysed. Our study included 6′257′828 vaccinations in 1′005′827 children. Seventy-five percent of first doses were administered within one (for vaccines scheduled in the first year of life) or two months (for vaccines scheduled later in life) following the recommended age, 19% too late and 6% too early. About half of the subsequent doses were given timely. The time between first and second doses was too short for 36% of vaccinations while 13% of second doses were administered too long after the first dose. Third doses were administered timely for 45%, too short for 37%, and too long for 18% of vaccinations. Differences in immunisation schedule adherence between girls and boys were negligible, except for HPV, and differences between the four main NHS regions were small. Overall, immunisation schedule adherence improved slightly with decreasing deprivation according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Efforts are required to improve the timeliness of paediatric vaccinations and to assure adequate protection against vaccine preventable diseases. We propose developing a compound measure combining coverage and adherence to provide a better indication of the protection against vaccine preventable diseases in a community.

The epidemiology of alopecia areata: a population-based cohort study in UK primary care.

SummaryBackgroundThere is a lack of population‐based information on the disease burden and management of alopecia areata (AA).ObjectivesTo describe the epidemiology of AA, focusing on incidence, demographics and patterns of healthcare utilization.MethodsPopulation‐based cohort study of 4·16 million adults and children, using UK electronic primary care records from the Oxford‐Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network database, 2009–2018. The incidence and point prevalence of AA were estimated. Variation in AA incidence by age, sex, deprivation, geographical distribution and ethnicity was examined. Patterns of healthcare utilization were evaluated in people with incident AA.ResultsThe AA incidence rate was 0·26 per 1000 person‐years. AA point prevalence in 2018 was 0·58% in adults. AA onset peaked at age 25–29 years for both sexes, although the peak was broader in females. People of nonwhite ethnicity were more likely to present with AA, especially those of Asian ethnicity [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 3·32 (95% confidence interval 3·11–3·55)]. Higher AA incidence was associated with social deprivation [IRR most vs. least deprived quintile 1·47 (1·37–1·59)] and urban living [IRR 1·23 (1·14–1·32)]. People of higher social deprivation were less likely to be referred for specialist dermatology review.ConclusionsBy providing the first large‐scale estimates of the incidence and point prevalence of AA, our study helps to understand the burden of AA on the population. Understanding the variation in AA onset between different population groups may give insight into the pathogenesis of AA and its management.

Co-administration of routine paediatric vaccines in England often deviates from the immunisation schedule

Vaccine co-administration can facilitate the introduction of new vaccines in immunisation schedules and improve coverage. We analysed real life data to quantify the extent of routine paediatric vaccine co-administrations as recommended and as never recommended in the immunisation schedule in England, and assessed factors for recommended and never recommended vaccine co-administrations.Immunisation data for all scheduled routine paediatric vaccines between 2008 and 2018 was obtained from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC).We included 6′257′828 doses administered to 1′005′827 children. Twenty-one percent of vaccines were given separately, 79% were co-administered. Sixty-four percent of vaccines scheduled for co-administration were co-administered as recommended while 15% were administered separately. Among all vaccine co-administrations, 75% happened as recommended in the schedule, 4% were never recommended, while 21% deviated from the schedule. Vaccine co-administration according to the schedule varied greatly between vaccines. Forty-eight percent of English children received at least one of their vaccine co-administrations not as recommended in the immunisation schedule, with 19% of children receiving none of their co-administered vaccines as recommended. Late administration of one or more vaccines increased the odds for deviated co-administrations (OR 1.60) and strongly increased the odds for never recommended co-administrations (OR 5.34). Differences between genders, NHS regions, and IMD quintiles were statistically significant but small.Suboptimal co-administration rates for routine paediatric vaccines are a missed opportunity and should be optimised by concerted public health action.

PRINCIPLE trial demonstrates scope for in-pandemic improvement in primary care antibiotic stewardship: a retrospective sentinel network cohort study

BackgroundThe Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE (PRINCIPLE) has provided in-pandemic evidence that azithromycin and doxycycline were not beneficial in the early primary care management of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19).AimTo explore the extent of in-pandemic azithromycin and doxycycline use, and the scope for trial findings impacting on practice.Design & settingCrude rates of prescribing and respiratory tract infections (RTI) in 2020 were compared with 2019, using the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC).MethodNegative binomial models were used to compare azithromycin and doxycycline prescribing, lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), and influenza-like illness (ILI) in 2020 with 2019; reporting incident rate ratios (IRR) between years, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).ResultsAzithromycin prescriptions increased 7% in 2020 compared with 2019, whereas doxycycline decreased by 7%. Concurrently, LRTI and URTI incidence fell by over half (58.3% and 54.4%, respectively) while ILI rose slightly (6.4%). The overall percentage of RTI-prescribed azithromycin rose from 0.51% in 2019 to 0.72% in 2020 (risk difference 0.214%; 95% CI = 0.211 to 0.217); doxycycline rose from 11.86% in 2019 to 15.79% in 2020 (risk difference 3.93%; 95% CI = 3.73 to 4.14). The adjusted IRR showed azithromycin prescribing was 22% higher in 2020 (IRR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.26; P<0.0001). For every unit rise in confirmed COVID-19 there was an associated 3% rise in prescription (IRR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.03; P<0.0001); whereas these measures were static for doxycycline.ConclusionPRINCIPLE demonstrates scope for improved antimicrobial stewardship during a pandemic.

Prescribing sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes in primary care: influence of renal function and heart failure diagnosis

BackgroundSodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) are licenced for initiation for glucose lowering in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2). However, recent trial data have shown that these medications have renal and cardio-protective effects, even for impaired kidney function. The extent to which trial evidence and updated guidelines have influenced real-world prescribing of SGLT-2is is not known, particularly with co-administration of diuretics.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of people with T2DM registered with practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database on the 31st July 2019. We calculated the percentage of people prescribed SGLT-2is according to eGFR categories (< 45, 45–59, and ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2), with a heart failure diagnosis and stratified by body mass index categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese), and with concomitant prescription of a diuretic. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether heart failure diagnosis and renal function were associated with SGLT-2i prescribing.ResultsFrom a population of 242,624 people with T2DM across 419 practices, 11.0% (n = 26,700) had been prescribed SGLT-2is. The majority of people initiated SGLT-2is had an eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (93.2%), and 4.3% had a heart failure diagnosis. 9,226 (3.8%) people were prescribed SGLT-2is as an add-on to their diuretic prescription. People in the highest eGFR category (≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2) were more likely to be prescribed SGLT-2is than those in eGFR lower categories. Overweight (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.841–2.274) and obese people (OR 3.84, 95% CI 3.472–4.250) were also more likely to be prescribed these medications, whilst use of diuretics (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.682–0.804) and heart failure (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.653–0.998) were associated with lower odds of being prescribed SGLT-2is.ConclusionsPrescribing patterns of SGLT-2is for glucose lowering in T2DM in primary care generally concur with licenced indications according to recommended renal thresholds. A small percentage of people with heart failure were prescribed SGLT-2is for T2DM. An updated analysis is merited should UK National Institute for Health Care and Excellence prescribing guidelines for T2DM be revised to incorporate new data on the benefits for those with reduced renal function or with heart failure.

Dashboards to reduce inappropriate prescribing of metformin and aspirin: A quality assurance programme in a primary care sentinel network

AimsTo pilot two dashboards to monitor prescribing of metformin and aspirin according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ‘Do-Not-Do’ recommendations. MethodsThis quality assurance programme was conducted in twelve general practices of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network. We developed dashboards to flag inappropriate prescribing of metformin and aspirin to people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In Phase 1, six practices (Group A) received a dashboard flagging suboptimal metformin prescriptions in people with reduced renal function. The other six practices (Group B) were controls. In Phase 2, Group B were provided a dashboard to flag inappropriate aspirin prescribing and Group A were controls. We used logistic regression to explore associations between dashboard exposure and inappropriate prescribing. ResultsThe cohort comprised 5644 individuals (Group A, n = 2656; Group B, n = 2988). Half (51.6%, n = 2991) were prescribed metformin of which 15 (0.5%) were inappropriate (Group A, n = 10; Group B, n = 5). A fifth (17.6%, n = 986) were prescribed aspirin of which 828 (84.0%) were inappropriate. During Phase 1, metformin was stopped in 50% (n = 5) of people in Group A, compared with 20% (n = 1) in the control group (Group B); in Phase 2, the odds ratio of inappropriate aspirin prescribing was significantly lower in practices that received the dashboard versus control (0.44, 95%CI 0.27−0.72). ConclusionsIt was feasible to use a dashboard to flag inappropriate prescribing. Whilst underpowered to report a change in metformin, we demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate aspirin prescribing.

Predicting Risk of Hospital Admission in Patients With Suspected COVID-19 in a Community Setting: Protocol for Development and Validation of a Multivariate Risk Prediction Tool.

BackgroundDuring the pandemic, remote consultations have become the norm for assessing patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 to decrease the risk of transmission. This has intensified the clinical uncertainty already experienced by primary care clinicians when assessing patients with suspected COVID-19 and has prompted the use of risk prediction scores, such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), to assess severity and guide treatment. However, the risk prediction tools available have not been validated in a community setting and are not designed to capture the idiosyncrasies of COVID-19 infection.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to produce a multivariate risk prediction tool, RECAP-V1 (Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care), to support primary care clinicians in the identification of those patients with COVID-19 that are at higher risk of deterioration and facilitate the early escalation of their treatment with the aim of improving patient outcomes.MethodsThe study follows a prospective cohort observational design, whereby patients presenting in primary care with signs and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 will be followed and their data linked to hospital outcomes (hospital admission and death). Data collection will be carried out by primary care clinicians in four arms: North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups (NWL CCGs), Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), Covid Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS), and South East London CCGs (Doctaly platform). The study involves the use of an electronic template that incorporates a list of items (known as RECAP-V0) thought to be associated with disease outcome according to previous qualitative work. Data collected will be linked to patient outcomes in highly secure environments. We will then use multivariate logistic regression analyses for model development and validation.ResultsRecruitment of participants started in October 2020. Initially, only the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC arms were active. As of March 24, 2021, we have recruited a combined sample of 3827 participants in these two arms. CCAS and Doctaly joined the study in February 2021, with CCAS starting the recruitment process on March 15, 2021. The first part of the analysis (RECAP-V1 model development) is planned to start in April 2021 using the first half of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC combined data set. Posteriorly, the model will be validated with the rest of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC data as well as the CCAS and Doctaly data sets. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee on May 27, 2020 (Integrated Research Application System number: 283024, Research Ethics Committee reference number: 20/NW/0266) and badged as National Institute of Health Research Urgent Public Health Study on October 14, 2020.ConclusionsWe believe the validated RECAP-V1 early warning score will be a valuable tool for the assessment of severity in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community, either in face-to-face or remote consultations, and will facilitate the timely escalation of treatment with the potential to improve patient outcomes.Trial RegistrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN13953727; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13953727International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/29072