ObjectiveTo ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England.DesignRetrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England.SettingRoutine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.ParticipantsOutpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes.InterventionsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units.Results93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%).ConclusionsUsing the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

Background From December 16th 2021, antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMABs) were available to treat high-risk non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in England. Aims To develop a framework for detailed near real-time monitoring of treatment deployment, to ascertain eligibility status for patients and to describe trends and variation in coverage of treatment between geographic, clinical and demographic groups. Methods With the approval of NHS England we conducted a retrospective cohort study using routine clinical data from 23.4m people in the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, approximately 40% of England's population. We implemented national eligibility criteria and generated descriptive statistics with detailed clinical, demographic and geographic breakdowns for patients receiving an antiviral or nMAB. Results We identified 50,730 non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between 11th December 2021 and 23rd February 2022 who were potentially eligible for antiviral and/or nMAB treatment. 6420 (15%) received treatment (sotrovimab 3600 (56%); molnupiravir 2680 (42%); nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) 80 (1%); casirivimab 50 (1%); and remdesivir <5). The proportion treated varied by risk group, with the lowest proportion treated in those with liver disease (10%; 95% CI 9-11). Treatment type also varied, with molnupiravir favoured over sotrovimab in only two high risk cohorts: Down syndrome (67%; 95% CI 59-74) and HIV/AIDS (63%; 95% CI 56-70). The proportion treated varied by ethnicity, from White (14%; 95% CI 13-14) or Asian (13%; 95% CI 12-14) to Black (9%; 95% CI 8-11); by NHS Regions (from 6% (95% CI 5-6) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 17% (95% CI 16-18) in the East of England); and by rurality from 16% (95% CI 14-17) in "Rural - village and dispersed" to 10% (95% CI 10-11) in "Urban - conurbation". There was also lower coverage among care home residents (4%; 95% CI 3-4), those with dementia (4%; 95% CI 3-5), those with sickle cell disease (7%; 95% CI 5-8), and in the most socioeconomically deprived areas (9%; 95% CI 8-9, vs least deprived: 15%; 95% CI 15-16). Patients who were housebound, or who had a severe mental illness had a slightly reduced chance of being treated (10%; 95% CI 8-11 and 10%; 95% CI 8-12, respectively). Unvaccinated patients were substantially less likely to receive treatment (5%; 95% CI 4-6). Conclusions Using the OpenSAFELY platform we have developed and delivered a rapid, near real-time data-monitoring framework for the roll-out of antivirals and nMABs in England that can deliver detailed coverage reports in fine-grained clinical and demographic risk groups, using publicly auditable methods, using linked but pseudonymised patient-level NHS data in a highly secure Trusted Research Environment. Targeted activity may be needed to address apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, socioeconomically deprived areas, and care homes.

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.

Background: Cardiovascular disease management in primary care in England was disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: We aim to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure screening and hypertension management, based upon a national quality of care scheme (Quality and Outcomes Framework, QOF) across key demographic, regional, and clinical subgroups. To this end, we translate complex clinical quality of care schemes from text descriptions into reusable analytic code. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, a population based cohort study was conducted on 25.2 million patient records in situ using OpenSAFELY-TPP. We included all NHS patients registered at general practices using TPP software between March 2019 and March 2023. Individuals that were eligible for blood pressure screening and with a diagnosis of hypertension were identified according to the QOF 2021/22 business rules. We examined monthly changes in recorded blood pressure screening in the preceding 5 years in patients aged ≥ 45, recorded hypertension prevalence, and the recorded percentage of patients treated to target (i.e., ≤ 140/90 mmHg for patients ≤ 79 years and ≤ 150/90 mmHg for patients ≥ 80 years) in the preceding 12 months, within demographic, regional, and clinical subgroups as well as the variation across practices. Results: The overall percentage of patients aged ≥ 45 who had blood pressure screening recorded in the preceding 5 years decreased from 90% in March 2019 to 85% in March 2023. Recorded hypertension prevalence was relatively stable at 15% throughout the study period. The percentage of patients with a record of hypertension treated to target in the preceding 12 months reduced from a maximum of 71% in March 2020 to a minimum of 47% in February 2021 in patients aged ≤ 79 years, and from 85% in March 2020 to a minimum of 58% in February 2021 in patients aged ≥ 80 years before recovering. Blood pressure screening rates in the preceding 5 years remained stable in older age groups, patients with a record of learning disability, or care home status. Conclusions: There was substantial disruption to hypertension management QOF indicators during the pandemic, which can likely be attributed to a general reduction of blood pressure screening. OpenSAFELY can be used to continuously monitor monthly changes in national quality of care schemes to identify changes in key clinical subgroups early and support prioritisation of recovery from disrupted care caused by COVID-19.

Background The effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody and antiviral therapies against severe COVID-19 outcomes is unclear. Initial benefit was shown in unvaccinated patients and before the Omicron variant emerged. We used the OpenSAFELY platform to emulate target trials to estimate the effectiveness of sotrovimab or molnupiravir, versus no treatment. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we derived population-based cohorts of non-hospitalised high-risk individuals in England testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 during periods of dominance of the BA.1 (16/12/2021-10/02/2022) and BA.2 (11/02/2022-21/05/2022) Omicron sublineages. We used the clone-censor-weight approach to estimate the effect of treatment with sotrovimab or molnupiravir initiated within 5 days after positive test versus no treatment. Hazard ratios (HR) for COVID-19 hospitalisation or death within 28 days were estimated using weighted Cox models. Results Of the 35,856 [BA.1 period] and 39,192 [BA.2 period] patients, 1,830 [BA.1] and 1,242 [BA.2] were treated with molnupiravir and 2,244 [BA.1] and 4,164 [BA.2] with sotrovimab. The estimated HRs for molnupiravir versus untreated were 1.00 (95%CI: 0.81;1.22) [BA.1] and 1.22 (0.96;1.56) [BA.2]; corresponding HRs for sotrovimab versus untreated were 0.76 (0.66;0.89) [BA.1] and 0.92 (0.79;1.06) [BA.2]. Interpretation Compared with no treatment, sotrovimab was associated with reduced risk of adverse outcomes after COVID-19 in the BA.1 period, but there was weaker evidence of benefit in the BA2 period. Molnupiravir was not associated with reduced risk in either period.