The adverse impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and management in England, Scotland and Wales: A population-scale analysis of trends in medication data

Data

We studied anonymised individual-level population-scale data from England, Scotland and Wales accessed through the respective national Trusted Research Environments (TREs), i.e. NHS Digital’s TRE for England (referred to throughout as ‘the English TRE’), the Scottish National Safe Haven and the SAIL Databank. Motivated by the public health importance of understanding the relationship between COVID-19 and CVD, the Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) British Heart Foundation (BHF) Data Science Centre (DSC) established the CVD-COVID-UK consortium and related research programme^5,6. Through this partnership, linked, nationally-collated electronic health record (EHR) data for the population of England, Scotland and Wales have been made available to support research into the impacts of CVD on COVID-19 and vice versa. Details of the collaboration and the data included within each of the national TREs are described in full elsewhere. Data processing for this work are available under an open source license at https://github.com/BHFDSC/CCU014_01.

Categorisation of CVD risk factor medications

Medicines were selected from BNF Chapters 2 (Cardiovascular System) and 6 (Endocrine System)¹⁷. These were manually curated (initially by RS; reviewed by AS) to choose therapies used to treat and/ or licenced to treat the major CVD risk factors: blood pressure, AF, LDL-cholesterol and diabetes. Anticoagulants were categorised on their own and by class: vitamin K antagonists (VKA), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and heparins. This allowed analysis of behaviours within the anticoagulant category; for example, differential use of VKAs and DOACs during the pandemic. Some medicines are used in more than one category; for example, anticoagulants may be used to treat AF (most commonly VKAs and DOACs) but can also be used to treat deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Medicines used to treat hypertension and heart failure are also often overlapping. Here medicines were categorised and analysed in only one group to prevent double counting. Hence most blood pressure lowering agents were classified as antihypertensives apart from some classes of beta blockers, loop diuretics (and some thiazides e.g. metolazone), and sacubitril/valsartan which are used specifically for heart failure. This may result in undercounting for medicines used in heart failure in these analyses and consequently heart failure as a condition may be under-represented. Antiplatelets were classified on their own as they can be used for primary and secondary prevention for MI, stroke and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). An additional and separate category of medicines that are mainly used as anti-anginals was created. Insulins and other glucose lowering therapies for T2DM were categorised separately, although it is well known that a proportion of individuals with T2DM will also be on insulins. However, understanding the trends over time in the separate categories may be important specifically in tracking incident T2DM. Like antihypertensives certain medicines may have more than one indication, e.g. SGLT-2 inhbitors are now licenced for heart failure. Additional analyses could be carried out linking to disease code although this was out of scope for the analyses presesented here. Excluded medicines were all intravenous preparations, those used to treat pulmonary hypertension, anti-arrhythmics where the indication is unlikely to be AF, sclerosants and medicines with very low prescription rates. Medicines included in each of the 11 CVD sub-groups: Antihypertensives, Antiplatelets secondary prevention (primary for DM), DOAC, Warfarin, Heparins, Lipid lowering, T2DM, Insulin, Heart failure, AF, Angina are shown in Appendix Table 1.

Medication Data Processing

A detailed description of the medications data processing undertaken in each national TRE is given in the Supplementary Methods and at https://github.com/BHFDSC/CCU014_01. For all analyses (with the exception of the interrupted time series analysis), dispensing data were used as these are more likely to be indicative of individuals taking medicines and were available in all three nations. Within the English TRE, NHSBSA was screened to identify all possible dispensed medicines. Both dispensed and prescribed data were mapped to the British National Formulary (BNF)¹⁷ (via DM+D or SNOMED concepts), and the medication substance identified using the 8^th BNF character to facilitate categorisation according to CVD sub-group.

Analyses were mirrored in the Scottish National Safe Haven & SAIL Databank using the same inclusion criteria, code lists and categorisation for CVD medicines using BNF codes selected and extracted from the English TRE, with some adjustments required due to specifics of the datasets in each (see Supplementary Methods for description in full). Summary output files from each nation were extracted and combined with results from other nations.

In this study we focused on the major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors with antihypertensives, lipid-lowering medications, T2DM and insulin medications. We presented results for dispensed medications for these four CVD sub-groups combined and by each individual sub-group. Results on medications for the remaining seven CVD sub-groups are presented in the Supplementary Material. Within each of the CVD sub-groups, we identified the first time a medication was dispensed to an individual during the study period (Figure 1). By highlighting monthly trends in first (incident) medication use, we can understand changes in the rate of identification of CVD risk factors and unmet control within individuals due to the pandemic.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

FIGURE 1: Flowchart showing selection of analytical datasets from NHSBSA (England)

Study Population

Statistical Analyses

Incident CVD medications

We identified the first recorded occurrence of a dispensed medicine from each CVD sub-group within an individual during the study period March 2019 to May 2021. We allowed an initial clearance window for 12 months prior to March 2019 to correct for the high levels of apparent “incidence” in the first few months of data availability. This facilitated identification of within-person incidence at the level of the CVD sub-group; it did not however equate to incidence for the wider CVD medicines group as a whole since individuals may be incident for more than one of the CVD sub-groups.

Impact of missed treatment on future CVD events

Whilst a full economic analysis was out of scope for this analysis, taking hypertension as an example, we estimated the potential impact of missed cardiovascular risk factor treatment on CVD events using the most recent cost-effectiveness analysis model developed for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (NICE guideline NG136)¹⁹, adapting the base case to reflect characteristics of the missed incident hypertensive population. For this we identified characteristics of the 2019 incident population for antihypertensives (mean age, proportion sex, T2DM, smoking) within the English TRE. Using this information in the QRISK2 calculator²⁰ we calculated weighted 10-year QRISK2% scores for the NICE treatment effect model base case, additionally specifying SBP at 150mmHg (the threshold for stage 2 antihypertensive treatment using home blood pressure monitoring). Inputting these 10-year QRISK2% scores into the NICE model, we calculated the number of CVD events expected with and without hypertensive treatment (including stratification by stable and unstable angina MI, transient ischaemic attack, stroke and heart failure). We scaled the number of CVD events per 1000 to the missed incident medicines for the treatment of hypertension observed in our analyses across England, Scotland and Wales. We focused on hypertension as the most common CVD risk factor and the most common CVD risk factor for which medicines are prescribed.

Overall trends in the dispensing rate of medications

Background rates of CVD medicines dispensed per person per year from March 2020-February 2021 versus the previous year varied by country, increasing in England and Scotland but decreasing in Wales (Table 1). In England rates increased from 26.0 to 27.0 CVD medicines per person per year, equating to almost one additional medicine dispensed per person per year (Table 1). This increase can predominantly be accounted for by an increase in the four CVD medicines for hypertension, dysliplidemia and diabetes which increased from 21.4 to 22.4 medicines per person per year in England. Rates for other CVD sub-groups increased less (14.5 to 14.9 medicines per person per year). In contrast, in Wales dispensed rates per person per year fell by a similar amount from 32.8 to 32.0 CVD medicines per person per year, while annual rates in Scotland were more stable increasing by 0.4 to 18.9 medicines per person per year.

There was an increase in total items of medications dispensed for the common CVD risk factors of hypertension, dysliplidemia and diabetes in the immediate pre-pandemic period (dispense +11.8% March 2020 vs. March 2019) (Figure 2; Supplementary Table 1). This compared to year-on-year monthly percentage change ranging between −1.4 and 4.9% in the year before pandemic onset. Year-on-year dispensed percentage did not fall below 2019 levels until May 2020 when initial lockdown restrictions were beginning to be relaxed. Dispensed items again fell below 2019 levels in August 2020 (−9.3%), October 2020 (−1.2%) ahead of the second national lockdown and November 2020 (−0.3%). In comparison, year-on-year dispensing was 4.7% higher in December 2020 ahead of the third national lockdown. The number of medicines was below the previous year throughout early 2021 until April. Overall, we observe a downward trend in the annual percent change in CVD medicines dispensed over the course of 2020 and into 2021 suggesting a decline in the active management of CVD in the population (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

FIGURE 2: Trends in dispensed CVD medicines over course of pandemic by CVD/ CVD risk factor sub-groups; i) counts by month, and ii) percentage change year-on-year by month; including England, Scotland and Wales.

Footnotes: Dotted lines indicate timing of first, second and third national lockdowns: 26^th March 2020, 5^th November 2020 and 6^th January 2021 respectively

Trends by CVD risk factor, proxied by prevalent medicines

A general pattern of sharp growth in year-on-year medicines dispensed in the pre-pandemic period followed by dispensing below 2019 levels in May 2020 is seen across the CVD sub-groups (Figure 2). The most marked year-on-year spike was observed for insulin at +24% in March 2020, followed by dispensing levels below 2019 in May and August 2020. Marked changes were also observed for dispensing of anticoagulant medicines with an acceleration in the decline in warfarin during 2020-21 after an initial spike in March 2020 (Supplementary Figure 2). In contrast DOAC dispensing maintained year-on-year growth, but the rate of growth declined (Supplementary Figure 2).

Interrupted time series analyses

We observed a sharp increase in the prescription of CVD medicines in England prior to the first national lockdown, which was similar to increases characteristically observed prior to Christmas (Figure 3a). However, unlike Christmas there was no clear subsequent drop in medications prescribed in the week(s) immediately following. The period between the first and second national lockdowns was characterised by declining CVD prescriptions, and, unlike the first lockdown, there was no clear uplift in CVD prescriptions observed in the four-week period preceding the second national lockdown (Figure 3b). There was some evidence that the third national lockdown was preceded by a week of uplift; although the period overlap with Christmas and New Year fluctuations hinders interpretation. A similar pattern is observed across all CVD sub-groups.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

FIGURE 3a: Interrupted time series analysis of prescribed CVD medicines (weekly counts) April 2018 to May 2021, by CVD risk factor; England

Footnotes: Prescribed medicines are analysed for weekly counts; lower counts at weeks 52, 104-5, 154-5 correspond to Christmas & New Year period 2018, 2019, 2020. Peak at weeks 114-117 corresponds to first national lockdown in England. The following sub-periods were classified in the ITS regression: two weeks before Christmas (2018, 2019, 2020), Christmas & New Year period (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21), four weeks before national lockdowns (first: 23^rd March 2020, second: announced 31^st October 2020 for 5^th November 2020, third: 6^th January 2021 – the latter is only one week in duration due to overlap with the Christmas & New Year period 2020-21). Medication data prior to March 2020 and other remaining weeks were used to establish the trend, providing a comparison against which to evaluate the impact of the pandemic. A strength of ITS is that it is typically less affected by common confounding variables (e.g. age, sex etc.) as these change slowly over time. Nevertheless, this method can be affected by time-varying confounders that can change rapidly¹⁴. For this reason, we adjusted for seasonality, as it can be considered a time-dependent confounder in our analysis, using linear, quadratic and cubic functions of time (in weeks). Cubic models provided the best fit for the overall prescribed CVD medicines model and are therefore presented for all CVD sub-groups

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

FIGURE 3b: Forest plots of interrupted time series analysis coefficients; prescribed medicines April 2018 to May 2021, by CVD risk factor; England

Footnote: Beta coefficients (& 95% CIs) of change in count of prescribed medicines associated with specified time period. Interrupted time series analysis additionally adjusted for t, t² and t³.

Dispensing trends by individual demographic characteristics

Data were missing for 6.5% of dispensed CVD medications for region and 1.6% for ethnicity. The highest year-on-year uplifts ahead of the first national lockdown were observed in the age bands 18-29 and 30-39 (Supplementary Figures 3a & b). Similar patterns were observed in males and females. Yorkshire and The Humber saw the most pronounced year-on-year uplift in dispensed medicines associated with the first national lockdown and further subsequent peaks in June-July, September reflecting additional local restrictions at those times. London also saw more marked uplifts for subsequent peaks compared to other regions including in December coinciding with the earlier local introduction of Tier 4 restrictions²¹. Similar trends were observed in Scotland and Wales with marked change in year-on-year dispensing associated with the first national lockdown. The Black ethnic group had a delayed uplift in dispensing with year-on-year growth peaking in April 2020 rather than March. A more detailed breakdown by ethnic group is available in England (see Supplementary Figure 3c).

Trends for incident CVD medications

We observe a marked decrease in incident dispensing for antihypertensives, lipid-lowering medications and T2DM medications in the immediate post-pandemic period (Figure 4). The easing of lockdown restrictions in May 2020 was followed by a slow recovery in incident prescriptions, but this recovery plateaued with the second and third national lockdowns (5^th November 2020 and 6^th January 2021 respectively). Incident medications continued to recover through the first half of 2021, with a spike in March 2021 coinciding with the end of the “stay at home” message; however, levels remain markedly lower than in the pre-pandemic period. On average 23,909 fewer patients per month were being commenced on antihypertensives and 14,793 fewer patients on lipid-lowering medications per month during the first half of 2021 compared with the same months in 2019 (Table 2). Interestingly, the equivalent change for T2DM is 1,642 more incident patients per month.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

FIGURE 4: Trends in incident medications dispensed by CVD/ CVD risk factor sub-group; counts by month; England, Scotland and Wales.

Footnotes: Dotted lines indicate timing of first, second and third national lockdowns: 26^th March 2020, 5^th November 2020 and 6^th January 2021 respectively.

Impact of missed treatment on future CVD events

During the period March 2020 to end May 2021 491,203 fewer individuals initiated antihypertensive treatment across England, Scotland and Wales than would have been expected had 2019 incident treatment levels sustained. Using the NICE hypertension treatment model¹⁹ we estimate that 13,659 additional CVD events will result from the non-initiation of hypertension treatment associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, assuming that this non-treatment were to remain uncorrected for the duration of these individuals’ lives (Table 4). This would equate to an additional 2,281 myocardial infarctions and 3,474 strokes resulting from the under-treatment of hypertension alone associated with the COVID-19 pandemic during the period March 2020 to July 2021. Assuming the missed individuals were identified for treatment after five years reduces the total number of CVD events associated with the pandemic to 2,715 CVD events; suggesting that at least 1,555 myocardial infarctions and 3,014 strokes can be avoided if the individuals who have missed incident treatment due to the pandemic can be identified and commenced within this timespan. CVD outcomes for other risk factors (e.g. lipid lowering, T2DM medications) are not estimated here, nor was the additive risk of having one or more of the CVD risk factors which would increase an individual’s absolute risk of a CVD event. In addition, we only consider first treatment with any antihypertensive (rather than specific medicines); this will therefore incorporate individuals started on more than one agent as well as those commenced on monotherapy. As such, this represents conservative estimates of CVD events associated with non-treatment of CVD risk factors due to the pandemic.

Statement of principal findings

This is the first time that nationwide English, Scottish and Welsh data have been used to describe patterns in dispensed medications. We have used this unique capability to describe how CVD medication has changed during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were marked differences in percentage year-on-year dispensing of CVD medicines by month in 2020-21, including notable uplifts ahead of the first (11.8% higher) but not subsequent national lockdowns. We estimate the number of individuals who are likely to have missed having a major cardiovascular risk factor treated during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to pre-pandemic levels in 2019, incident use of antihypertensives in early 2021 fell by an average of 23,909 per month and incident lipid lowering medicines by 14,793 per month. Using hypertension as an example we observed 491,203 fewer individuals initiating antihypertensive treatment across England, Scotland and Wales during the period March 2020 to end May 2021 than would have been expected compared to 2019. An estimate of the additional future impact resulting from this under-treatment of hypertension alone is 13,659 additional cardiovascular events if these individuals remain untreated, equating to 2,281 additional MIs and 3,474 additional strokes. Our data demonstrate that whilst there has been some recovery in dispensing of medications from the initial declines following the first lockdown, crucial first detection of most CVD risk factors as proxied by medicines has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. The numbers presented here are likely to be underestimates of the indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as they are based only only on hypertension; a fuller analysis of the impact would need to include all CVD categories.

Use of incident medicines to treat T2DM increased by 1,642 patients per month in the first half of 2021 despite the likely reduced detection, potentially reflecting an increase in new onset T2DM in the population as a result of the events of 2020-21and/ or an awareness of the additional risk of COVID-19 amongst the population and GPs for those with T2DM. This is supported by other evidence pointing to an increase in CVD risk factors within the UK population since the start of the pandemic: for example, BMI is estimated to have increased by ∼+1kg/m^{2 22}. Other lifestyle factors not captured through medicines might have increased over the course of the pandemic. Data collected through the ZOE app, suggest that in addition to weight gain, other adverse lifestyle factors reported to have increased include snacking (35%), reduced physical activity (34%) and alcohol consumption (27%) which will further contribute to the risk of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and T2DM²². Evidence from other countries also suggests CVD risk factors may have increased during the course of the pandemic, including hypertension²³. This risk factor increase is not measured in our analyses and therefore may further underestimate the indirect impact of COVID-19 on CVD risk management.

Detection and treatment of CVD risk factors in primary care is usually through routine care of established disease and via vascular health checks and opportunistic screening with mechanisms such as: the Quality of Outcomes Framework (QOF) in England²⁴, the Quality Assurance and Improvement Framework (QAIF) in Wales²⁵, the Transitional Quality Arrangements (TQA) Framework in Scotland²⁶. During the pandemic, early analyses demonstrated that primary care visits fell by 30% from March to June 2020, with many existing visits being replaced by electronic or telephone consultations^2,27; and the total number of primary care appointments was 10% lower in 2020-21 compared to 2019-2020³. This decrease also mirrors a decrease in acute CVD events presenting to secondary care²⁸. During different stages of the pandemic there was a re-opening of services, although standard mechanisms of screening risk factors have not been wholly re-introduced²⁹. The proportion of face-to-face appointments dropped from 79% to 54%⁴. Declines in consultation rates varied by age, ethnicity and region³; with some sub-groups known to have a higher risk of CVD and risk factors associated with CVD³⁰, including men, less affluent patients and immigrants, are less likely to access remote consultations³¹. The decline in treatment of incident CVDs we observe might be explained by suspension of incentivised screening and routine reviews such as pay for performance (QOF) as well as a reduction in face-to-face consultations as many appointments continue to be remote²⁷.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

This is the largest ever study to date using a medicines lens to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CVD risk factors at a population-scale in England, Scotland and Wales. A strength of using a medicines perspective is that it is closer to the active control of CVD risk factors in the patient population. We developed and applied a new categorisation of CVD medicines according to prescribed medicine use for this purpose informed by pharmacological and clinical knowledge of use of these medicines in practice. A limitation relates to the difficulty in assigning diseases for overlapping indications for some medications. The approach we used aligns with the primary indication for a medication as per the BNF. This may result in underestimates of certain CVDs. For example, heart failure is likely to be underestimated as management options overlap with hypertension and type-2 diabetes (e.g. ACE-I, beta blockers and SGLT-2 inhibitors). This analysis could be extended in future work by linking to disease diganosis codes to refine estimates for heart failure. However, the analyses presented here do give an indication of the overall missed CVD risk factors to alert policy makers to the indirect effect of COVID-19.

These analyses do not take account of dispensed quantity with each dispense counting as a single unit and this issue lends itself to further research. We used atorvastatin 40mg and simvastatin 40mg to demonstrate that this is unlikely to be affecting these analyses (Supplementary Table 5), as quantities of these medicines remained stable over the course of the pandemic. Observed differences in quantity by country may explain variation observed in inter-country dispensing rates. Medication data analysed here represent real world data that were not collected for research purposes; it is possible that artefact may exist within the data due to differences in collection, processing or transfer and these may vary over time and by source. We observed a decline in the proportion of medications dispensed with invalid (“null”) IDs over time in the English data corresponding with an ongoing switch away from paper-based to electronic processing³² (Supplementary Figure 1); valid IDs are required for linkage with other data including individual characteristics.

Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing important differences in results

This work complements and meaningfully extends other evidence. An early report from the Health Foundation using data from CPRD indicated that there was an increase prior to the first lockdown of prescribed and dispensed medicines². This is similar to patterns that are often seen, and again demonstrated in these analyses, of accumulation of medicines prior to Christmas to account for the holiday closures. However, unlike Christmas there was no subsequent drop in medications prescribed in the week(s) immediately following. Patients therefore accessed additional medications but continued to have medications prescribed at a similar level to pre-pandemic levels, suggestive of some stockpiling of medications. Welsh data using all community dispensing data found similar patterns for cardiovascular categories until September 2020¹⁶; data which are also now incorporated into these analyses and updated until Summer 2021. As lockdown eased, a return of some services to near normal levels has been described but this did not include medication data³³. Lower levels of diagnosis of T2DM during 2020 following the first lockdown in April have previously been reported⁴; the subsequent higher level of incident T2DM observed in these analyses in 2021, despite the known reduction in primary care screening, could suggest an increase in the prevalence of T2DM in the UK population, or that there is now a ‘catch up’ in diabetes diagnosis, which if true means more people are being diagnosed later with more advanced disease. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that deaths were ∼20% higher than the pre-pandemic average in England & Wales during the Summer of 2021 and half of these excess deaths did not directly involve COVID-19³⁴, suggesting that other causes of death, including CVD, are higher than they were pre-pandemic.

Since COVID-19 has highlighted a number of inequities in healthcare we investigated differences in dispensing behaviour by socio-demographic characteristics. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals of certain ethnic groups may be more at risk of COVID-19³⁵ and additionally that CVD conditions can be a major risk factor for COVID-19³⁶. If CVD risk factors are systematically being missed and not controlled in higher risk populations (defined by region, ethnicity or other characteristics) this may put these populations at greater risk of future health problems. It is known that there is ethnic variation in prescribing of some CVD risk factor medications. For example, recent analyses using CPRD revealed an ethnic difference in receiving statins, with those of African/ African

Caribbean and South Asian ethnicity less likely to receive statins than those of European ethnicity³⁷. It may be that the delayed uplift in dispensed medication associated with the first national lockdown in some black ethnic groups are further manifestation of inequalities in receiving medications. We also observed regional variation in the intensity of fluctuation of dispensing of CVD medicines reflecting the timing of local lockdowns which may be a proxy for deprivation and poorer health. A more granular stratification of sub-regions e.g., ward level within broader regional categories, or by index of multiple deprivation, may allow a better understanding of these differences.

Meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications for clinicians and policymakers

Our analyses demonstrate that dispensed medicines for some incident CVD risk factors did not recover and still have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. This further aligns with data demonstrating the fall in GP visits, which precludes serendipitous detection, but also the suspension of mechanisms that serve to detect risk factors such as QOF. Whilst it is likely that as services return to normal, cardiovascular risk in missed individuals may well be detected, it remains unclear what mechanisms are in place to re-introduce methods of screening or what the consequences a delay in diagnosis might have. An important consideration from these analyses is implications more generally about health service provision during pandemics and planning for how routine health care could be sustained despite demands on the overall system in the event of future pandemics. The COVID-19 booster campaign whilst essential has focussed attention away from long term conditions. These analyses may provide mechanisms to identify and then target those at highest CVD risk. However, we must also identify alternative mechanisms of risk factor management incopororating support services in primary care e.g. primary care pharmacists and local pharmacies which may be able to address less complex cases.

Different patterns in certain medicine classes are also revealed. Insulin dispensing rose sharply prior to the first lockdown; it is plausible that individuals requiring insulin would be concerned about potential shortage of the drug during lockdown and therefore stockpiled this to ensure an adequate supply given the immediate adverse effects of non-treatment. The uptake of DOACs was increasing pre-pandemic and the pandemic may have accelerated this uptake and the switch away from warfarin as described elsewhere^33,38. However, declining year-on-year growth in DOAC dispensing during the pandemic may indicate reduced diagnoses of AF and thrombo-embolic disease. In addition, the reduced level of warfarin may reflect missed diagnoses requiring anti-coagulation with warfarin such as valvular heart disease.

Unanswered questions and future research

There are many further opportunities to explore with medications data that are beyond the scope of this paper. It is now possible to link dispensing data with GPES at an individual level facilitating detailed analysis of characteristics associated with life-course use and accumulation of medications (polypharmacy), adverse drug reactions and adherence. Further research is warranted to understand the indirect cost of the impact of the pandemic on CVD risk factors and longer-term outcomes. Understanding how medicines are being used can act as a barometer for the ‘health’ or disruption to a clinical pathway and as these analyses demonstrate may also help target recovery. This approach is useful in routine health care outside of a pandemic in addressing medicines use more broadly and assuring equity of access. Work in this area will be advanced at the UK-wide level under a recently awarded HDR UK Alan Turing Institute COVID-19 Data and Connectivity National Core Study grant.

It is clear from these analyses that using medicines as a proxy for disease can complement investigation using electronic health records and disease diagnostic codes. During the pandemic due to the change in health care service provision and reduced use of routine services, a proportion of the expected diagnostic codes are missing, or not clearly coded, including long Covid. Medicines data can therefore be another way to begin to establish the scale of the health problem resulting from the pandemic including beginning to ascertain the cost of treatments that were not given. Novel methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment are urgently required to avoid large numbers of additional future CVD events, further adding to the healthcare impact and indirect cost of the COVID-19 pandemic