Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented pressure on healthcare services. This study aimed to investigate if disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) safety monitoring was affected during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods A population-based cohort study was conducted with the approval of NHS England, using the OpenSAFELY platform to access electronic health record data from 24·2 million patients registered at general practices using TPP’s SystmOne software. Patients were included for further analysis if prescribed azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate between November 2019 and July 2022. Outcomes were assessed as monthly trends and variation between various sociodemographic and clinical groups for adherence with standard safety monitoring recommendations.
Findings An acute increase in the rate of missed monitoring occurred across the study population (+12·4 percentage points) when lockdown measures were implemented in March 2020. This increase was more pronounced for some patient groups (70-79 year-olds: +13·7 percentage points; females: +12·8 percentage points), regions (North West: +17·0 percentage points), medications (Leflunomide: +20·7 percentage points), and monitoring tests (Blood Pressure: +24·5 percentage points). Missed monitoring rates decreased substantially for all groups by July 2022. Substantial and consistent differences were observed in overall missed monitoring rates between several groups throughout the study.
Interpretation DMARD monitoring rates temporarily deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deterioration coincided with the onset of lockdown measures, with monitoring rates recovering rapidly as lockdown measures were eased. Differences observed in monitoring rates between medications, tests, regions, and patient groups, highlight opportunities to tackle potential inequalities in the provision or uptake of monitoring services. Further research should aim to evaluate the causes of the differences identified between groups.
Funding None.
Evidence before this study Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are immunosuppressive and/or immunomodulatory drugs, which carry risks of serious adverse effects such as; gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, and pulmonary toxicity; myelosuppression; and increased susceptibility to infection. To mitigate these safety risks, national safety guidance recommends that patients taking these drugs receive regular monitoring. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between database inception and July 28th, 2022, using the terms ([covid-19] AND [monitoring OR shared care OR dmard OR outcome factors] AND [primary care]), with no language restrictions. Studies that investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare services were identified. One key study in England showed disruption to various monitoring services in primary care had occurred during the pandemic. Another English study highlighted a disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes in certain groups.
Added value of this study Prior to this study knowledge of how high-risk drugs, such as DMARDs, were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic was limited. This study reports the impact of COVID-19 on the safety monitoring of DMARDs. Moreover, it reports variation in DMARD monitoring rates between demographic, clinical and regional subgroups, which has not yet been described. This is enabled through use of the OpenSAFELY platform, which provides secure access to pseudonymised primary care patient records in England for the purposes of analysing the COVID-19 pandemic impact.
Implications of all the available evidence DMARD monitoring rates transiently deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic, consistent with previous research on other monitoring tests. Deterioration coincided with the onset of lockdown measures, with performance recovering rapidly as lockdown measures were eased. Differences observed in monitoring rates between demographic, clinical and regional subgroups highlight opportunities to identify and tackle potential inequalities in the provision or uptake of monitoring services. Further research should aim to evaluate the causes of the differences identified between groups, and establish the clinical relevance of missed monitoring. Several studies have demonstrated the capability of the OpenSAFELY platform as a secure and efficient approach for analysing NHS primary care data at scale, generating meaningful insights on service delivery.
Competing Interest Statement
CB JC JP FH SH are employees of TPP. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data. BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science.
Funding Statement
No dedicated funding has yet been obtained for this work. TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data centre pro bono in the context of a national emergency. This research used data assets made available as part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC_PC_20058). In addition, the OpenSAFELY Platform is supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z); MRC (MR/V015757/1, MC_PC-20059, MR/W016729/1); NIHR (NIHR135559, COV-LT2-0073), and Health Data Research UK (HDRUK2021.000, 2021.0157). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Correction to spelling for an authors surname (Andrea Schaffer).
Data Availability
All data were linked, stored and analysed securely within the OpenSAFELY platform https://opensafely.org/. All code is shared openly for review and re-use under MIT open license. Detailed pseudonymised patient data is potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared. We rapidly delivered the OpenSAFELY data analysis platform without prior funding to deliver timely analyses on urgent research questions in the context of the global Covid-19 health emergency: now that the platform is established we are developing a formal process for external users to request access in collaboration with NHS England; details of this process are available at [OpenSAFELY.org](http://opensafely.org/). All clinical and medicines codelists are openly available for inspection and reuse at https://codelists.opensafely.org/.
Data Availability
All data were linked, stored and analysed securely within the OpenSAFELY platform https://opensafely.org/. All code is shared openly for review and re-use under MIT open license. Detailed pseudonymised patient data is potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared. We rapidly delivered the OpenSAFELY data analysis platform without prior funding to deliver timely analyses on urgent research questions in the context of the global Covid-19 health emergency: now that the platform is established we are developing a formal process for external users to request access in collaboration with NHS England; details of this process are available at [OpenSAFELY.org](http://opensafely.org/). All clinical and medicines codelists are openly available for inspection and reuse at https://codelists.opensafely.org/.
