Additional file 1: of Detecting change in comparison to peers in NHS prescribing data: a novel application of cumulative sum methodology

Appendix A. Code. Appendix B. Example graphs. (PDF 4946 kb

Trends and variation in Prescribing of Low-Priority Medicines Identified by NHS England: A Cross-Sectional Study and Interactive Data Tool in English Primary Care

Data and analytic code from the above entitled paper. Most of the data are sorted and directly queried from Google Bigquery, which we plan to make publicly available at some point in the future

Gluten free prescribing in the UK

Data and analytic code from the paper "Trends, geographical variation, and factors associated with prescribing of gluten-free foods in NHS English primary care

Is Use of Homeopathy a Proxy Indicator for Poor Prescribing in English Primary Care

Data (.csv) and analysis, using Python and Stata, to determine associations between homeopathy prescribing and prescribing measures on OpenPrescribing.ne

Supplemental material for Six months on: NHS England needs to focus on dissemination, implementation and audit of its low-priority initiative

Supplemental material for Six months on: NHS England needs to focus on dissemination, implementation and audit of its low-priority initiative by Alex J Walker, Seb Bacon, Helen Curtis, Richard Croker, Brian MacKenna and Ben Goldacre in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine</p

Supplementary Table - Supplemental material for Is use of homeopathy associated with poor prescribing in English primary care? A cross-sectional study

<p>Supplemental material, Supplementary Table for Is use of homeopathy associated with poor prescribing in English primary care? A cross-sectional study by Alex J Walker, Richard Croker, Seb Bacon, Edzard Ernst, Helen J Curtis and Ben Goldacre in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine</p

The impact of lidocaine plaster prescribing reduction strategies: a comparison of two national health services in Europe

Aims: In 2017, two distinct interventions were implemented in Ireland and England to reduce prescribing of lidocaine medicated plasters. In Ireland, restrictions on reimbursement were introduced through implementation of an application system for reimbursement. In England, updated guidance on items which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, including lidocaine plasters, was published. This study aims to compare how the interventions impacted prescribing of lidocaine plasters in these countries. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time-series study using general practice data. For Ireland, monthly dispensing data (2015-2019) from the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme was used. For England, data covered all patients. Outcomes were the rate of dispensings, quantity and costs of lidocaine plasters, and we modelled level and trend changes from the first full month of the policy/guidance change. Results: Ireland had higher rates of lidocaine dispensings compared to England throughout the study period; this was 15.22/1000 population immediately pre-intervention, and there was equivalent to a 97.2% immediate reduction following the intervention. In England, the immediate pre-intervention dispensing rate was 0.36/1000, with an immediate reduction of 0.0251/1000 (a 5.8% decrease), followed by a small but significant decrease in the monthly trend relative to the pre-intervention trend of 0.0057 per month. Conclusions: Among two different interventions aiming to decrease low-value lidocaine plaster prescribing, there was a substantially larger impact in Ireland of reimbursement restriction compared to issuing guidance in England. However, this is in the context of much higher baseline rates of use in Ireland compared to England.</p

The impact of lidocaine plaster prescribing reduction strategies: a comparison of two national health services in Europe

Aims: In 2017, two distinct interventions were implemented in Ireland and England to reduce prescribing of lidocaine medicated plasters. In Ireland, restrictions on reimbursement were introduced through implementation of an application system for reimbursement. In England, updated guidance on items which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, including lidocaine plasters, was published. This study aims to compare how the interventions impacted prescribing of lidocaine plasters in these countries. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time-series study using general practice data. For Ireland, monthly dispensing data (2015-2019) from the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme was used. For England, data covered all patients. Outcomes were the rate of dispensings, quantity and costs of lidocaine plasters, and we modelled level and trend changes from the first full month of the policy/guidance change. Results: Ireland had higher rates of lidocaine dispensings compared to England throughout the study period; this was 15.22/1000 population immediately pre-intervention, and there was equivalent to a 97.2% immediate reduction following the intervention. In England, the immediate pre-intervention dispensing rate was 0.36/1000, with an immediate reduction of 0.0251/1000 (a 5.8% decrease), followed by a small but significant decrease in the monthly trend relative to the pre-intervention trend of 0.0057 per month. Conclusions: Among two different interventions aiming to decrease low-value lidocaine plaster prescribing, there was a substantially larger impact in Ireland of reimbursement restriction compared to issuing guidance in England. However, this is in the context of much higher baseline rates of use in Ireland compared to England.</p

Additional file 1 of Association between warfarin and COVID-19-related outcomes compared with direct oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort study

Additional file 1. Additional figures and tables for main analyses and sensitivity analyses

Additional file 1 of Describing the population experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough following second vaccination in England: a cohort study from OpenSAFELY

Additional file 1. This additional piece of analysis uses patients with chronic kidney disease to show how rates can be adjusted to demonstrate the public health burden and to help inform decisions around rollout of vaccine/booster programme for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes, Table S1. Number of fully vaccinated (2 doses + 2 weeks) patients with chronic kidney disease by stage, in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and associated crude and adjusted rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 swab test, COVID-19 related hospital admissions, COVID-19 related critical care admissions and COVID-19 related death, broken down by CKD stage