%0 Journal Article %A Matthew J. Carr %A Alison K. Wright %A Lalantha Leelarathna %A Hood Thabit %A Nicola Milne %A Naresh Kanumilli %A Darren M. Ashcroft %A Martin K. Rutter %T Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on diabetes health checks and prescribing for people with type 2 diabetes: a UK-wide cohort study involving 618,161 people in primary care %D 2021 %R 10.1101/2021.04.21.21255869 %J medRxiv %P 2021.04.21.21255869 %X OBJECTIVE To compare rates of performing NICE-recommended health checks and prescribing in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), before and after the first COVID-19 peak in March 2020, and to assess whether trends varied by age, sex and deprivation.METHODS We constructed a cohort of 618,161 people with T2D followed between March and December 2020 from 1744 UK general practices registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD; Aurum and GOLD databases). We focused on the following six health checks and prescribing: HbA1c, serum creatinine, cholesterol, urinary albumin excretion, blood pressure and BMI assessment, comparing trends using regression models and 10-year historical data.RESULTS In April 2020, in English practices, rates of performing health checks were reduced by 76-88% when compared to 10-year historical trends, with older people from deprived areas experiencing the greatest reductions. Between May and December 2020, the reduced rates recovered gradually but overall remained 28% and 47% lower compared to historical trends, with similar findings in other UK nations. In England, rates of prescribing of new medication fell during April with reductions varying from 10% (4-16%) for antiplatelet agents to 60% (58-62%) for antidiabetic medications. Overall, between March and December 2020, the overall rate of prescribing new diabetes medications was reduced by 19% (15-22%) and new antihypertensive medication by 22% (18-26%). Similar trends were observed in other UK nations, except for a reduction in new lipid-lowering therapy prescribing March to December 2020 (reduction: 16% (10-21%)).CONCLUSIONS Over the coming months, healthcare services will need to manage this backlog of testing and prescribing. Effective communications should ensure that patients remain engaged with diabetes services, monitoring and opportunities for prescribing, and make use of home monitoring and remote consultations.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years. DMA reports research funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB and the Leo Foundation outside the submitted work. MKR has received consulting fees and non-promotional lecture fees from Novo Nordisk in relation to cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The company has had no role in influencing the proposed study and is not expected to benefit from this work. Outside the submitted work, MKR reports receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk, consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk and Roche Diabetes Care, and modest owning of shares in GlaxoSmithKline. NM reports honorarium for presentations from Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, MyLan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, Abbott, Omnia-Med, Takeda UK and AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests. There are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementThis work is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study is based on data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink obtained under license from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The study and use of CPRD data was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Research Datalink research (protocol number: 20_182R).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll clinical codes used in the study are published on Clinicalcodes.org. Electronic health records are, by definition, considered sensitive data in the UK by the Data Protection Act and cannot be shared via public deposition because of information governance restriction in place to protect patient confidentiality. Access to data are available only once approval has been obtained through the individual constituent entities controlling access to the data. The primary care data can be requested via application to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (www.cprd.com). %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/04/22/2021.04.21.21255869.full.pdf