Development and external validation of the eFalls tool: a multivariable prediction model for the risk of ED attendance or hospitalisation with a fall or fracture in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Falls are common in older adults and can devastate personal independence through injury such as fracture and fear of future falls. Methods to identify people for falls prevention interventions are currently limited, with high risks of bias in published prediction models. We have developed and externally validated the eFalls prediction model using routinely collected primary care electronic health records (EHR) to predict risk of emergency department attendance/hospitalisation with fall or fracture within 1 year. METHODS: Data comprised two independent, retrospective cohorts of adults aged ≥65 years: the population of Wales, from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (model development); the population of Bradford and Airedale, England, from Connected Bradford (external validation). Predictors included electronic frailty index components, supplemented with variables informed by literature reviews and clinical expertise. Fall/fracture risk was modelled using multivariable logistic regression with a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator penalty. Predictive performance was assessed through calibration, discrimination and clinical utility. Apparent, internal-external cross-validation and external validation performance were assessed across general practices and in clinically relevant subgroups. RESULTS: The model's discrimination performance (c-statistic) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68 to 0.76) on internal-external cross-validation and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.83) on external validation. Calibration was variable across practices, with some over-prediction in the validation population (calibration-in-the-large, -0.87; 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.78). Clinical utility on external validation was improved after recalibration. CONCLUSION: The eFalls prediction model shows good performance and could support proactive stratification for falls prevention services if appropriately embedded into primary care EHR systems.

Health care utilization and mortality for people with epilepsy during COVID-19: A population study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to characterize changes in health care utilization and mortality for people with epilepsy (PWE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using linked, individual-level, population-scale anonymized health data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank. We identified PWE living in Wales during the study "pandemic period" (January 1, 2020-June 30, 2021) and during a "prepandemic" period (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2019). We compared prepandemic health care utilization, status epilepticus, and mortality rates with corresponding pandemic rates for PWE and people without epilepsy (PWOE). We performed subgroup analyses on children (<18 years old), older people (>65 years old), those with intellectual disability, and those living in the most deprived areas. We used Poisson models to calculate adjusted rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: We identified 27 279 PWE who had significantly higher rates of hospital (50.3 visits/1000 patient months), emergency department (55.7), and outpatient attendance (172.4) when compared to PWOE (corresponding figures: 25.7, 25.2, and 87.0) in the prepandemic period. Hospital and epilepsy-related hospital admissions, and emergency department and outpatient attendances all reduced significantly for PWE (and all subgroups) during the pandemic period. RRs [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] for pandemic versus prepandemic periods were .70 [.69-.72], .77 [.73-.81], .78 [.77-.79], and .80 [.79-.81]. The corresponding rates also reduced for PWOE. New epilepsy diagnosis rates decreased during the pandemic compared with the prepandemic period (2.3/100 000/month cf. 3.1/100 000/month, RR = .73, 95% CI = .68-.78). Both all-cause deaths and deaths with epilepsy recorded on the death certificate increased for PWE during the pandemic (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = .997-1.145 and RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 2.12-2.81). When removing COVID deaths, RRs were .88 (95% CI = .81-.95) and 1.29 (95% CI = 1.08-1.53). Status epilepticus rates did not change significantly during the pandemic (RR = .95, 95% CI = .78-1.15). SIGNIFICANCE: All-cause non-COVID deaths did not increase but non-COVID deaths associated with epilepsy did increase for PWE during the COVID-19 pandemic. The longer term effects of the decrease in new epilepsy diagnoses and health care utilization and increase in deaths associated with epilepsy need further research.

Epilepsy and the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death: A population study.

OBJECTIVE: People with epilepsy (PWE) may be at an increased risk of severe COVID-19. It is important to characterize this risk to inform PWE and for future health and care planning. We assessed whether PWE were at higher risk of being hospitalized with, or dying from, COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using linked, population-scale, anonymized electronic health records from the SAIL (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage) databank. This includes hospital admission and demographic data for the complete Welsh population (3.1 million) and primary care records for 86% of the population. We identified 27 279 PWE living in Wales during the study period (March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021). Controls were identified using exact 5:1 matching (sex, age, and socioeconomic status). We defined COVID-19 deaths as having International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for COVID-19 on death certificates or occurring within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. COVID-19 hospitalizations were defined as having a COVID-19 ICD-10 code for the reason for admission or occurring within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We recorded COVID-19 vaccinations and comorbidities known to increase the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and death. We used Cox proportional hazard models to calculate hazard ratios. RESULTS: There were 158 (.58%) COVID-19 deaths and 933 (3.4%) COVID-19 hospitalizations in PWE, and 370 (.27%) deaths and 1871 (1.4%) hospitalizations in controls. Hazard ratios for COVID-19 death and hospitalization in PWE compared to controls were 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78-2.59) and 2.15 (95% CI = 1.94-2.37), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (adjusted for comorbidities) for death and hospitalization were 1.32 (95% CI = 1.08-1.62) and 1.60 (95% CI = 1.44-1.78). SIGNIFICANCE: PWE are at increased risk of being hospitalized with, and dying from, COVID-19 when compared to age-, sex-, and deprivation-matched controls, even when adjusting for comorbidities. This may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for PWE.

Adherence to the Atrial fibrillation Better Care pathway and the risk of adverse health outcomes in older care home residents with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective data linkage study 2003-18.

BACKGROUND: The Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway is the gold-standard approach to atrial fibrillation (AF) management, but the effect of implementation on health outcomes in care home residents is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between ABC pathway adherence and stroke, transient ischaemic attack, cardiovascular hospitalisation, major bleeding, mortality and a composite of all these outcomes in care home residents. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of older care home residents (≥65 years) in Wales with AF was conducted between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2018 using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Adherence to the ABC pathway was assessed at care home entry using pre-specified definitions. Cox proportional hazard and competing risk models were used to estimate the risk of health outcomes according to ABC adherence. RESULTS: From 14,493 residents (median [interquartile range] age 87.0 [82.6-91.2] years, 35.2% male) with AF, 5,531 (38.2%) were ABC pathway adherent. Pathway adherence was not significantly associated with risk of the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 [0.97-1.05]). There was a significant independent association observed between ABC pathway adherence and a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.70 [0.50-0.98]), but a higher risk of haemorrhagic stroke (1.59 [1.06-2.39]). ABC pathway adherence was not significantly associated with any other individual health outcomes examined. CONCLUSION: An ABC adherent approach in care home residents was not consistently associated with improved health outcomes. Findings should be interpreted with caution owing to difficulties in defining pathway adherence using routinely collected data and an individualised approach is recommended.