Predicting the risk of pancreatic cancer in adults with new-onset diabetes: development and internal-external validation of a clinical risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that people aged 60+ years with newly diagnosed diabetes and weight loss undergo abdominal imaging to assess for pancreatic cancer. More nuanced stratification could lead to enrichment of these referral pathways. METHODS: Population-based cohort study of adults aged 30-85 years at type 2 diabetes diagnosis (2010-2021) using the QResearch primary care database in England linked to secondary care data, the national cancer registry and mortality registers. Clinical prediction models were developed to estimate risks of pancreatic cancer diagnosis within 2 years and evaluated using internal-external cross-validation. RESULTS: Seven hundred and sixty-seven of 253,766 individuals were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer within 2 years. Models included age, sex, BMI, prior venous thromboembolism, digoxin prescription, HbA1c, ALT, creatinine, haemoglobin, platelet count; and the presence of abdominal pain, weight loss, jaundice, heartburn, indigestion or nausea (previous 6 months). The Cox model had the highest discrimination (Harrell's C-index 0.802 (95% CI: 0.797-0.817)), the highest clinical utility, and was well calibrated. The model's highest 1% of predicted risks captured 12.51% of pancreatic cancer cases. NICE guidance had 3.95% sensitivity. DISCUSSION: A new prediction model could have clinical utility in identifying individuals with recent onset diabetes suitable for fast-track abdominal imaging.

Temporality of body mass index, blood tests, comorbidities and medication use as early markers for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC): a nested case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies identified clinical factors associated with increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, little is known regarding their time-varying nature, which could inform earlier diagnosis. This study assessed temporality of body mass index (BMI), blood-based markers, comorbidities and medication use with PDAC risk . DESIGN: We performed a population-based nested case-control study of 28 137 PDAC cases and 261 219 matched-controls in England. We described the associations of biomarkers with risk of PDAC using fractional polynomials and 5-year time trends using joinpoint regression. Associations with comorbidities and medication use were evaluated using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Risk of PDAC increased with raised HbA1c, liver markers, white blood cell and platelets, while following a U-shaped relationship for BMI and haemoglobin. Five-year trends showed biphasic BMI decrease and HbA1c increase prior to PDAC; early-gradual changes 2-3 years prior, followed by late-rapid changes 1-2 years prior. Liver markers and blood counts (white blood cell, platelets) showed monophasic rapid-increase approximately 1 year prior. Recent diagnosis of pancreatic cyst, pancreatitis, type 2 diabetes and initiation of certain glucose-lowering and acid-regulating therapies were associated with highest risk of PDAC. CONCLUSION: Risk of PDAC increased with raised HbA1c, liver markers, white blood cell and platelets, while followed a U-shaped relationship for BMI and haemoglobin. BMI and HbA1c derange biphasically approximately 3 years prior while liver markers and blood counts (white blood cell, platelets) derange monophasically approximately 1 year prior to PDAC. Profiling these in combination with their temporality could inform earlier PDAC diagnosis.

Ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes: a multinational cohort study of 20 million individuals from England and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous studies have demonstrated ethnic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse COVID-19 outcomes. This study evaluates the association between ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in two large population-based cohorts from England and Canada and investigates potential explanatory factors for ethnic patterning of severe outcomes. METHODS: We identified adults aged 18 to 99 years in the QResearch primary care (England) and Ontario (Canada) healthcare administrative population-based datasets (start of follow-up: 24th and 25th Jan 2020 in England and Canada, respectively; end of follow-up: 31st Oct and 30th Sept 2020, respectively). We harmonised the definitions and the design of two cohorts to investigate associations between ethnicity and COVID-19-related death, hospitalisation, and intensive care (ICU) admission, adjusted for confounders, and combined the estimates obtained from survival analyses. We calculated the 'percentage of excess risk mediated' by these risk factors in the QResearch cohort. RESULTS: There were 9.83 million adults in the QResearch cohort (11,597 deaths; 21,917 hospitalisations; 2932 ICU admissions) and 10.27 million adults in the Ontario cohort (951 deaths; 5132 hospitalisations; 1191 ICU admissions). Compared to the general population, pooled random-effects estimates showed that South Asian ethnicity was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death (hazard ratio: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.09-2.44), hospitalisation (1.53; 1.32-1.76), and ICU admission (1.67; 1.23-2.28). Associations with ethnic groups were consistent across levels of deprivation. In QResearch, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors accounted for 42.9% (South Asian) and 39.4% (Black) of the excess risk of COVID-19 death. CONCLUSION: International population-level analyses demonstrate clear ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 risks. Policymakers should be cognisant of the increased risks in some ethnic populations and design equitable health policy as the pandemic continues.

Smoking and COVID-19 outcomes: an observational and Mendelian randomisation study using the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence has emerged regarding the relevance of smoking on risk of COVID-19 and its severity. METHODS: We undertook large-scale observational and Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses using UK Biobank. Most recent smoking status was determined from primary care records (70.8%) and UK Biobank questionnaire data (29.2%). COVID-19 outcomes were derived from Public Health England SARS-CoV-2 testing data, hospital admissions data, and death certificates (until 18 August 2020). Logistic regression was used to estimate associations between smoking status and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and COVID-19-related death. Inverse variance-weighted MR analyses using established genetic instruments for smoking initiation and smoking heaviness were undertaken (reported per SD increase). RESULTS: There were 421 469 eligible participants, 1649 confirmed infections, 968 COVID-19-related hospitalisations and 444 COVID-19-related deaths. Compared with never-smokers, current smokers had higher risks of hospitalisation (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.29) and mortality (smoking 1-9/day: OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.24; 10-19/day: OR 5.91, 95% CI 3.66 to 9.54; 20+/day: OR 6.11, 95% CI 3.59 to 10.42). In MR analyses of 281 105 White British participants, genetically predicted propensity to initiate smoking was associated with higher risks of infection (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.91) and hospitalisation (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.27). Genetically predicted higher number of cigarettes smoked per day was associated with higher risks of all outcomes (infection OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.24; hospitalisation OR 5.08, 95% CI 2.04 to 12.66; and death OR 10.02, 95% CI 2.53 to 39.72). INTERPRETATION: Congruent results from two analytical approaches support a causal effect of smoking on risk of severe COVID-19.

Mammography features for early markers of aggressive breast cancer subtypes and tumor characteristics: A population-based cohort study.

Current breast cancer risk models identify mostly less aggressive tumors, although only women developing fatal breast cancer will greatly benefit from early identification. Here, we evaluated the use of mammography features (microcalcification clusters, computer-generated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [cBIRADS] density and lack of breast density reduction) as early markers of aggressive subtypes and tumor characteristics. Mammograms were retrieved from a population-based cohort of women that were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2001 to 2008 in Stockholm-Gotland County, Sweden. Tumor and patient characteristics were obtained from Stockholm Breast Cancer Quality Register and the Swedish Cancer Registry. Multinomial logistic regression was used to individually model each mammographic feature as a function of molecular subtypes, tumor characteristics and detection mode. A total of 4546 women with invasive breast cancer were included in the study. Women with microcalcification clusters in the affected breast were more likely to have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 subtype (odds ratio [OR] 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-2.54) and potentially less likely to have basal subtype (OR 0.54; 0.30-0.96) compared to Luminal A subtype. High mammographic cBIRADS showed association with larger tumor size and interval vs screen-detected cancers. Lack of density reduction was associated with interval vs screen-detected cancers (OR 1.43; 1.11-1.83) and potentially of Luminal B subtype vs Luminal A subtype (OR 1.76; 1.04-2.99). In conclusion, microcalcification clusters, cBIRADS density and lack of breast density reduction could serve as early markers of particular subtypes and tumor characteristics of breast cancer. This information has the potential to be integrated into risk models to identify women at risk for developing aggressive breast cancer in need of supplemental screening.

The Use of Primary Care Big Data in Understanding the Pharmacoepidemiology of COVID-19: A Consensus Statement From the COVID-19 Primary Care Database Consortium.

The use of big data containing millions of primary care medical records provides an opportunity for rapid research to help inform patient care and policy decisions during the first and subsequent waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Routinely collected primary care data have previously been used for national pandemic surveillance, quantifying associations between exposures and outcomes, identifying high risk populations, and examining the effects of interventions at scale, but there is no consensus on how to effectively conduct or report these data for COVID-19 research. A COVID-19 primary care database consortium was established in April 2020 and its researchers have ongoing COVID-19 projects in overlapping data sets with over 40 million primary care records in the United Kingdom that are variously linked to public health, secondary care, and vital status records. This consensus agreement is aimed at facilitating transparency and rigor in methodological approaches, and consistency in defining and reporting cases, exposures, confounders, stratification variables, and outcomes in relation to the pharmacoepidemiology of COVID-19. This will facilitate comparison, validation, and meta-analyses of research during and after the pandemic.

The Clinical Utility of Point-of-Care Tests for Influenza in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza are diagnostically superior to clinical diagnosis, but their impact on patient outcomes is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review of influenza POCTs versus usual care in ambulatory care settings. Studies were identified by searching six databases and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Estimates of risk ratios (RR), standardised mean differences, 95% confidence intervals and I2 were obtained by random effects meta-analyses. We explored heterogeneity with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: 12,928 citations were screened. Seven randomized studies (n = 4,324) and six non-randomized studies (n = 4,774) were included. Most evidence came from paediatric emergency departments. Risk of bias was moderate in randomized studies and higher in non-randomized studies. In randomized trials, POCTs had no effect on admissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.42, I2 = 34%), returning for care (RR 1.00 95% CI = 0.77-1.29, I2 = 7%), or antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, I2 = 70%), but increased prescribing of antivirals (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.95-3.60; I2 = 0%). Further testing was reduced for full blood counts (FBC) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.92 I2 = 0%), blood cultures (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99; I2 = 0%) and chest radiography (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96; I2 = 32%), but not urinalysis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-w1.07; I2 = 20%). Time in the emergency department was not changed. Fewer non-randomized studies reported these outcomes, with some findings reversed or attenuated (fewer antibiotic prescriptions and less urinalysis in tested patients). CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care testing for influenza influences prescribing and testing decisions, particularly for children in emergency departments. Observational evidence shows challenges for real-world implementation.

Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'.We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care.Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important.Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence).The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence).None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials.We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice.Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions.

Ten-year survival in women with primary stage IV breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate breast cancer-specific survival at 10 years in patients who present with primary stage IV breast cancer, and to determine whether survival varies with age of diagnosis. METHODS: We retrieved the records of 25,323 women diagnosed with primary stage IV breast cancer in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results 18 registries database from 1990 to 2012. For each case, we extracted information on age at diagnosis, tumour size, nodal status, oestrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, ethnicity, cause of death and date of death. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of death due to stage IV breast cancer, according to age group. RESULTS: Among 25,323 women with stage IV breast cancer, 2542 (10.0 %) were diagnosed at age 40 or below, 5562 (22.0 %) were diagnosed between ages 41 and 50 and 17,219 (68.0 %) were diagnosed between ages 51 and 70. After a mean follow-up of 2.2 years, 16,387 (64.7 %) women died of breast cancer (median survival 2.3 years). The ten-year actuarial breast cancer-specific survival rate was 15.7 % for women ages 40 and below, 14.9 % for women ages 41-50 and 11.7 % for women ages 51 to 70 (p < 0.0001). In an adjusted analysis, the risk of death from breast cancer at 10 years was significantly lower for women ages 40 and below (HR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.74-0.82; p < 0.0001) and for women ages 41-50 (HR 0.82; 95 % CI 0.79-0.85; p < 0.0001), compared to women ages 51-70. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 13 % of women with primary stage IV breast cancer survive 10 years after diagnosis. Women diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer before age 50 have better survival at 10 years compared to older women.

A meta-analysis of anastrozole in combination with fulvestrant in the first line treatment of hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer.

Fulvestrant is a highly active systemic therapy in patients with metastatic hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Preclinical work suggested potential synergy of fulvestrant in combination with aromatase inhibitor therapy and delayed development of endocrine resistance. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of fulvestrant plus anastrozole, compared to anastrozole alone, as first line treatment of postmenopausal stage IV hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The literature search was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, ASCO, and ESMO to search for abstracts published during the last 10 years using relevant keywords. Two prospective randomized clinical trials were found to fulfill the search criteria for combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant versus anastrozole alone. Meta-estimates were calculated by combining study estimates using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. The linear mixed-effects model was used to generate 95 % prediction intervals (PIs) for study-specific hazard and odds ratios. Pooled hazard ratio for progression-free survival is 0.88 (95 % CI 0.72-1.09, 95 % PI 0.65-1.21), overall survival 0.88 (95 % CI 0.72-1.08, 95 % PI 0.68-1.14) and pooled odds ratio for response rate is 1.13 (95 % CI 0.79-1.63, 95 % PI 0.78-1.65). A non-significant trend was observed with anastrozole plus fulvestrant being only marginally better than anastrozole alone in the endpoints of: progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rates. Based on these data, there is not solid evidence that the addition of fulvestrant at a dose of 250 mg monthly is better than anastrozole alone as first line therapy in women with postmenopausal hormone receptor positive breast cancer.

Factors influencing influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccine uptake and refusal in older adults: a population-based cross-sectional study in England.

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccines in older adults vary across regions and socioeconomic backgrounds. In this study, we study the coverage and factors associated with vaccination uptake, as well as refusal in the unvaccinated population and their associations with ethnicity, deprivation, household size and health conditions. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a cross-sectional study of adults aged 65 years or older in England, using a large primary care database. Associations of vaccine uptake and refusal in the unvaccinated with ethnicity, deprivation, household size and health conditions were modelled using multivariable logistic regression. OUTCOME MEASURE: Influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccine uptake and refusal (in the unvaccinated). RESULTS: This study included 2 054 463 patients from 1318 general practices. 1 711 465 (83.3%) received at least one influenza vaccine, 1 391 228 (67.7%) pneumococcal vaccine and 690 783 (53.4%) shingles vaccine. Compared with White ethnicity, influenza vaccine uptake was lower in Chinese (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.53), 'Other ethnic' groups (0.63; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.65), black Caribbean (0.68; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.71) and black African (0.72; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.77). There was generally lower vaccination uptake among more deprived individuals, people living in larger household sizes (three or more persons) and those with fewer health conditions. Among those who were unvaccinated, higher odds of refusal were associated with the black Caribbean ethnic group and marginally with increased deprivation, but not associated with higher refusal in those living in large households or those with lesser health conditions. CONCLUSION: Certain ethnic minority groups, deprived populations, large households and 'healthier' individuals were less likely to receive a vaccine, although higher refusal was only associated with ethnicity and deprivation but not larger households nor healthier individuals. Understanding these may inform tailored public health messaging to different communities for equitable implementation of vaccination programmes.

Quantifying the association between ethnicity and COVID-19 mortality: a national cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence suggests that ethnic minority groups are disproportionately at increased risk of hospitalisation and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Population-based evidence on potential explanatory factors across minority groups and within subgroups is lacking. This study aims to quantify the association between ethnicity and the risk of hospitalisation and mortality due to COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adults registered across a representative and anonymised national primary care database (QResearch) that includes data on 10 million people in England. Sociodemographic, deprivation, clinical and domicile characteristics will be summarised and compared across ethnic subgroups (categorised as per 2011 census). Cox models will be used to calculate HR for hospitalisation and COVID-19 mortality associated with ethnic group. Potential confounding and explanatory factors (such as demographic, socioeconomic and clinical) will be adjusted for within regression models. The percentage contribution of distinct risk factor classes to the excess risks seen in ethnic groups/subgroups will be calculated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has undergone ethics review in accordance with the QResearch agreement (reference OX102). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts, presentations at scientific meetings and conferences with national and international stakeholders.

Association Between Race and COVID-19 Outcomes Among 2.6 Million Children in England.

Importance: Although children mainly experience mild COVID-19 disease, hospitalization rates are increasing, with limited understanding of underlying factors. There is an established association between race and severe COVID-19 outcomes in adults in England; however, whether a similar association exists in children is unclear. Objective: To investigate the association between race and childhood COVID-19 testing and hospital outcomes. Design, Setting, Participants: In this cohort study, children (0-18 years of age) from participating family practices in England were identified in the QResearch database between January 24 and November 30, 2020. The QResearch database has individually linked patients with national SARS-CoV-2 testing, hospital admission, and mortality data. Exposures: The main characteristic of interest is self-reported race. Other exposures were age, sex, deprivation level, geographic region, household size, and comorbidities (asthma; diabetes; and cardiac, neurologic, and hematologic conditions). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospital admission with confirmed COVID-19. Secondary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2-positive test result and any hospital attendance with confirmed COVID-19 and intensive care admission. Results: Of 2 576 353 children (mean [SD] age, 9.23 [5.24] years; 48.8% female), 410 726 (15.9%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 26 322 (6.4%) tested positive. A total of 1853 children (0.07%) with confirmed COVID-19 attended hospital, 343 (0.01%) were admitted to the hospital, and 73 (0.002%) required intensive care. Testing varied across race. White children had the highest proportion of SARS-CoV-2 tests (223 701/1 311 041 [17.1%]), whereas Asian children (33 213/243 545 [13.6%]), Black children (7727/93 620 [8.3%]), and children of mixed or other races (18 971/147 529 [12.9%]) had lower proportions. Compared with White children, Asian children were more likely to have COVID-19 hospital admissions (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.12-2.36), whereas Black children (adjusted OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.90-2.31) and children of mixed or other races (adjusted OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.93-2.10) had comparable hospital admissions. Asian children were more likely to be admitted to intensive care (adjusted OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.07-4.14), and Black children (adjusted OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.08-4.94) and children of mixed or other races (adjusted OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.25-3.65) had longer hospital admissions (≥36 hours). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large population-based study exploring the association between race and childhood COVID-19 testing and hospital outcomes, several race-specific disparities were observed in severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, ascertainment bias and residual confounding in this cohort study should be considered before drawing any further conclusions. Overall, findings of this study have important public health implications internationally.

Mortality and critical care unit admission associated with the SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, the variant of concern 202012/01 or lineage B.1.1.7, has emerged in the UK. We aimed to estimate the risk of critical care admission, mortality in patients who are critically ill, and overall mortality associated with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with non-B.1.1.7. We also compared clinical outcomes between these two groups. METHODS: For this observational cohort study, we linked large primary care (QResearch), national critical care (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme), and national COVID-19 testing (Public Health England) databases. We used SARS-CoV-2 positive samples with S-gene molecular diagnostic assay failure (SGTF) as a proxy for the presence of lineage B.1.1.7. We extracted two cohorts from the data: the primary care cohort, comprising patients in primary care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 26, 2021, and known SGTF status; and the critical care cohort, comprising patients admitted for critical care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 27, 2021, and known SGTF status. We explored the associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection with and without lineage B.1.1.7 and admission to a critical care unit (CCU), 28-day mortality, and 28-day mortality following CCU admission. We used Royston-Parmar models adjusted for age, sex, geographical region, other sociodemographic factors (deprivation index, ethnicity, household housing category, and smoking status for the primary care cohort; and ethnicity, body-mass index, deprivation index, and dependency before admission to acute hospital for the CCU cohort), and comorbidities (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and hypertension for the primary care cohort; and cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, metastatic disease, and immunocompromised conditions for the CCU cohort). We reported information on types and duration of organ support for the B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 groups. FINDINGS: The primary care cohort included 198 420 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 117 926 (59·4%) had lineage B.1.1.7, 836 (0·4%) were admitted to CCU, and 899 (0·4%) died within 28 days. The critical care cohort included 4272 patients admitted to CCU. Of these, 2685 (62·8%) had lineage B.1.1.7 and 662 (15·5%) died at the end of critical care. In the primary care cohort, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 2·15 (95% CI 1·75-2·65) for CCU admission and 1·65 (1·36-2·01) for 28-day mortality for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with the non-B.1.1.7 group. The adjusted HR for mortality in critical care, estimated with the critical care cohort, was 0·91 (0·76-1·09) for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with those with non-B.1.1.7 infection. INTERPRETATION: Patients with lineage B.1.1.7 were at increased risk of CCU admission and 28-day mortality compared with patients with non-B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2. For patients receiving critical care, mortality appeared to be independent of virus strain. Our findings emphasise the importance of measures to control exposure to and infection with COVID-19. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.

Association between pre-existing respiratory disease and its treatment, and severe COVID-19: a population cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested that the prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 was lower than its prevalence in the general population. The aim of this study was to assess whether chronic lung disease or use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) affects the risk of contracting severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this population cohort study, records from 1205 general practices in England that contribute to the QResearch database were linked to Public Health England's database of SARS-CoV-2 testing and English hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths for COVID-19. All patients aged 20 years and older who were registered with one of the 1205 general practices on Jan 24, 2020, were included in this study. With Cox regression, we examined the risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation, admission to ICU, and death in relation to respiratory disease and use of ICS, adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic status and comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24 and April 30, 2020, 8 256 161 people were included in the cohort and observed, of whom 14 479 (0·2%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, 1542 (<0·1%) were admitted to ICU, and 5956 (0·1%) died. People with some respiratory diseases were at an increased risk of hospitalisation (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] hazard ratio [HR] 1·54 [95% CI 1·45-1·63], asthma 1·18 [1·13-1·24], severe asthma 1·29 [1·22-1·37; people on three or more current asthma medications], bronchiectasis 1·34 [1·20-1·50], sarcoidosis 1·36 [1·10-1·68], extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·35 [0·82-2·21], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·59 [1·30-1·95], other interstitial lung disease 1·66 [1·30-2·12], and lung cancer 2·24 [1·89-2·65]) and death (COPD 1·54 [1·42-1·67], asthma 0·99 [0·91-1·07], severe asthma 1·08 [0·98-1·19], bronchiectasis 1·12 [0·94-1·33], sarcoidosis 1·41 [0·99-1·99), extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·56 [0·78-3·13], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·47 [1·12-1·92], other interstitial lung disease 2·05 [1·49-2·81], and lung cancer 1·77 [1·37-2·29]) due to COVID-19 compared with those without these diseases. Admission to ICU was rare, but the HR for people with asthma was 1·08 (0·93-1·25) and severe asthma was 1·30 (1·08-1·58). In a post-hoc analysis, relative risks of severe COVID-19 in people with respiratory disease were similar before and after shielding was introduced on March 23, 2020. In another post-hoc analysis, people with two or more prescriptions for ICS in the 150 days before study start were at a slightly higher risk of severe COVID-19 compared with all other individuals (ie, no or one ICS prescription): HR 1·13 (1·03-1·23) for hospitalisation, 1·63 (1·18-2·24) for ICU admission, and 1·15 (1·01-1·31) for death. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe COVID-19 in people with asthma is relatively small. People with COPD and interstitial lung disease appear to have a modestly increased risk of severe disease, but their risk of death from COVID-19 at the height of the epidemic was mostly far lower than the ordinary risk of death from any cause. Use of inhaled steroids might be associated with a modestly increased risk of severe COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Wellcome Trust.

Hormone replacement therapy and cancer survival: a longitudinal cohort study: protocol paper.

INTRODUCTION: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can help women experiencing menopausal symptoms, but usage has declined due to uncertainty around risks of cancer and some cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Moreover, improved cancer survival rates mean that more women who survive cancer go on to experience menopausal symptoms. Understanding these relationships is important so that women and their clinicians can make informed decisions around the risks and benefits of HRT. This study's primary aim is to determine the association between HRT use after cancer diagnosis and the risk of cancer-specific mortality. The secondary aims are to investigate the risks of HRT on subsequent cancer, all-cause mortality and CVD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a population-based longitudinal cohort study of 18-79 year-old women diagnosed with cancer between 1998 and 2020, using the QResearch database. The main exposure is HRT use, categorised based on compound, dose and route of administration, and modelled as a time-varying covariate. Analysis of HRT use precancer and postcancer diagnosis will be conducted separately. The primary outcome is cancer-specific mortality, which will be stratified by cancer site. Secondary outcomes include subsequent cancer diagnosis, CVD (including venous thrombo-embolism) and all-cause mortality. Adjustment will be made for key confounders such as age, body mass index, ethnicity, deprivation index, comorbidities, and cancer grade, stage and treatment. Statistical analysis will include descriptive statistics and Cox proportional hazards models to calculate HRs and 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this project was obtained from the QResearch Scientific Committee (Ref: OX24, project title 'Use of hormone replacement therapy and survival from cancer'). This project has been, and will continue to be, supported by patient and public involvement panels. We intend to the submit the findings for peer-reviewed publication in an academic journal and disseminate them to the public through Cancer Research UK.

Impact of point-of-care panel tests in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This article summarises all the available evidence on the impact of introducing blood-based point-of-care panel testing (POCT) in ambulatory care on patient outcomes and healthcare processes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials and before-after studies. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, Science Citation Index from inception to 22 October 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies were based in ambulatory care and compared POCT with laboratory testing. The primary outcome was the time to decision regarding disposition that is, admission/referral termed disposition decision (DD) time. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) at the ambulatory care unit/practice and mortality. RESULTS: 19 562 patients from nine studies were included in the review, eight of these were randomised-controlled trials, and one was a before-after study. All the studies were based in either emergency departments or the ambulance service; no studies were from primary care settings. General panel tests performed at the POCT resulted in DDs being made 40 min faster (95% CI -42.2 to -36.6, I2=0%) compared with the group receiving usual care, including central laboratory testing. This in turn resulted in a reduction in LOS for patients who were subsequently discharged by 34 min (95% CI -63.7 to -5.16). No significant difference in mortality was reported. DISCUSSION: Although statistical and clinical heterogeneity is evident and only a small number of studies were included in the meta-analysis, our results suggest that POCTs might lead to faster discharge decisions. Future research should be performed in primary care and identify how POCTs can contribute meaningful changes to patient care rather than focusing on healthcare processes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016035426.

Risk of severe COVID-19 disease with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: cohort study including 8.3 million people.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the associations of angiotensive enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) drugs with COVID-19 disease. We studied whether patients prescribed these drugs had altered risks of contracting severe COVID-19 disease and receiving associated intensive care unit (ICU) admission. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study using routinely collected data from 1205 general practices in England with 8.28 million participants aged 20-99 years. We used Cox proportional hazards models to derive adjusted HRs for exposure to ACE inhibitor and ARB drugs adjusted for sociodemographic factors, concurrent medications and geographical region. The primary outcomes were: (a) COVID-19 RT-PCR diagnosed disease and (b) COVID-19 disease resulting in ICU care. FINDINGS: Of 19 486 patients who had COVID-19 disease, 1286 received ICU care. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 disease (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.74) but no increased risk of ICU care (adjusted HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06) after adjusting for a wide range of confounders. Adjusted HRs for ARBs were 0.63 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.67) for COVID-19 disease and 1.02 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.25) for ICU care.There were significant interactions between ethnicity and ACE inhibitors and ARBs for COVID-19 disease. The risk of COVID-19 disease associated with ACE inhibitors was higher in Caribbean (adjusted HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28) and Black African (adjusted HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.59) groups than the white group (adjusted HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.70). A higher risk of COVID-19 with ARBs was seen for Black African (adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58) than the white (adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.62) group. INTERPRETATION: ACE inhibitors and ARBs are associated with reduced risks of COVID-19 disease after adjusting for a wide range of variables. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs are associated with significantly increased risks of receiving ICU care. Variations between different ethnic groups raise the possibility of ethnic-specific effects of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 disease susceptibility and severity which deserves further study.

Impact of point-of-care C reactive protein in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to collate all available evidence on the impact of point-of-care C reactive protein (CRP) testing on patient-relevant outcomes in children and adults in ambulatory care. DESIGN: This was a systematic review to identify controlled studies assessing the impact of point-of-care CRP in patients presenting to ambulatory care services. Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, DARE, Science Citation Index were searched from inception to March 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Controlled studies assessing the impact of point-of-care CRP in patients presenting to ambulatory care services, measuring a change in clinical care, including but not limited to antibiotic prescribing rate, reconsultation, clinical recovery, patient satisfaction, referral and additional tests. No language restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on setting, date of study, a description of the intervention and control group, patient characteristics and results. Methodological quality of selected studies and assessment of potential bias was assessed independently by two authors using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: 11 randomised controlled trials and 8 non-randomised controlled studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 16 064 patients. All included studies had a high risk of performance and selection bias. Compared with usual care, point-of-care CRP reduces immediate antibiotic prescribing (pooled risk ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92), however, at considerable heterogeneity (I2=72%). This effect increased when guidance on antibiotic prescribing relative to the CRP level was provided (risk ratios of 0.68; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.74 in adults and 0.56; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95 in children). We found no significant effect of point-of-care CRP testing on patient satisfaction, clinical recovery, reconsultation, further testing and hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a point-of-care CRP test in ambulatory care accompanied by clinical guidance on interpretation reduces the immediate antibiotic prescribing in both adults and children. As yet, available evidence does not suggest an effect on other patient outcomes or healthcare processes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016035426; Results.