Comorbidity and health-related quality of life in people with a chronic medical condition in randomised clinical trials: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life metrics evaluate treatments in ways that matter to patients, so are often included in randomised clinical trials (hereafter trials). Multimorbidity, where individuals have 2 or more conditions, is negatively associated with quality of life. However, whether multimorbidity predicts change over time or modifies treatment effects for quality of life is unknown. Therefore, clinicians and guideline developers are uncertain about the applicability of trial findings to people with multimorbidity. We examined whether comorbidity count (higher counts indicating greater multimorbidity) (i) is associated with quality of life at baseline; (ii) predicts change in quality of life over time; and/or (iii) modifies treatment effects on quality of life. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Included trials were registered on the United States trials registry for selected index medical conditions and drug classes, phase 2/3, 3 or 4, had ≥300 participants, a nonrestrictive upper age limit, and were available on 1 of 2 trial repositories on 21 November 2016 and 18 May 2018, respectively. Of 124 meeting these criteria, 56 trials (33,421 participants, 16 index conditions, and 23 drug classes) collected a generic quality of life outcome measure (35 EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D), 31 36-item short form survey (SF-36) with 10 collecting both). Blinding and completeness of follow up were examined for each trial. Using trials where individual participant data (IPD) was available from 2 repositories, a comorbidity count was calculated from medical history and/or prescriptions data. Linear regressions were fitted for the association between comorbidity count and (i) quality of life at baseline; (ii) change in quality of life during trial follow up; and (iii) treatment effects on quality of life. These results were then combined in Bayesian linear models. Posterior samples were summarised via the mean, 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles as credible intervals (95% CI) and via the proportion with values less than 0 as the probability (PBayes) of a negative association. All results are in standardised units (obtained by dividing the EQ-5D/SF-36 estimates by published population standard deviations). Per additional comorbidity, adjusting for age and sex, across all index conditions and treatment comparisons, comorbidity count was associated with lower quality of life at baseline and with a decline in quality of life over time (EQ-5D -0.02 [95% CI -0.03 to -0.01], PBayes > 0.999). Associations were similar, but with wider 95% CIs crossing the null for SF-36-PCS and SF-36-MCS (-0.05 [-0.10 to 0.01], PBayes = 0.956 and -0.05 [-0.10 to 0.01], PBayes = 0.966, respectively). Importantly, there was no evidence of any interaction between comorbidity count and treatment efficacy for either EQ-5D or SF-36 (EQ-5D -0.0035 [95% CI -0.0153 to -0.0065], PBayes = 0.746; SF-36-MCS (-0.0111 [95% CI -0.0647 to 0.0416], PBayes = 0.70 and SF-36-PCS -0.0092 [95% CI -0.0758 to 0.0476], PBayes = 0.631. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment effects on quality of life did not differ by multimorbidity (measured via a comorbidity count) at baseline-for the medical conditions studied, types and severity of comorbidities and level of quality of life at baseline, suggesting that evidence from clinical trials is likely to be applicable to settings with (at least modestly) higher levels of comorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A prespecified protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018048202).

Treatment effect modification due to comorbidity: Individual participant data meta-analyses of 120 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: People with comorbidities are underrepresented in clinical trials. Empirical estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity are lacking, leading to uncertainty in treatment recommendations. We aimed to produce estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity using individual participant data (IPD). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We obtained IPD for 120 industry-sponsored phase 3/4 trials across 22 index conditions (n = 128,331). Trials had to be registered between 1990 and 2017 and have recruited ≥300 people. Included trials were multicentre and international. For each index condition, we analysed the outcome most frequently reported in the included trials. We performed a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to estimate modification of treatment effect by comorbidity. First, for each trial, we modelled the interaction between comorbidity and treatment arm adjusted for age and sex. Second, for each treatment within each index condition, we meta-analysed the comorbidity-treatment interaction terms from each trial. We estimated the effect of comorbidity measured in 3 ways: (i) the number of comorbidities (in addition to the index condition); (ii) presence or absence of the 6 commonest comorbid diseases for each index condition; and (iii) using continuous markers of underlying conditions (e.g., estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)). Treatment effects were modelled on the usual scale for the type of outcome (absolute scale for numerical outcomes, relative scale for binary outcomes). Mean age in the trials ranged from 37.1 (allergic rhinitis trials) to 73.0 (dementia trials) and percentage of male participants range from 4.4% (osteoporosis trials) to 100% (benign prostatic hypertrophy trials). The percentage of participants with 3 or more comorbidities ranged from 2.3% (allergic rhinitis trials) to 57% (systemic lupus erythematosus trials). We found no evidence of modification of treatment efficacy by comorbidity, for any of the 3 measures of comorbidity. This was the case for 20 conditions for which the outcome variable was continuous (e.g., change in glycosylated haemoglobin in diabetes) and for 3 conditions in which the outcomes were discrete events (e.g., number of headaches in migraine). Although all were null, estimates of treatment effect modification were more precise in some cases (e.g., sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for type 2 diabetes-interaction term for comorbidity count 0.004, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) while for others credible intervals were wide (e.g., corticosteroids for asthma-interaction term -0.22, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.54). The main limitation is that these trials were not designed or powered to assess variation in treatment effect by comorbidity, and relatively few trial participants had >3 comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of treatment effect modification rarely consider comorbidity. Our findings demonstrate that for trials included in this analysis, there was no empirical evidence of treatment effect modification by comorbidity. The standard assumption used in evidence syntheses is that efficacy is constant across subgroups, although this is often criticised. Our findings suggest that for modest levels of comorbidities, this assumption is reasonable. Thus, trial efficacy findings can be combined with data on natural history and competing risks to assess the likely overall benefit of treatments in the context of comorbidity.

Personalised lung cancer risk stratification and lung cancer screening: do general practice electronic medical records have a role?

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom (UK), cancer screening invitations are based on general practice (GP) registrations. We hypothesize that GP electronic medical records (EMR) can be utilised to calculate a lung cancer risk score with good accuracy/clinical utility. METHODS: The development cohort was Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-SAIL (2.3 million GP EMR) and the validation cohort was UK Biobank-UKB (N = 211,597 with GP-EMR availability). Fast backward method was applied for variable selection and area under the curve (AUC) evaluated discrimination. RESULTS: Age 55-75 were included (SAIL: N = 574,196; UKB: N = 137,918). Six-year lung cancer incidence was 1.1% (6430) in SAIL and 0.48% (656) in UKB. The final model included 17/56 variables in SAIL for the EMR-derived score: age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking status, family history, body mass index (BMI), BMI:smoking interaction, alcohol misuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, dementia, hypertension, painful condition, stroke, peripheral vascular disease and history of previous cancer and previous pneumonia. The GP-EMR-derived score had AUC of 80.4% in SAIL and 74.4% in UKB and outperformed ever-smoked criteria (currently the first step in UK lung cancer screening pilots). DISCUSSION: A GP-EMR-derived score may have a role in UK lung cancer screening by accurately targeting high-risk individuals without requiring patient contact.

Social connection and mortality in UK Biobank: a prospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Components of social connection are associated with mortality, but research examining their independent and combined effects in the same dataset is lacking. This study aimed to examine the independent and combined associations between functional and structural components of social connection and mortality. METHODS: Analysis of 458,146 participants with full data from the UK Biobank cohort linked to mortality registers. Social connection was assessed using two functional (frequency of ability to confide in someone close and often feeling lonely) and three structural (frequency of friends/family visits, weekly group activities, and living alone) component measures. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the associations with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. RESULTS: Over a median of 12.6 years (IQR 11.9-13.3) follow-up, 33,135 (7.2%) participants died, including 5112 (1.1%) CVD deaths. All social connection measures were independently associated with both outcomes. Friends/family visit frequencies < monthly were associated with a higher risk of mortality indicating a threshold effect. There were interactions between living alone and friends/family visits and between living alone and weekly group activity. For example, compared with daily friends/family visits-not living alone, there was higher all-cause mortality for daily visits-living alone (HR 1.19 [95% CI 1.12-1.26]), for never having visits-not living alone (1.33 [1.22-1.46]), and for never having visits-living alone (1.77 [1.61-1.95]). Never having friends/family visits whilst living alone potentially counteracted benefits from other components as mortality risks were highest for those reporting both never having visits and living alone regardless of weekly group activity or functional components. When all measures were combined into overall functional and structural components, there was an interaction between components: compared with participants defined as not isolated by both components, those considered isolated by both components had higher CVD mortality (HR 1.63 [1.51-1.76]) than each component alone (functional isolation 1.17 [1.06-1.29]; structural isolation 1.27 [1.18-1.36]). CONCLUSIONS: This work suggests (1) a potential threshold effect for friends/family visits, (2) that those who live alone with additional concurrent markers of structural isolation may represent a high-risk population, (3) that beneficial associations for some types of social connection might not be felt when other types of social connection are absent, and (4) considering both functional and structural components of social connection may help to identify the most isolated in society.

Assessing Representativeness of Randomised Controlled Trials using Serious Adverse Events.

Context: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. Objectives: We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial Serious Adverse Events (SAEs: most of which reflect hospitalisations/deaths) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care (which, in a trial setting, would be SAEs be definition). Study design: Secondary analysis of trial and routine healthcare data. Dataset and population: 483 trials (n=636,267) from clinicaltrials.gov across 21 index conditions. A routine care comparison was identified from SAIL databank (n=2.3M). Instrument: SAIL data were used to derive the expected rate of hospitalisations/deaths by age, sex and index condition. Outcomes: We calculated the expected number of SAEs for each trial compared to the observed number of SAEs (observed/expected SAE ratio). We then re-calculated the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for comorbidity count in 125 trials for which we accessed individual participant data. Results: For 12/21 index conditions the observed/expected SAE ratio was <1, indicating fewer SAEs in trials than expected given community rates of hospitalisations and deaths. A further 6/21 had point estimates <1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.56-0.65; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34-0.55; Parkinson's disease) to 0.88 (0.59-1.33; IBD). Higher comorbidity count was associated with SAEs/hospitalisations and deaths across index conditions. For most trials, the observed/expected ratio was attenuated but remained <1 after additionally accounting for comorbidity count. Conclusion: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common.

Adaptation and Content Validation of a Patient-Reported Measure of Treatment Burden for use in Stroke Survivors (PETS-Stroke).

Context: Treatment burden is defined as the workload of healthcare for people with long-term conditions and the impact on wellbeing. Stroke survivors often live with considerable treatment burden because of high healthcare workload alongside deficiencies in care provision that can make navigating healthcare systems and managing health more difficult. Ways of measuring treatment burden after stroke are currently lacking. The Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management measure (PETS) is a 60-item patient-reported measure that was developed to measure treatment burden in a multi-morbid population. Although comprehensive, this is not a stroke-specific measure and therefore omits some burdens associated with stroke rehabilitation. Objective: Our aim was to adapt (PETS) (version 2.0, English), a patient-reported measure of treatment burden in multimorbidity, to create a stroke-specific measure (PETS-stroke), and to conduct content validity testing in a UK stroke survivor population. Study Design and analysis: PETS items were adapted to create PETS-stroke, using a previously developed conceptual model of treatment burden in stroke. Content validation involved three rounds of qualitative cognitive interviews with stroke survivors in Scotland recruited through stroke groups and primary care. Participants were asked for feedback on the importance, relevance and clarity of content of PETS-stroke. Framework analysis was used to explore responses. Setting: Community. Population studied: Stroke survivors. Instrument: Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management in stroke (PETS-stroke) scale. Results: Interviews (n=15) resulted in changes to the wording of instructions and items; location of items within the measure; answer options; and recall period. The final PETS-stroke tool has 34-items, spanning 13 domains. It includes 10 items unchanged from PETS, 6 new and 18 amended. Conclusions: The development of a systematic method of quantifying treatment burden from the perspective of stroke survivors will allow for the identification of patients at high risk of treatment burden and will aid the design and testing of tailored interventions aimed at lessening treatment burden.

Baseline characteristics of people experiencing homelessness with a recent drug overdose in the PHOENIx pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-related deaths in Scotland are the highest in Europe. Half of all deaths in people experiencing homelessness are drug related, yet we know little about the unmet health needs of people experiencing homelessness with recent non-fatal overdose, limiting a tailored practice and policy response to a public health crisis. METHODS: People experiencing homelessness with at least one non-fatal street drug overdose in the previous 6 months were recruited from 20 venues in Glasgow, Scotland, and randomised into PHOENIx plus usual care, or usual care. PHOENIx is a collaborative assertive outreach intervention by independent prescriber NHS Pharmacists and third sector homelessness workers, offering repeated integrated, holistic physical, mental and addictions health and social care support including prescribing. We describe comprehensive baseline characteristics of randomised participants. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight participants had a mean age of 42 years (SD 8.4); 71% male, homelessness for a median of 24 years (IQR 12-30). One hundred and eighteen (92%) lived in large, congregate city centre temporary accommodation. A quarter (25%) were not registered with a General Practitioner. Participants had overdosed a mean of 3.2 (SD 3.2) times in the preceding 6 months, using a median of 3 (IQR 2-4) non-prescription drugs concurrently: 112 (87.5%) street valium (benzodiazepine-type new psychoactive substances); 77 (60%) heroin; and 76 (59%) cocaine. Half (50%) were injecting, 50% into their groins. 90% were receiving care from Alcohol and Drug Recovery Services (ADRS), and in addition to using street drugs, 90% received opioid substitution therapy (OST), 10% diazepam for street valium use and one participant received heroin-assisted treatment. Participants had a mean of 2.2 (SD 1.3) mental health problems and 5.4 (SD 2.5) physical health problems; 50% received treatment for physical or mental health problems. Ninety-one per cent had at least one mental health problem; 66% had no specialist mental health support. Participants were frail (70%) or pre-frail (28%), with maximal levels of psychological distress, 44% received one or no daily meal, and 58% had previously attempted suicide. CONCLUSIONS: People at high risk of drug-related death continue to overdose repeatedly despite receiving OST. High levels of frailty, multimorbidity, unsuitable accommodation and unmet mental and physical health care needs require a reorientation of services informed by evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration UK Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ISRCTN 10585019.

Associations between multimorbidity and adverse health outcomes in UK Biobank and the SAIL Databank: A comparison of longitudinal cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Cohorts such as UK Biobank are increasingly used to study multimorbidity; however, there are concerns that lack of representativeness may lead to biased results. This study aims to compare associations between multimorbidity and adverse health outcomes in UK Biobank and a nationally representative sample. METHODS AND FINDINGS: These are observational analyses of cohorts identified from linked routine healthcare data from UK Biobank participants (n = 211,597 from England, Scotland, and Wales with linked primary care data, age 40 to 70, mean age 56.5 years, 54.6% women, baseline assessment 2006 to 2010) and from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank (n = 852,055 from Wales, age 40 to 70, mean age 54.2, 50.0% women, baseline January 2011). Multimorbidity (n = 40 long-term conditions [LTCs]) was identified from primary care Read codes and quantified using a simple count and a weighted score. Individual LTCs and LTC combinations were also assessed. Associations with all-cause mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were assessed using Weibull or negative binomial models adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, over 7.5 years follow-up for both datasets. Multimorbidity was less common in UK Biobank than SAIL (26.9% and 33.0% with ≥2 LTCs in UK Biobank and SAIL, respectively). This difference was attenuated, but persisted, after standardising by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. The association between increasing multimorbidity count and mortality, hospitalisation, and MACE was similar between both datasets at LTC counts of ≤3; however, above this level, UK Biobank underestimated the risk associated with multimorbidity (e.g., mortality hazard ratio for 2 LTCs 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.57 to 1.68) in SAIL and 1.51 (1.43 to 1.59) in UK Biobank, hazard ratio for 5 LTCs was 3.46 (3.31 to 3.61) in SAIL and 2.88 (2.63 to 3.15) in UK Biobank). Absolute risk of mortality, hospitalisation, and MACE, at all levels of multimorbidity, was lower in UK Biobank than SAIL (adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic status). Both cohorts produced similar hazard ratios for some LTCs (e.g., hypertension and coronary heart disease), but UK Biobank underestimated the risk for others (e.g., alcohol-related disorders or mental health conditions). Hazard ratios for some LTC combinations were similar between the cohorts (e.g., cardiovascular conditions); however, UK Biobank underestimated the risk for combinations including other conditions (e.g., mental health conditions). The main limitations are that SAIL databank represents only part of the UK (Wales only) and that in both cohorts we lacked data on severity of the LTCs included. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that UK Biobank accurately estimates relative risk of mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and MACE associated with LTC counts ≤3. However, for counts ≥4, and for some LTC combinations, estimates of magnitude of association from UK Biobank are likely to be conservative. Researchers should be mindful of these limitations of UK Biobank when conducting and interpreting analyses of multimorbidity. Nonetheless, the richness of data available in UK Biobank does offers opportunities to better understand multimorbidity, particularly where complementary data sources less susceptible to selection bias can be used to inform and qualify analyses of UK Biobank.

Multimorbidity and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain do not modify the effect of the SELFBACK app on low back pain-related disability.

BACKGROUND: SELFBACK, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based app delivering evidence-based tailored self-management support to people with low back pain (LBP), has been shown to reduce LBP-related disability when added to usual care. LBP commonly co-occurs with multimorbidity (≥ 2 long-term conditions) or pain at other musculoskeletal sites, so this study explores if these factors modify the effect of the SELFBACK app or influence outcome trajectories over time. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial with 9-month follow-up. Primary outcome is as follows: LBP-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMDQ). Secondary outcomes are as follows: stress/depression/illness perception/self-efficacy/general health/quality of life/physical activity/global perceived effect. We used linear mixed models for continuous outcomes and logistic generalized estimating equation for binary outcomes. Analyses were stratified to assess effect modification, whereas control (n = 229) and intervention (n = 232) groups were pooled in analyses of outcome trajectories. RESULTS: Baseline multimorbidity and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain sites did not modify the effect of the SELFBACK app. The effect was somewhat stronger in people with multimorbidity than among those with LBP only (difference in RMDQ due to interaction, - 0.9[95 % CI - 2.5 to 0.6]). Participants with a greater number of long-term conditions and more co-occurring musculoskeletal pain had higher levels of baseline disability (RMDQ 11.3 for ≥ 2 long-term conditions vs 9.5 for LBP only; 11.3 for ≥ 4 musculoskeletal pain sites vs 10.2 for ≤ 1 additional musculoskeletal pain site); along with higher baseline scores for stress/depression/illness perception and poorer pain self-efficacy/general health ratings. In the pooled sample, LBP-related disability improved slightly less over time for people with ≥ 2 long-term conditions additional to LBP compared to no multimorbidity and for those with ≥4 co-occurring musculoskeletal pain sites compared to ≤ 1 additional musculoskeletal pain site (difference in mean change at 9 months = 1.5 and 2.2, respectively). All groups reported little improvement in secondary outcomes over time. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity or co-occurring musculoskeletal pain does not modify the effect of the selfBACK app on LBP-related disability or other secondary outcomes. Although people with these health problems have worse scores both at baseline and 9 months, the AI-based selfBACK app appears to be helpful for those with multimorbidity or co-occurring musculoskeletal pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03798288 . Date of registration: 9 January 2019.

The presence and impact of multimorbidity clusters on adverse outcomes across the spectrum of kidney function.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more chronic conditions) is common amongst people with chronic kidney disease, but it is unclear which conditions cluster together and if this changes as kidney function declines. We explored which clusters of conditions are associated with different estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) and studied associations between these clusters and adverse outcomes. METHODS: Two population-based cohort studies were used: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements project (SCREAM, Sweden, 2006-2018) and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL, Wales, 2006-2021). We studied participants in SCREAM (404,681 adults) and SAIL (533,362) whose eGFR declined lower than thresholds (90, 75, 60, 45, 30 and 15 mL/min/1.73m2). Clusters based on 27 chronic conditions were identified. We described the most common chronic condition(s) in each cluster and studied their association with adverse outcomes using Cox proportional hazards models (all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)). RESULTS: Chronic conditions became more common and clustered differently across lower eGFR categories. At eGFR 90, 75, and 60 mL/min/1.73m2, most participants were in large clusters with no prominent conditions. At eGFR 15 and 30 mL/min/1.73m2, clusters involving cardiovascular conditions were larger and were at the highest risk of adverse outcomes. At eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73m2, in the heart failure, peripheral vascular disease and diabetes cluster in SCREAM, ACM hazard ratio (HR) is 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31-3.07) and MACE HR is 4.18 (CI 3.65-4.78); in the heart failure and atrial fibrillation cluster in SAIL, ACM HR is 2.23 (CI 2.04 to 2.44) and MACE HR is 3.43 (CI 3.22-3.64). Chronic pain and depression were common and associated with adverse outcomes when combined with physical conditions. At eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73m2, in the chronic pain, heart failure and myocardial infarction cluster in SCREAM, ACM HR is 2.00 (CI 1.62-2.46) and MACE HR is 4.09 (CI 3.39-4.93); in the depression, chronic pain and stroke cluster in SAIL, ACM HR is 1.38 (CI 1.18-1.61) and MACE HR is 1.58 (CI 1.42-1.76). CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of multimorbidity and corresponding risk of adverse outcomes varied with declining eGFR. While diabetes and cardiovascular disease are known high-risk conditions, chronic pain and depression emerged as important conditions and associated with adverse outcomes when combined with physical conditions.

Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data.

BACKGROUND: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial serious adverse events (SAE) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of individual (125 trials, n=122,069) and aggregate-level drug trial data (483 trials, n=636,267) for 21 index conditions compared to population-based routine healthcare data (routine care). Trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov . Routine care comparison from linked primary care and hospital data from Wales, UK (n=2.3M). Our outcome of interest was SAEs (routinely reported in trials). In routine care, SAEs were based on hospitalisations and deaths (which are SAEs by definition). We compared trial SAEs in trials to expected SAEs based on age/sex standardised routine care populations with the same index condition. Using IPD, we assessed the relationship between multimorbidity count and SAEs in both trials and routine care and assessed the impact on the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for multimorbidity. RESULTS: For 12/21 index conditions, the pooled observed/expected SAE ratio was <1, indicating fewer SAEs in trial participants than in routine care. A further 6/21 had point estimates <1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median pooled estimate of observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55-0.64; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34-0.55; Parkinson's disease) to 0.87 (0.58-1.29; inflammatory bowel disease). Higher multimorbidity count was associated with SAEs across all index conditions in both routine care and trials. For most trials, the observed/expected SAE ratio moved closer to 1 after additionally accounting for multimorbidity count, but it nonetheless remained below 1 for most. CONCLUSIONS: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess the applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common.

Multimorbidity in a selected cohort compared to a representative sample: Does selection bias influence outcomes?

Context: UK Biobank is increasingly used to study causes, associations, and implications of multimorbidity. However, UK Biobank is criticised for lack of representativeness and 'healthy volunteer bias'. Selection bias can lead to spurious or biased estimates of associations between exposures and outcomes. Objectives: To compare association between multimorbidity and adverse health outcomes in UK Biobank and a nationally representative sample. Design: Cohorts identified from linked routine healthcare data from UK Biobank and from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Setting: Community. Participants: UK Biobank participants (n=211,597, age 40-70) with linked primary care data and a sample from a nationally representative routine data source (SAIL) (n=852,055, age 40-70). Main outcome measures: Multimorbidity (n=40 long-term conditions [LTCs]) was identified from primary care Read codes and quantified using a simple count and a weighted score. Individual LTCs and LTC combinations were also assessed. Associations with all-cause mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were assessed using Weibull or Poisson models and adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Results: Multimorbidity was less common in UK Biobank than SAIL. This difference was attenuated, but persisted, after standardising by age, sex and socioeconomic status. The effect of increasing multimorbidity count on mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and MACE was similar between UK Biobank and SAIL at LTC counts of ≤3, however above this level UK Biobank underestimated the risk associated with multimorbidity. Absolute risk of mortality, hospitalisation and MACE, at all levels of multimorbidity, was lower in UK Biobank than SAIL (adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic status). Both cohorts produced similar hazard ratios for some LTCs (e.g. hypertension and coronary heart disease) but underestimated the risk for others (e.g. alcohol problems or mental health conditions). Similarly hazard ratios for some LTC combinations were similar between the cohorts (e.g. cardiovascular, respiratory conditions), UK Biobank underestimated the risk for combinations including pain or mental health conditions. Conclusions: UK Biobank accurately estimates risk of outcomes associated with LTC counts ≤3. However, for counts ≥4 estimates of magnitude of association from UK Biobank are likely to be conservative.

Multimorbidity and frailty in middle-aged adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Context: Frailty and multimorbidity are common in type 2 diabetes, including in middle-aged people (<65 years). Clinical guidelines recommend adjustment of treatment targets in people with frailty or multimorbidity. However, guidelines do not specify how frailty/multimorbidity should be identified. It is not clear if recommendations should be applied to people with frailty/multimorbidity at younger ages. Objective: Assess prevalence and clinical implications of frailty/multimorbidity in middle- to older-aged people with type 2 diabetes using four different measures. Design: Cohort, baseline 2006-2010, median 8 years follow-up. Setting: Community Participants: UK Biobank participants (n=20,566) with type 2 diabetes aged 40-72 years. Exposures: Four measures of frailty (frailty phenotype and frailty index) and multimorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity index and numerical count of long-term conditions (LTCs)). Outcomes: Mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular- and cancer-related mortality), Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event (MACE), hospitalization with hypoglycaemia, fall or fracture. Results: Frailty and multimorbidity are prevalent in in people with type 2 diabetes from age 40-72. Individuals identified differed depending on which measure was used: 42% frail of multimorbid by at least one scale; 2.2% were identified by all four scales. Each measure was associated with increased risk of mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer-related), MACE, hypoglycaemia and falls. The absolute risk of 5-year mortality was higher in older versus younger participants with a given level of frailty (e.g. 1.9%, 4.4%, and 9.9% in men aged, 45, 55, and 65, respectively, using frailty phenotype) or multimorbidity (e.g. 1.3%, 3.7%, and 7.8% in med with 4 long-term conditions aged 45, 55, and 65, respectively). No measure was associated with baseline HbA1c. For the frailty index, Charlson Comorbidity index, and LTC count, the relationship between HbA1c and mortality was consistent across all levels of frailty/multimorbidity. For the frailty phenotype, the relationship between HbA1c and mortality was steeper and more linear in frail compared with pre-frail or robust participants. Conclusion: Assessment of frailty/multimorbidity should be embedded within routine management of middle-aged and older people with type 2 diabetes. Method of identification as well as features such as age impact baseline risk and should influence clinical decisions (eg. glycaemic control).

Representativeness of antihypertensive trials: analysis of serious adverse events.

Context: Representativeness of 'standard' antihypertensive drug trials is uncertain, with limited recruitment of older people. Some trials specifically recruit older participants to address this. Trials are obliged to report hospitalizations and deaths, regardless of cause, as Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). If older-people's trials are representative, we would expect rates of SAEs in trials to be similar to the rate of hospitalisation and death in the community, and higher than standard trials. Objective: To compare the rate of SAEs in hypertension trials to rates of hospitalisation and death among people taking similar treatments in the community. Study Design: Observational study comparing trial populations to a community cohort. Dataset: We identified trials of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone system (RAAS) drugs for hypertension from clinicatrials.gov. We identified a community comparison population of people with hypertension starting RAAS drugs using primary care data from the Wales, UK (SAIL databank). Population studied: Trial participants from 110 RAAS hypertension trials (11 older-people's trials, mean age 73, and 99 standard trials, mean age 56). Community cohort of people with hypertension (n=56,036, mean age 60) starting RAAS drugs. Outcomes: SAEs in trials (mostly accounted for by hospitalizations or deaths) and all-cause hospitalizations/deaths in the community comparison. SAE rates in older-people and standard trials were compared, adjusting for trial characteristics. The community rate was used to calculate the expected rate of hospitalizations/deaths given the age/sex distribution of each trial. We then compared the expected rate with the observed rate of SAEs in each trial. Results: Older-people's trials had higher SAEs rate than standard trials (0.18 versus 0.11 events/person/year, adjusted IRR 1.74, 95% CI 1.03-2.92). The hospitalisation and death rate in the community for those taking RAAS antihypertensives was much greater than the rate of SAEs reported in standard (ratio 3.70 (3.12-4.55)) and older-people's trials (4.35 (2.56-7.69)), adjusting for age and sex. Conclusion: Trials report substantially fewer SAEs than expected from rates of hospitalisations and deaths among similar-aged people receiving equivalent treatments in the community. SAE rates may be a useful metric to assess trial representativeness. Clinicians should be cautious when applying trial recommendations to older people, even when trials focus on older people.

The association between a lifestyle score, socioeconomic status, and COVID-19 outcomes within the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) impacts disadvantaged groups most. Lifestyle factors are also associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. To inform COVID-19 policy and interventions, we explored effect modification of socioeconomic-status (SES) on associations between lifestyle and COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using data from UK-Biobank, a large prospective cohort of 502,536 participants aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010, we assigned participants a lifestyle score comprising nine factors. Poisson regression models with penalised splines were used to analyse associations between lifestyle score, deprivation (Townsend), and COVID-19 mortality and severe COVID-19. Associations between each exposure and outcome were examined independently before participants were dichotomised by deprivation to examine exposures jointly. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic/health factors. RESULTS: Of 343,850 participants (mean age > 60 years) with complete data, 707 (0.21%) died from COVID-19 and 2506 (0.76%) had severe COVID-19. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between lifestyle score and COVID-19 mortality but limited evidence for nonlinearity between lifestyle score and severe COVID-19 and between deprivation and COVID-19 outcomes. Compared with low deprivation, participants in the high deprivation group had higher risk of COVID-19 outcomes across the lifestyle score. There was evidence for an additive interaction between lifestyle score and deprivation. Compared with participants with the healthiest lifestyle score in the low deprivation group, COVID-19 mortality risk ratios (95% CIs) for those with less healthy scores in low versus high deprivation groups were 5.09 (1.39-25.20) and 9.60 (4.70-21.44), respectively. Equivalent figures for severe COVID-19 were 5.17 (2.46-12.01) and 6.02 (4.72-7.71). Alternative SES measures produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Unhealthy lifestyles are associated with higher risk of adverse COVID-19, but risks are highest in the most disadvantaged, suggesting an additive influence between SES and lifestyle. COVID-19 policy and interventions should consider both lifestyle and SES. The greatest public health benefit from lifestyle focussed COVID-19 policy and interventions is likely to be seen when greatest support for healthy living is provided to the most disadvantaged groups.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop a Decision Support System-Based Smartphone App (selfBACK) to Support Self-management of Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Development and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines consistently endorse the promotion of self-management for people with low back pain (LBP); however, implementation of these guidelines remains a challenge. Digital health interventions, such as those that can be provided by smartphone apps, have been proposed as a promising mode of supporting self-management in people with chronic conditions, including LBP. However, the evidence base for digital health interventions to support self-management of LBP is weak, and detailed descriptions and documentation of the interventions are lacking. Structured intervention mapping (IM) constitutes a 6-step process that can be used to guide the development of complex interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to describe the IM process for designing and creating an app-based intervention designed to support self-management of nonspecific LBP to reduce pain-related disability. METHODS: The first 5 steps of the IM process were systematically applied. The core processes included literature reviews, brainstorming and group discussions, and the inclusion of stakeholders and representatives from the target population. Over a period of >2 years, the intervention content and the technical features of delivery were created, tested, and revised through user tests, feasibility studies, and a pilot study. RESULTS: A behavioral outcome was identified as a proxy for reaching the overall program goal, that is, increased use of evidence-based self-management strategies. Physical exercises, education, and physical activity were the main components of the self-management intervention and were designed and produced to be delivered via a smartphone app. All intervention content was theoretically underpinned by the behavior change theory and the normalization process theory. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a detailed example of the application of the IM approach for the development of a theory-driven, complex, and digital intervention designed to support self-management of LBP. This description provides transparency in the developmental process of the intervention and can be a possible blueprint for designing and creating future digital health interventions for self-management.

An analysis of the diagnostic accuracy and peer-to-peer health information provided on online health forums for heart failure.

AIMS: To examine the accuracy of diagnostic responses and types of information provided on online health forums. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: This paper reports the findings of a thematic analysis of peer responses to posts included on heart failure online health forums, to understand the quality and types of information provided. Responses posted between March 2016 and March 2019 were screened, collected and analysed thematically using Braun & Clarke. Themes were conceptually underpinned by Normalization Process Theory. Responses were assessed for quality against the NICE and SIGN guidelines to determine whether they were evidence based or not. RESULTS: The total number of responses collected for analysis was 639. Five main themes were identified: diagnostic, experiential, informational, peer relations and relationships with healthcare professionals. Out of 298 diagnostic responses, 5% were guideline evidence-based and 6% had information that were partly evidence-based. Non-evidence based and potentially dangerous responses were 10%. Experiential responses were 10%; 23% included advice that was not supported with any clinical evidence; and 46% signposted users to other online references/healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Online health communication largely focuses on provision of experiential responses to assist those in need of pre- or post-diagnosis advice and support. However, there is evidence of inaccurate information provision which suggests the use of a moderator would be beneficial. IMPACT: This study suggests heart failure online health forums are a source of support, however, there are potential risks. Increasing nurses and other health care professional's awareness of online health forums will be important. Additional training is needed to help them learn more about patient's use of online health forums, to gain a better understanding about the types of information sought, and how best to address such knowledge deficits. Healthcare systems must ensure sufficient time and resources are available to meet information needs for people with heart failure.

Association between patterns of alcohol consumption (beverage type, frequency and consumption with food) and risk of adverse health outcomes: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption is a leading contributor to death and disability worldwide, but previous research has not examined the effects of different patterns of alcohol consumption. The study objective was to understand the relationship between different alcohol consumption patterns and adverse health outcomes risk, adjusting for average amount consumed among regular drinkers. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of UK Biobank (UKB) participants. Abstainers, infrequent alcohol consumers or those with previous cancer, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or liver cirrhosis were excluded. We used beverage type, consumption with food and consumption frequency as exposures and adjusted for potential confounding. All-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events-MACE (MI/stroke/cardiovascular death), accidents/injuries, liver cirrhosis, all-cause and alcohol-related cancer incidence over 9-year median follow-up period were outcomes of interest. RESULTS: The final sample size for analysis was N = 309,123 (61.5% of UKB sample). Spirit drinking was associated with higher adjusted mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.25; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.14-1.38), MACE (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.15-1.50), cirrhosis (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.08-2.03) and accident/injuries (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.03-1.19) risk compared to red wine drinking, after adjusting for the average weekly alcohol consumption amounts. Beer/cider drinkers were also at a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.27), MACE (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.05-1.27), cirrhosis (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.06-1.74) and accidents/injuries (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17). Alcohol consumption without food was associated with higher adjusted mortality (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02-1.17) risk, compared to consumption with food. Alcohol consumption over 1-2 times/week had higher adjusted mortality (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16) and MACE (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23) risk, compared to 3-4 times/week, adjusting for the amount of alcohol consumed. CONCLUSION: Red wine drinking, consumption with food and spreading alcohol intake over 3-4 days were associated with lower risk of mortality and vascular events among regular alcohol drinkers, after adjusting for the effects of average amount consumed. Selection bias and residual confounding are important possible limitations. These findings, if replicated and validated, have the potential to influence policy and practice advice on less harmful patterns of alcohol consumption.

Hospitalisation events in people with chronic kidney disease as a component of multimorbidity: parallel cohort studies in research and routine care settings.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically co-exists with multimorbidity (presence of 2 or more long-term conditions: LTCs). The associations between CKD, multimorbidity and hospitalisation rates are not known. The aim of this study was to examine hospitalisation rates in people with multimorbidity with and without CKD. Amongst people with CKD, the aim was to identify risk factors for hospitalisation. METHODS: Two cohorts were studied in parallel: UK Biobank (a prospective research study: 2006-2020) and Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL: a routine care database, Wales, UK: 2011-2018). Adults were included if their kidney function was measured at baseline. Nine categories of participants were used: zero LTCs; one, two, three and four or more LTCs excluding CKD; and one, two, three and four or more LTCs including CKD. Emergency hospitalisation events were obtained from linked hospital records. RESULTS: Amongst 469,339 UK Biobank participants, those without CKD had a median of 1 LTC and those with CKD had a median of 3 LTCs. Amongst 1,620,490 SAIL participants, those without CKD had a median of 1 LTC and those with CKD had a median of 5 LTCs. Compared to those with zero LTCs, participants with four or more LTCs (excluding CKD) had high event rates (rate ratios UK Biobank 4.95 (95% confidence interval 4.82-5.08)/SAIL 3.77 (3.71-3.82)) with higher rates if CKD was one of the LTCs (rate ratios UK Biobank 7.83 (7.42-8.25)/SAIL 9.92 (9.75-10.09)). Amongst people with CKD, risk factors for hospitalisation were advanced CKD, age over 60, multiple cardiometabolic LTCs, combined physical and mental LTCs and complex patterns of multimorbidity (LTCs in three or more body systems). CONCLUSIONS: People with multimorbidity have high rates of hospitalisation. Importantly, the rates are two to three times higher when CKD is one of the multimorbid conditions. Further research is needed into the mechanism underpinning this to inform strategies to prevent hospitalisation in this very high-risk group.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging.

The EarlyCDT-Lung test is a high-specificity blood-based autoantibody biomarker that could contribute to predicting lung cancer risk. We report on the results of a phase IV biomarker evaluation of whether using the EarlyCDT-Lung test and any subsequent computed tomography (CT) scanning to identify those at high risk of lung cancer reduces the incidence of patients with stage III/IV/unspecified lung cancer at diagnosis compared with the standard clinical practice at the time the study began.The Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) trial was a randomised controlled trial of 12 208 participants at risk of developing lung cancer in Scotland in the UK. The intervention arm received the EarlyCDT-Lung test and, if test-positive, low-dose CT scanning 6-monthly for up to 2 years. EarlyCDT-Lung test-negative and control arm participants received standard clinical care. Outcomes were assessed at 2 years post-randomisation using validated data on cancer occurrence, cancer staging, mortality and comorbidities.At 2 years, 127 lung cancers were detected in the study population (1.0%). In the intervention arm, 33 out of 56 (58.9%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage III/IV compared with 52 out of 71 (73.2%) in the control arm. The hazard ratio for stage III/IV presentation was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99). There were nonsignificant differences in lung cancer and all-cause mortality after 2 years.ECLS compared EarlyCDT-Lung plus CT screening to standard clinical care (symptomatic presentation) and was not designed to assess the incremental contribution of the EarlyCDT-Lung test. The observation of a stage shift towards earlier-stage lung cancer diagnosis merits further investigations to evaluate whether the EarlyCDT-Lung test adds anything to the emerging standard of low-dose CT.