How does the environment in and around the home affect social care and health outcomes for older people? A national longitudinal dynamic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the burden of falls and fall-related admissions to hospital and care homes is an important policy area because falls cause significant injury leading to a reduced quality of life. We investigated the effect of the environment around people's homes on the risk of falls for older people in Wales. METHODS: In this longitudinal cohort study, we created a dynamic national e-cohort of individuals aged 60 years or older living in Wales between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2019. Using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank, we linked routinely collected, anonymised health-data on general practitioner (GP) appointments; hospital and emergency admissions; and longitudinal individual-level demographic data to metrics detailing the built environment and deprivation as determined by the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. Using adjusted cox regression models, we assessed how the risk of a fall changed with sex, age, deprivation quintile, urban or rural classification, household occupancy, care status, frailty, dementia diagnosis, and built environment metrics. Built environments of urban and rural areas are very different, so we stratified our analysis by urbanicity to compare these associations in each setting. FINDINGS: We analysed 5 536 444 person-years of data from 931 830 individuals (sex: 51·5% female, 48·5% male; age: 69·2% aged 60-64 years, 12·3% aged 65-69 years, 13·3% aged 70-79 years, 4·4% aged 80-89 years, and 0·7% aged ≥90 years). 154 060 (16·5%) had a fall between joining the cohort and Dec 31, 2019. Men had a lower risk of falling than women (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·736 [0·729-0·742]), and the risk increased with age compared with individuals aged 60-64 years (1·395 [1·378-1·412] for 65-69 years, 1·892 [1·871-1·913] for 70-79 years, 2·668 [2·623-2·713] for 80-89 years, 3·196 [3·063-3·335] for ≥90 years) and with frailty compared with fit individuals (1·609 [1·593-1·624] for mild frailty, 2·263 [2·234-2·293] for moderate frailty, and 2·833 [2·770-2·897] for severe frailty). Those living in rural areas were less likely to fall than those in urban areas (0·711 [0·702-0·720]). All p values were less than 0·0001. INTERPRETATION: Although preliminary, these results corroborate current knowledge that as we age and become frailer, the risk of falling increases. The effect of urbanicity on risk of fall suggests that the built environment could be associated with fall risk. We only detected falls that caused emergency or hospital admission, leading to potential selection bias. Nevertheless, this research could help guide policy to reduce the incidence of injuries caused by falls in older people. FUNDING: Health and Care Research Wales.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential for advances in data linkage and data science to support injury prevention research.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic stimulated unprecedented linkage of datasets worldwide, and while injury is endemic rather than pandemic, there is much to be learned by the injury prevention community from the data science approaches taken to respond to the pandemic to support research into the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of injuries. The use of routinely collected data to produce real-world evidence, as an alternative to clinical trials, has been gaining in popularity as the availability and quality of digital health platforms grow and the linkage landscape, and the analytics required to make best use of linked and unstructured data, is rapidly evolving. Capitalising on existing data sources, innovative linkage and advanced analytic approaches provides the opportunity to undertake novel injury prevention research and generate new knowledge, while avoiding data waste and additional burden to participants. We provide a tangible, but not exhaustive, list of examples showing the breadth and value of data linkage, along with the emerging capabilities of natural language processing techniques to enhance injury research. To optimise data science approaches to injury prevention, injury researchers in this area need to share methods, code, models and tools to improve consistence and efficiencies in this field. Increased collaboration between injury prevention researchers and data scientists working on population data linkage systems has much to offer this field of research.

Impact of an injury hospital admission on childhood academic performance: a Welsh population-based data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: While injuries can impact on children's educational achievements (with threats to their development and employment prospects), these risks are poorly quantified. This population-based longitudinal study investigated the impact of an injury-related hospital admission on Welsh children's academic performance. METHODS: The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank, 55 587 children residing in Wales from 2006 to 2016 who had an injury hospital admission (58.2% males; 16.8% born in most deprived Wales area; 80.1% one injury hospital admission) were linked to data from the Wales Electronic Cohort for Children. The primary outcome was the Core Subject Indicator reflecting educational achievement at key stages 2 (school years 3-6), 3 (school years 7-9) and 4 (school years 10-11). Covariates in models included demographic, birth, injury and school characteristics. RESULTS: Educational achievement of children was negatively associated with: pedestrian injuries (adjusted risk ratio, (95% CIs)) (0.87, (0.83 to 0.92)), cyclist (0.96, (0.94 to 0.99)), high fall (0.96, (0.94 to 0.97)), fire/flames/smoke (0.85, (0.73 to 0.99)), cutting/piercing object (0.96, (0.93 to 0.99)), intentional self-harm (0.86, (0.82 to 0.91)), minor traumatic brain injury (0.92, (0.86 to 0.99)), contusion/open wound (0.93, (0.91 to 0.95)), fracture of vertebral column (0.78, (0.64 to 0.95)), fracture of femur (0.88, (0.84 to 0.93)), internal abdomen/pelvic haemorrhage (0.82, (0.69 to 0.97)), superficial injury (0.94, (0.92 to 0.97)), young maternal age (<18 years: 0.91, (0.88 to 0.94); 19-24 years: 0.94, (0.93 to 0.96)); area based socioeconomic status (0.98, (0.97 to 0.98)); moving to a more deprived area (0.95, (0.93 to 0.97)); requiring special educational needs (0.46, (0.44 to 0.47)). Positive associations were: being female (1.04, (1.03 to 1.06)); larger pupil school sizes and maternal age 30+ years. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance on a child's education of preventing injuries and implementing intervention programmes that support injured children. Greater attention is needed on equity-focused educational support and social policies addressing needs of children at risk of underachievement, including those from families experiencing poverty. VIBES-JUNIOR STUDY PROTOCOL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024755.

PHIRI: lessons for an extensive reuse of sensitive data in federated health research.

BACKGROUND: The extensive and continuous reuse of sensitive health data could enhance the role of population health research on public decisions. This paper describes the design principles and the different building blocks that have supported the implementation and deployment of Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI), the strengths and challenges of the approach and some future developments. METHODS: The design and implementation of PHIRI have been developed upon: (i) the data visiting principle-data does not move but code moves; (ii) the orchestration of the research question throughout a workflow that ensured legal, organizational, semantic and technological interoperability and (iii) a 'master-worker' federated computational architecture that supported the development of four uses cases. RESULTS: Nine participants nodes and 28 Euro-Peristat members completed the deployment of the infrastructure according to the expected outputs. As a consequence, each use case produced and published their own common data model, the analytical pipeline and the corresponding research outputs. All the digital objects were developed and published according to Open Science and FAIR principles. CONCLUSION: PHIRI has successfully supported the development of four use cases in a federated manner, overcoming limitations for the reuse of sensitive health data and providing a methodology to achieve interoperability in multiple research nodes.

Delayed treatment in breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population health information research infrastructure (PHIRI) case study.

BACKGROUND: The indirect impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on healthcare services was studied by assessing changes in the trend of the time to first treatment for women 18 or older who were diagnosed and treated for breast cancer between 2017 and 2021. METHODS: An observational retrospective longitudinal study based on aggregated data from four European Union (EU) countries/regions investigating the time it took to receive breast cancer treatment. We compiled outputs from a federated analysis to detect structural breakpoints, confirming the empirical breakpoints by differences between the trends observed and forecasted after March 2020. Finally, we built several segmented regressions to explore the association of contextual factors with the observed changes in treatment delays. RESULTS: We observed empirical structural breakpoints on the monthly median time to surgery trend in Aragon (ranging from 9.20 to 17.38 days), Marche (from 37.17 to 42.04 days) and Wales (from 28.67 to 35.08 days). On the contrary, no empirical structural breakpoints were observed in Belgium (ranging from 21.25 to 23.95 days) after the pandemic's beginning. Furthermore, we confirmed statistically significant differences between the observed trend and the forecasts for Aragon and Wales. Finally, we found the interaction between the region and the pandemic's start (before/after March 2020) significantly associated with the trend of delayed breast cancer treatment at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: Although they were not clinically relevant, only Aragon and Wales showed significant differences with expected delays after March 2020. However, experiences differed between countries/regions, pointing to structural factors other than the pandemic.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed existing patterns of non-COVID-19 health care utilization? A retrospective analysis of six regions in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Resilience of national health systems in Europe remains a major concern in times of multiple crises and as more evidence is emerging relating to the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care utilization (HCU), resulting from de-prioritization of regular, non-pandemic healthcare services. Most extant studies focus on regional, disease specific or early pandemic HCU creating difficulties in comparing across multiple countries. We provide a comparatively broad definition of HCU across multiple countries, with potential to expand across regions and timeframes. METHODS: Using a cross-country federated research infrastructure (FRI), we examined HCU for acute cardiovascular events, elective surgeries and serious trauma. Aggregated data were used in forecast modelling to identify changes from predicted European age-standardized counts via fitted regressions (2017-19), compared against post-pandemic data. RESULTS: We found that elective surgeries were most affected, universally falling below predicted levels in 2020. For cardiovascular HCU, we found lower-than-expected cases in every region for heart attacks and displayed large sex differences. Serious trauma was the least impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The strength of this study comes from the use of the European Population Health Information Research Infrastructure's (PHIRI) FRI, allowing for rapid analysis of regional differences to assess indirect impacts of events such as pandemics. There are marked differences in the capacity of services to return to normal in terms of elective surgery; additionally, we found considerable differences between men and women which requires further research on potential sex or gender patterns of HCU during crises.

The impact of varying the number and selection of conditions on estimated multimorbidity prevalence: A cross-sectional study using a large, primary care population dataset.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity prevalence rates vary considerably depending on the conditions considered in the morbidity count, but there is no standardised approach to the number or selection of conditions to include. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using English primary care data for 1,168,260 participants who were all people alive and permanently registered with 149 included general practices. Outcome measures of the study were prevalence estimates of multimorbidity (defined as ≥2 conditions) when varying the number and selection of conditions considered for 80 conditions. Included conditions featured in ≥1 of the 9 published lists of conditions examined in the study and/or phenotyping algorithms in the Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK) Phenotype Library. First, multimorbidity prevalence was calculated when considering the individually most common 2 conditions, 3 conditions, etc., up to 80 conditions. Second, prevalence was calculated using 9 condition-lists from published studies. Analyses were stratified by dependent variables age, socioeconomic position, and sex. Prevalence when only the 2 commonest conditions were considered was 4.6% (95% CI [4.6, 4.6] p < 0.001), rising to 29.5% (95% CI [29.5, 29.6] p < 0.001) considering the 10 commonest, 35.2% (95% CI [35.1, 35.3] p < 0.001) considering the 20 commonest, and 40.5% (95% CI [40.4, 40.6] p < 0.001) when considering all 80 conditions. The threshold number of conditions at which multimorbidity prevalence was >99% of that measured when considering all 80 conditions was 52 for the whole population but was lower in older people (29 in >80 years) and higher in younger people (71 in 0- to 9-year-olds). Nine published condition-lists were examined; these were either recommended for measuring multimorbidity, used in previous highly cited studies of multimorbidity prevalence, or widely applied measures of "comorbidity." Multimorbidity prevalence using these lists varied from 11.1% to 36.4%. A limitation of the study is that conditions were not always replicated using the same ascertainment rules as previous studies to improve comparability across condition-lists, but this highlights further variability in prevalence estimates across studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that varying the number and selection of conditions results in very large differences in multimorbidity prevalence, and different numbers of conditions are needed to reach ceiling rates of multimorbidity prevalence in certain groups of people. These findings imply that there is a need for a standardised approach to defining multimorbidity, and to facilitate this, researchers can use existing condition-lists associated with highest multimorbidity prevalence.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence of long-term conditions in Welsh residents: a population linkage study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had direct and indirect effects on health. Indirect effects on long term medical conditions (LTCs) are unclear. We examined trends in recorded incidences of LTCs and quantified differences between expected rates and observed rates from 2020 onwards. METHODS: This is a population data linkage study using primary and secondary care data within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. We included data of Welsh residents diagnosed with any of 17 identified LTCs for the first time between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2021. LTC's include mental health conditions, respiratory diseases, and heart conditions among others, generally chosen in line with the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The primary outcome was incidence rates (monthly number of new cases per 100 000 population). For each LTC, we did interrupted time series analysis of incidence rates from 2015 to 2021. Expected rates from between Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021, were predicted using overall trends and seasonal patterns from the preceding 5 years and compared with observed rates. FINDINGS: We included 5 476 012 diagnoses from 2 257 992 individuals diagnosed with at least one LTC between Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2021. Across multiple long-term conditions, there was an abrupt reduction in observed incidence of new diagnoses from March to April 2020, followed by a general increase in incidence towards prepandemic rates. The conditions with the largest percentage difference between the observed and expected incidence rates in 2020 and 2021 were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (38·4% lower than expected), depression (28·3% lower), hypertension (25·5% lower), and anxiety disorders (24·9% lower). The condition with the largest absolute difference between observed and expected incidence rates was anxiety disorders, with 830 per 100 000 less in 2020 and 2021 compared with observed rates. INTERPRETATION: The reduction in incidence rates of LTCs suggests an underreporting of LTCs, especially during 2020 and early 2021. The emergence of these yet undiagnosed cases could result in a surge of new patients in the near future. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, funded by Health and Care Research Wales.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. METHODS: We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 16 208 600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 13 836 390 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45-3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07-9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions-in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53-6·09])-and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90-4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·58]). INTERPRETATION: Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. FUNDING: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Rebound in asthma exacerbations following relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions: a longitudinal population-based study (COVIDENCE UK).

BACKGROUND: The imposition of restrictions on social mixing early in the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a reduction in asthma exacerbations in multiple settings internationally. Temporal trends in social mixing, incident acute respiratory infections (ARI) and asthma exacerbations following relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions have not yet been described. METHODS: We conducted a population-based longitudinal study in 2312 UK adults with asthma between November 2020 and April 2022. Details of face covering use, social mixing, incident ARI and severe asthma exacerbations were collected via monthly online questionnaires. Temporal changes in these parameters were visualised using Poisson generalised additive models. Multilevel logistic regression was used to test for associations between incident ARI and risk of asthma exacerbations, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions from April 2021 coincided with reduced face covering use (p<0.001), increased frequency of indoor visits to public places and other households (p<0.001) and rising incidence of COVID-19 (p<0.001), non-COVID-19 ARI (p<0.001) and severe asthma exacerbations (p=0.007). Incident non-COVID-19 ARI associated independently with increased risk of asthma exacerbation (adjusted OR 5.75, 95% CI 4.75 to 6.97) as did incident COVID-19, both prior to emergence of the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (5.89, 3.45 to 10.04) and subsequently (5.69, 3.89 to 8.31). CONCLUSIONS: Relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions coincided with decreased face covering use, increased social mixing and a rebound in ARI and asthma exacerbations. Associations between incident ARI and risk of severe asthma exacerbation were similar for non-COVID-19 ARI and COVID-19, both before and after emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04330599.

Impact of data source choice on multimorbidity measurement: a comparison study of 2.3 million individuals in the Welsh National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of multimorbidity in research is variable, including the choice of the data source used to ascertain conditions. We compared the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity and associations with mortality using different data sources. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of SAIL Databank data including 2,340,027 individuals of all ages living in Wales on 01 January 2019. Comparison of prevalence of multimorbidity and constituent 47 conditions using data from primary care (PC), hospital inpatient (HI), and linked PC-HI data sources and examination of associations between condition count and 12-month mortality. RESULTS: Using linked PC-HI compared with only HI data, multimorbidity was more prevalent (32.2% versus 16.5%), and the population of people identified as having multimorbidity was younger (mean age 62.5 versus 66.8 years) and included more women (54.2% versus 52.6%). Individuals with multimorbidity in both PC and HI data had stronger associations with mortality than those with multimorbidity only in HI data (adjusted odds ratio 8.34 [95% CI 8.02-8.68] versus 6.95 (95%CI 6.79-7.12] in people with ≥ 4 conditions). The prevalence of conditions identified using only PC versus only HI data was significantly higher for 37/47 and significantly lower for 10/47: the highest PC/HI ratio was for depression (14.2 [95% CI 14.1-14.4]) and the lowest for aneurysm (0.51 [95% CI 0.5-0.5]). Agreement in ascertainment of conditions between the two data sources varied considerably, being slight for five (kappa < 0.20), fair for 12 (kappa 0.21-0.40), moderate for 16 (kappa 0.41-0.60), and substantial for 12 (kappa 0.61-0.80) conditions, and by body system was lowest for mental and behavioural disorders. The percentage agreement, individuals with a condition identified in both PC and HI data, was lowest in anxiety (4.6%) and highest in coronary artery disease (62.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of single data sources may underestimate prevalence when measuring multimorbidity and many important conditions (especially mental and behavioural disorders). Caution should be used when interpreting findings of research examining individual and multiple long-term conditions using single data sources. Where available, researchers using electronic health data should link primary care and hospital inpatient data to generate more robust evidence to support evidence-based healthcare planning decisions for people with multimorbidity.

The epidemiology, healthcare and societal burden of basal cell carcinoma in Wales 2000-2018: a retrospective nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) represents the most commonly occurring cancer worldwide within the white population. Reports predict 298 308 cases of BCC in the UK by 2025, at a cost of £265-366 million to the National Health Service (NHS). Despite the morbidity, societal and healthcare pressures brought about by BCC, routinely collected healthcare data and global registration remain limited. OBJECTIVES: To calculate the incidence of BCC in Wales between 2000 and 2018 and to establish the related healthcare utilization and estimated cost of care. METHODS: The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank is one of the largest and most robust health and social care data repositories in the UK. Cancer registry data were linked to routinely collected healthcare databases between 2000 and 2018. Pathological data from Swansea Bay University Health Board (SBUHB) were used for internal validation. RESULTS: A total of 61 404 histologically proven BCCs were identified within the SAIL Databank during the study period. The European age-standardized incidence for BCC in 2018 was 224.6 per 100 000 person-years. Based on validated regional data, a 45% greater incidence was noted within SBUHB pathology vs. matched regions within SAIL between 2016 and 2018. A negative association between deprivation and incidence was noted with a higher incidence in the least socially deprived and rural dwellers. Approximately 2% travelled 25-50 miles for dermatological services compared with 37% for plastic surgery. Estimated NHS costs of surgically managed lesions for 2002-2019 equated to £119.2-164.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: Robust epidemiological data that are internationally comparable and representative are scarce for nonmelanoma skin cancer. The rising global incidence coupled with struggling healthcare systems in the post-COVID-19 recovery period serve to intensify the societal and healthcare impact. This study is the first to demonstrate the incidence of BCC in Wales and is one of a small number in the UK using internally validated large cohort datasets. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate one of the highest published incidences within the UK and Europe.

Genetic influences on epilepsy outcomes: A whole-exome sequencing and health care records data linkage study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to develop a novel pathway linking genetic data with routinely collected data for people with epilepsy, and to analyze the influence of rare, deleterious genetic variants on epilepsy outcomes. METHODS: We linked whole-exome sequencing (WES) data with routinely collected primary and secondary care data and natural language processing (NLP)-derived seizure frequency information for people with epilepsy within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. The study participants were adults who had consented to participate in the Swansea Neurology Biobank, Wales, between 2016 and 2018. DNA sequencing was carried out as part of the Epi25 collaboration. For each individual, we calculated the total number and cumulative burden of rare and predicted deleterious genetic variants and the total of rare and deleterious variants in epilepsy and drug metabolism genes. We compared these measures with the following outcomes: (1) no unscheduled hospital admissions versus unscheduled admissions for epilepsy, (2) antiseizure medication (ASM) monotherapy versus polytherapy, and (3) at least 1 year of seizure freedom versus <1 year of seizure freedom. RESULTS: We linked genetic data for 107 individuals with epilepsy (52% female) to electronic health records. Twenty-six percent had unscheduled hospital admissions, and 70% were prescribed ASM polytherapy. Seizure frequency information was linked for 100 individuals, and 10 were seizure-free. There was no significant difference between the outcome groups in terms of the exome-wide and gene-based burden of rare and deleterious genetic variants. SIGNIFICANCE: We successfully uploaded, annotated, and linked genetic sequence data and NLP-derived seizure frequency data to anonymized health care records in this proof-of-concept study. We did not detect a genetic influence on real-world epilepsy outcomes, but our study was limited by a small sample size. Future studies will require larger (WES) data to establish genetic variant contribution to epilepsy outcomes.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on community prescription of opioid and antineuropathic analgesics for cancer patients in Wales, UK.

PURPOSE: Public health measures instituted at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK in 2020 had profound effects on the cancer patient pathway. We hypothesise that this may have affected analgesic prescriptions for cancer patients in primary care. METHODS: A whole-nation retrospective, observational study of opioid and antineuropathic analgesics prescribed in primary care for two cohorts of cancer patients in Wales, using linked anonymised data to evaluate the impact of the pandemic and variation between different demographic backgrounds. RESULTS: We found a significant increase in strong opioid prescriptions during the pandemic for patients within their first 12 months of diagnosis with a common cancer (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.15, 95% CI: 1.12-1.18, p < 0.001 for strong opioids) and significant increases in strong opioid and antineuropathic prescriptions for patients in the last 3 months prior to a cancer-related death (IRR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04-1.07, p < 0.001 for strong opioids; IRR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.08-1.14, p < 0.001 for antineuropathics). A spike in opioid prescriptions for patients diagnosed in Q2 2020 and those who died in Q2 2020 was observed and interpreted as stockpiling. More analgesics were prescribed in more deprived quintiles. This differential was less pronounced in patients towards the end of life, which we attribute to closer professional supervision. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate significant changes to community analgesic prescriptions for cancer patients related to the UK pandemic and illustrate prescription patterns linked to patients' demographic background.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on female breast, colorectal and non-small cell lung cancer incidence, stage and healthcare pathway to diagnosis during 2020 in Wales, UK, using a national cancer clinical record system.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic responses impacted behaviour and health services. We estimated the impact on incidence, stage and healthcare pathway to diagnosis for female breast, colorectal and non-small cell lung cancers at population level in Wales. METHODS: Cancer e-record and hospital admission data linkage identified adult cases, stage and healthcare pathway to diagnosis (population ~2.5 million). Using multivariate Poisson regressions, we compared 2019 and 2020 counts and estimated incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Cases decreased 15.2% (n = -1011) overall. Female breast annual IRR was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86, p < 0.001), colorectal 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.81, p < 0.001) and non-small cell lung 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-0.92, p < 0.001). Decreases were largest in 50-69 year olds for female breast and 80+ year olds for all cancers. Stage I female breast cancer declined 41.6%, but unknown stage increased 55.8%. Colorectal stages I-IV declined (range 26.6-29.9%), while unknown stage increased 803.6%. Colorectal Q2-2020 GP-urgent suspected cancer diagnoses decreased 50.0%, and 53.9% for non-small cell lung cancer. Annual screen-detected female breast and colorectal cancers fell 47.8% and 13.3%, respectively. Non-smal -cell lung cancer emergency presentation diagnoses increased 9.5% (Q2-2020) and 16.3% (Q3-2020). CONCLUSION: Significantly fewer cases of three common cancers were diagnosed in 2020. Detrimental impacts on outcomes varied between cancers. Ongoing surveillance with health service optimisation will be needed to mitigate impacts.