Exploring Public, Practitioner and Policymaker Perspectives of Unhealthy Lifestyle Factors in the Context of Socioeconomic Deprivation: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Unhealthy lifestyle factors, such as smoking, high alcohol intake, poor diet and physical inactivity, are key risk factors for premature mortality. How unhealthy lifestyle factors are viewed in the wider context of socioeconomic deprivation is rarely considered. Understanding key stakeholder views on lifestyle factors in the context of deprivation is critical to intervention development and reducing harm in more deprived populations. The aim of this study was to explore public, healthcare professional and policymaker views around unhealthy lifestyle factors in the context of deprivation. The aim was broad to facilitate iterative development of ideas, as the views of this wide range of stakeholders are rarely captured. METHODS: Twenty-five adult members of the public in Scotland took part in four focus groups between August 2022 and June 2023. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals: 12 primary-care practitioners and 6 public-health practitioners and policymakers. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Four main themes were developed: (1) Evolving complexity of lifestyle factors - the number of lifestyle factors that adversely impact health has grown, with increasingly complex interactions, (2) Social determinants of lifestyle - numerous links were made between socioeconomic conditions and unhealthy lifestyle factors by all participants, (3) Poverty as a fundamental social determinant - poverty was identified as a core factor for unhealthy lifestyle factors, and (4) Agency versus structure in relation to lifestyle - individual agency to address lifestyle factors was limited by structural constraints. Among professionals, understanding the challenging social determinants of unhealthy lifestyle factors was countered by a desire to support healthy change in those affected by deprivation. CONCLUSION: Public and professional views around lifestyle highlight an evolving understanding of the new and growing number of lifestyle factors as well as the increasingly complex interplay between lifestyle factors. Views of the social determinants of lifestyle and structural limits to agency strengthen arguments for reduced emphasis on individual-level responsibility for unhealthy lifestyle factors and for deeper integration of social determinants into lifestyle interventions. In addition to addressing poverty and socioeconomic inequalities directly, innovative policy, planning and legislation that incorporate wider approaches could tackle upstream determinants of numerous unhealthy lifestyle factors simultaneously. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public who participated in this study have made contributions by sharing their views and perspectives. The National Health Service Research Scotland Primary Care Patient and Public Involvement (NRS PPI) Group contributed to the development of this work. The NRS PPI Group was consulted as part of the preparatory work for H. M. E. F.'s doctoral thesis funding application. The findings of the qualitative work were presented to them, and they informed the interpretation of those findings and related work presented at conferences and public engagement events.

Patient and Public Involvement in Research Evaluating Integrated Care for People Experiencing Homelessness: Findings From the PHOENIx Community Pharmacy Pilot Randomised-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of research on and a limited understanding of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the context of research in homelessness and, in particular, direct involvement of people with lived and living experience of homelessness (PEH) as expert advisors. We aim to report on outcomes and reflections from lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) meetings and PPI activities, held throughout the study lifecycle of a pilot randomised-controlled trial (RCT) focused on evaluating integrated health and practical support for PEH. METHODS: Community Pharmacy Homeless Outreach Engagement Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx (PHOENIx Community Pharmacy RCT) is an integrated health and social care intervention for people experiencing homelessness who present to community pharmacy. Intervention includes weekly support from a pharmacist prescriber and a third sector support worker for up to 6 months. PPI activities undertaken throughout the study were documented, including outcomes of LEAP meetings. Outcome reporting followed Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 Short Form (GRIPP2-SF). RESULTS: In total, 17 members were recruited into the LEAP; six meetings (three in two study sites) were held. PPI input was also received through representation from homelessness third sector organisation staff as study co-applicants and core membership in the trial steering committee. Together, the PPI activities helped shape the study proposal, design of study materials, data analysis and dissemination materials. LEAP panel members offered valuable input via their experience and expertise into the delivery and refinement of interventions. Although longitudinal input was received from some LEAP members, ensuring repeat attendance in the pre-planned meetings was challenging. CONCLUSION: People who face social exclusion and marginalisation can provide highly valuable input as equal partners in co-design and delivery of interventions seeking to improve their health and well-being. Fluid membership and flexible methods of seeking and incorporating advice can offer pragmatic approaches to minimising barriers to continued involvement in research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study reports findings and learning relevant to involvement of people with lived and living experience of homelessness as advisors in a research study. It is important for researchers to offer fluid memberships and use diverse methods to receive input from lived experience members, as traditional PPI methodology may be insufficient to ensure inclusivity. Staff and volunteers from third sector organisations were important PPI partners who bring their experience based on frontline service provision, often as the first port of call for people experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN88146807.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pharmacist led homeless outreach engagement and non-medical independent prescribing (Rx) (PHOENIx) intervention for people experiencing homelessness: a non- randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness and associated mortality and multimorbidity rates are increasing. Systematic reviews have demonstrated a lack of complex interventions that decrease unscheduled emergency health services utilisation or increase scheduled care. Better evidence is needed to inform policy responses. We examined the feasibility of a complex intervention (PHOENIx: Pharmacist led Homeless Outreach Engagement Nonmedical Independent prescribing (Rx)) to inform a subsequent pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Non-randomised trial with Usual Care (UC) comparator group set in Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, Scotland. Participants were adult inpatients experiencing homelessness in a city centre Glasgow hospital, referred to the PHOENIx team at the point of hospital discharge, from 19th March 2018 until 6th April 2019. The follow up period for each patient started on the day the patient was first seen (Intervention group) or first referred (UC), until 24th August 2019, the censor date for all patients. All patients were offered and agreed to receive serial consultations with the PHOENIx team (NHS Pharmacist prescriber working with Simon Community Scotland (third sector homeless charity worker)). Patients who could not be reached by the PHOENIx team were allocated to the UC group. The PHOENIx intervention included assessment of physical/mental health, addictions, housing, benefits and social activities followed by pharmacist prescribing with referral to other health service specialities as necessary. All participants received primary (including specialist homelessness health service based general practitioner care, mental health and addictions services) and secondary care. Main outcome measures were rates of: recruitment; retention; uptake of the intervention; and completeness of collected data, from recruitment to censor date. RESULTS: Twenty four patients were offered and agreed to participate; 12 were reached and received the intervention as planned with a median 7.5 consultations (IQR3.0-14.2) per patient. The pharmacist prescribed a median of 2 new (IQR0.3-3.8) and 2 repeat (1.3-7.0) prescriptions per patient; 10(83%) received support for benefits, housing or advocacy. Twelve patients were not subsequently contactable after leaving hospital, despite agreeing to participate, and were assigned to UC. Two patients in the UC group died of drug/alcohol overdose during follow up; no patients in the Intervention group died. All 24 patients were retained in the intervention or UC group until death or censor date and all patient records were accessible at follow up: 11(92%) visited ED in both groups, with 11(92%) hospitalisations in intervention group, 9(75%) UC. Eight (67%) intervention group patients and 3(25%) UC patients attended scheduled out patient appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility testing of the PHOENIx intervention suggests merit in a subsequent pilot RCT.

Multimorbidity, mortality, and HbA1c in type 2 diabetes: A cohort study with UK and Taiwanese cohorts.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging interest in multimorbidity in type 2 diabetes (T2D), which can be either concordant (T2D related) or discordant (unrelated), as a way of understanding the burden of disease in T2D. Current diabetes guidelines acknowledge the complex nature of multimorbidity, the management of which should be based on the patient's individual clinical needs and comorbidities. However, although associations between multimorbidity, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mortality in people with T2D have been studied to some extent, significant gaps remain, particularly regarding different patterns of multimorbidity, including concordant and discordant conditions. This study explores associations between multimorbidity (total condition counts/concordant/discordant/different combinations of conditions), baseline HbA1c, and all-cause mortality in T2D. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We studied two longitudinal cohorts of people with T2D using the UK Biobank (n = 20,569) and the Taiwan National Diabetes Care Management Program (NDCMP) (n = 59,657). The number of conditions in addition to T2D was used to quantify total multimorbidity, concordant, and discordant counts, and the effects of different combinations of conditions were also studied. Outcomes of interest were baseline HbA1c and all-cause mortality. For the UK Biobank and Taiwan NDCMP, mean (SD) ages were 60.2 (6.8) years and 60.8 (11.3) years; 7,579 (36.8%) and 31,339 (52.5%) were female; body mass index (BMI) medians (IQR) were 30.8 (27.7, 34.8) kg/m2 and 25.6 (23.5, 28.7) kg/m2; and 2,197 (10.8%) and 9,423 (15.8) were current smokers, respectively. Increasing total and discordant multimorbidity counts were associated with lower HbA1c and increased mortality in both datasets. In Taiwan NDCMP, for those with four or more additional conditions compared with T2D only, the mean difference (95% CI) in HbA1c was -0.82% (-0.88, -0.76) p < 0.001. In UK Biobank, hazard ratios (HRs) (95% CI) for all-cause mortality in people with T2D and one, two, three, and four or more additional conditions compared with those without comorbidity were 1.20 (0.91-1.56) p < 0.001, 1.75 (1.35-2.27) p < 0.001, 2.17 (1.67-2.81) p < 0.001, and 3.14 (2.43-4.03) p < 0.001, respectively. Both concordant/discordant conditions were significantly associated with mortality; however, HRs were largest for concordant conditions. Those with four or more concordant conditions had >5 times the mortality (5.83 [4.28-7.93] p <0.001). HRs for NDCMP were similar to those from UK Biobank for all multimorbidity counts. For those with two conditions in addition to T2D, cardiovascular diseases featured in 18 of the top 20 combinations most highly associated with mortality in UK Biobank and 12 of the top combinations in the Taiwan NDCMP. In UK Biobank, a combination of coronary heart disease and heart failure in addition to T2D had the largest effect size on mortality, with a HR (95% CI) of 4.37 (3.59-5.32) p < 0.001, whereas in the Taiwan NDCMP, a combination of painful conditions and alcohol problems had the largest effect size on mortality, with an HR (95% CI) of 4.02 (3.08-5.23) p < 0.001. One limitation to note is that we were unable to model for changes in multimorbidity during our study period. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity patterns associated with the highest mortality differed between UK Biobank (a population predominantly comprising people of European descent) and the Taiwan NDCMP, a predominantly ethnic Chinese population. Future research should explore the mechanisms underpinning the observed relationship between increasing multimorbidity count and reduced HbA1c alongside increased mortality in people with T2D and further examine the implications of different patterns of multimorbidity across different ethnic groups. Better understanding of these issues, especially effects of condition type, will enable more effective personalisation of care.

Identifying frailty in trials: an analysis of individual participant data from trials of novel pharmacological interventions.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in clinical practice, but trials rarely report on participant frailty. Consequently, clinicians and guideline-developers assume frailty is largely absent from trials and have questioned the relevance of trial findings to frail people. Therefore, we examined frailty in phase 3/4 industry-sponsored clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for three exemplar conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We constructed a 40-item frailty index (FI) in 19 clinical trials (7 T2DM, 8 RA, 4 COPD, mean age 42-65 years) using individual-level participant data. Participants with a FI > 0.24 were considered 'frail'. Baseline disease severity was assessed using HbA1c for T2DM, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) for RA, and % predicted FEV1 for COPD. Using generalised gamma regression, we modelled FI on age, sex, and disease severity. In negative binomial regression, we modelled serious adverse event rates on FI and combined results for each index condition in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: All trials included frail participants: prevalence 7-21% in T2DM trials, 33-73% in RA trials, and 15-22% in COPD trials. The 99th centile of the FI ranged between 0.35 and 0.45. Female sex was associated with higher FI in all trials. Increased disease severity was associated with higher FI in RA and COPD, but not T2DM. Frailty was associated with age in T2DM and RA trials, but not in COPD. Across all trials, and after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity, higher FI predicted increased risk of serious adverse events; the pooled incidence rate ratios (per 0.1-point increase in FI scale) were 1.46 (95% CI 1.21-1.75), 1.45 (1.13-1.87), and 1.99 (1.43-2.76) for T2DM, RA, and COPD, respectively. CONCLUSION: The upper limit of frailty in trials is lower than has been described in the general population. However, mild to moderate frailty was common, suggesting trial data may be harnessed to inform disease management in people living with frailty. Participants with higher FI experienced more serious adverse events, suggesting screening for frailty in trial participants would enable identification of those that merit closer monitoring. Frailty is identifiable and prevalent among middle-aged and older participants in phase 3/4 drug trials and has clinically important safety implications.

Comparison of two different frailty measurements and risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19: findings from UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been associated with worse prognosis following COVID-19 infection. While several studies have reported the association between frailty and COVID-19 mortality or length of hospital stay, there have been no community-based studies on the association between frailty and risk of severe infection. Considering that different definitions have been identified to assess frailty, this study aimed to compare the association between frailty and severe COVID-19 infection in UK Biobank using two frailty classifications: the frailty phenotype and the frailty index. METHODS: A total of 383,845 UK Biobank participants recruited 2006-2010 in England (211,310 [55.1%] women, baseline age 37-73 years) were included. COVID-19 test data were provided by Public Health England (available up to 28 June 2020). An adapted version of the frailty phenotype derived by Fried et al. was used to define frailty phenotype (robust, pre-frail, or frail). A previously validated frailty index was derived from 49 self-reported questionnaire items related to health, disease and disability, and mental wellbeing (robust, mild frailty, and moderate/severe frailty). Both classifications were derived from baseline data (2006-2010). Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyse the associations between both frailty classifications and severe COVID-19 infection (resulting in hospital admission or death), adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Of UK Biobank participants included, 802 were admitted to hospital with and/or died from COVID19 (323 deaths and 479 hospitalisations). After analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher risk of COVID-19 was observed for pre-frail (risk ratio (RR) 1.47 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71]) and frail (RR 2.66 [95% CI 2.04; 3.47]) individuals compared to those classified as robust using the frailty phenotype. Similar results were observed when the frailty index was used (RR mildly frail 1.46 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71] and RR moderate/severe frailty 2.43 [95% CI 1.91; 3.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection resulting in hospital admission or death, irrespective of how it was measured and independent of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Public health strategies need to consider the additional risk that COVID-19 poses in individuals with frailty, including which additional preventive measures might be required.