Sepsis and case fatality rates and associations with deprivation, ethnicity, and clinical characteristics: population-based case-control study with linked primary care and hospital data in England.

PURPOSE: Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection. The purpose of the study was to measure the associations of specific exposures (deprivation, ethnicity, and clinical characteristics) with incident sepsis and case fatality. METHODS: Two research databases in England were used including anonymized patient-level records from primary care linked to hospital admission, death certificate, and small-area deprivation. Sepsis cases aged 65-100 years were matched to up to six controls. Predictors for sepsis (including 60 clinical conditions) were evaluated using logistic and random forest models; case fatality rates were analyzed using logistic models. RESULTS: 108,317 community-acquired sepsis cases were analyzed. Severe frailty was strongly associated with the risk of developing sepsis (crude odds ratio [OR] 14.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.37-15.52). The quintile with most deprived patients showed an increased sepsis risk (crude OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.45-1.51) compared to least deprived quintile. Strong predictors for sepsis included antibiotic exposure in prior 2 months, being house bound, having cancer, learning disability, and diabetes mellitus. Severely frail patients had a case fatality rate of 42.0% compared to 24.0% in non-frail patients (adjusted OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.41-1.65). Sepsis cases with recent prior antibiotic exposure died less frequently compared to non-users (adjusted OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.72-0.76). Case fatality strongly decreased over calendar time. CONCLUSION: Given the variety of predictors and their level of associations for developing sepsis, there is a need for prediction models for risk of developing sepsis that can help to target preventative antibiotic therapy.

Rapid systematic review on risks and outcomes of sepsis: the influence of risk factors associated with health inequalities.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sepsis is a serious and life-threatening condition caused by a dysregulated immune response to an infection. Recent guidance issued in the UK gave recommendations around recognition and antibiotic treatment of sepsis, but did not consider factors relating to health inequalities. The aim of this study was to summarise the literature investigating associations between health inequalities and sepsis. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Embase for peer-reviewed articles published since 2010 that included sepsis in combination with one of the following five areas: socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, community factors, medical needs and pregnancy/maternity. RESULTS: Five searches identified 1,402 studies, with 50 unique studies included in the review after screening (13 sociodemographic, 14 race/ethnicity, 3 community, 3 care/medical needs and 20 pregnancy/maternity; 3 papers examined multiple health inequalities). Most of the studies were conducted in the USA (31/50), with only four studies using UK data (all pregnancy related). Socioeconomic factors associated with increased sepsis incidence included lower socioeconomic status, unemployment and lower education level, although findings were not consistent across studies. For ethnicity, mixed results were reported. Living in a medically underserved area or being resident in a nursing home increased risk of sepsis. Mortality rates after sepsis were found to be higher in people living in rural areas or in those discharged to skilled nursing facilities while associations with ethnicity were mixed. Complications during delivery, caesarean-section delivery, increased deprivation and black and other ethnic minority race were associated with post-partum sepsis. CONCLUSION: There are clear correlations between sepsis morbidity and mortality and the presence of factors associated with health inequalities. To inform local guidance and drive public health measures, there is a need for studies conducted across more diverse setting and countries.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rates and predictors of missed hospital appointments in multiple outpatient clinics of The Royal Hospital, Sultanate of Oman: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant changes in the delivery of health care services such as attendance of scheduled outpatient hospital appointments. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointment in the Sultanate of Oman. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre analysis was conducted to determine the effect of COVID-19 on missed hospital appointments at various clinics at The Royal Hospital (tertiary referral hospital) in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. The study population included scheduled face-to-face and virtual appointments between January 2019 and March 2021. Logistic regression models were used with interaction terms (post COVID-19) to assess changes in the predictors of missed appointments. RESULTS: A total of 34, 3149 scheduled appointments was analysed (320,049 face-to-face and 23,100 virtual). The rate of missed face-to-face hospital appointments increased from 16.9% pre to 23.8% post start of COVID-19, particularly in early pandemic (40.5%). Missed hospital appointments were more frequent (32.2%) in virtual clinics (post COVID-19). Increases in missed face-to-face appointments varied by clinic (Paediatrics from 19.3% pre to 28.2% post; Surgery from 12.5% to 25.5%; Obstetrics & Gynaecology from 8.4% to 8.5%). A surge in the frequency of missed appointments was seen during national lockdowns for face-to-face and virtual appointments. Most predictors of missed appointments did not demonstrate any appreciable changes in effect (i.e., interaction term not statistically significant). Distance of patient residence to the hospital revealed no discernible changes in the relative effect pre and post COVID-19 for both face-to-face and virtual clinic appointments. CONCLUSION: The rate of missed visits in most clinics was directly impacted by COVID-19. The case mix of patients who missed their appointments did not change. Virtual appointments, introduced after start of the pandemic, also had substantial rates of missed appointments and cannot be viewed as the single approach that can overcome the problem of missing hospital appointments.

Outcomes following cardiac resynchronisation therapy in older people.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients may be less likely to receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for the management of heart failure. We aimed to describe the differences in clinical response, complications, and subsequent outcomes following CRT implantation compared to younger patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of unselected, consecutive patients implanted with CRT devices between March 2008 and July 2017. We recorded complications, symptomatic and echocardiographic response, hospitalisation for heart failure, and all-cause mortality comparing patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-four patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 68-81], 73.3% male) received CRT. At baseline, patients aged ≥80 years had worse symptoms, were more likely to have co-morbidities, and less likely to be receiving comprehensive medical therapy, although left ventricular function was similar. Older patients were less likely to receive CRT-defibrillators compared to CRT-pacemakers. Complications were infrequent and not more common in older patients. Age was not a predictor of symptomatic or echocardiographic response to CRT (67.2%, 71.2% and 62.6% responders in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P = 0.43), and time to first heart failure hospitalisation was similar across age groups (P = 0.28). Ten-year survival was lower for older patients (49.9%, 23.9% and 6.8% in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of CRT on symptoms and left ventricular function were not different in older patients despite a greater burden of co-morbidities and less optimal medical therapy. These findings support the use of CRT in an ageing population.

Associations of health-related quality of life with major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events for individuals with ischaemic heart disease: systematic review, meta-analysis and evidence mapping.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in individuals with ischaemic heart disease (IHD). METHODS: Medline(R), Embase, APA PsycINFO and CINAHL (EBSCO) from inception to 3 April 2023 were searched. Studies reporting association of HRQoL, using a generic or cardiac-specific tool, with MACCE or components of MACCE for individuals with IHD were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of the studies. Descriptive synthesis, evidence mapping and random-effects meta-analysis were performed stratified by HRQoL measures and effect estimates. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 statistic. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles were included with a total of 134 740 participants from 53 countries. Meta-analysis of 23 studies found that the risk of MACCE increased with lower baseline HeartQoL score (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.93) and Short Form Survey (SF-12) physical component score (PCS) (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.51). Risk of all-cause mortality increased with a lower HeartQoL (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.01), EuroQol 5-dimension (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.22), SF-36 PCS (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.41), SF-36 mental component score (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30). CONCLUSIONS: This study found an inverse association between baseline values or change in HRQoL and MACCE or components of MACCE in individuals with IHD, albeit with between-study heterogeneity. Standardisation and routine assessment of HRQoL in clinical practice may help risk stratify individuals with IHD for tailored interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021234638.

The Impact of Oral Antibiotics Prior to Cancer Diagnosis on Overall Patient Survival: Findings from an English Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence in humans as to whether antibiotics impact the effectiveness of cancer treatments. Rodent studies have shown that disruption in gut microbiota due to antibiotics decreases cancer therapy effectiveness. We evaluated the associations between the antibiotic treatment of different time periods before cancer diagnoses and long-term mortality. METHODS: Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, linked to the Cancer Registry's and the Office for National Statistics' mortality records, we delineated a study cohort that involved cancer patients who were prescribed antibiotics 0-3 months; 3-24 months; or more than 24 months before cancer diagnosis. Patients' exposure to antibiotics was compared according to the recency of prescriptions and time-to-event (all-cause mortality) by applying Cox models. RESULTS: 111,260 cancer patients from England were included in the analysis. Compared with antibiotic prescriptions that were issued in the past, patients who had been prescribed antibiotics shortly before cancer diagnosis presented an increased hazard ratio (HR) for mortality. For leukaemia, the HR in the Cancer Registry was 1.32 (95% CI 1.16-1.51), for lymphoma it was 1.22 (1.08-1.36), for melanoma it was 1.28 (1.10-1.49), and for myeloma it was 1.19 (1.04-1.36). Increased HRs were observed for cancer of the uterus, bladder, and breast and ovarian and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics that had been issued within the three months prior to cancer diagnosis may reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Judicious antibiotic prescribing is needed among cancer patients.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of common infections in primary care and the change to antibiotic prescribing in England.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic altered the management of common infections in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate infection-coded consultation rates and antibiotic use during the pandemic and how any change may have affected clinical outcomes. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform analysed routinely collected electronic health data from GP practices in England between January 2019 and December 2021. Infection coded consultations and antibiotic prescriptions were used estimate multiple measures over calendar months, including age-sex adjusted prescribing rates, prescribing by infection and antibiotic type, infection consultation rates, coding quality and rate of same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infections. Interrupted time series (ITS) estimated the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on infection-coded consultation rates. The impact of the pandemic on non- COVID-19 infection-related hospitalisations was also estimated. RESULTS: Records from 24 million patients were included. The rate of infection-related consultations fell for all infections (mean reduction of 39% in 2020 compared to 2019 mean rate), except for UTI which remained stable. Modelling infection-related consultation rates highlighted this with an incidence rate ratio of 0.44 (95% CI 0.36-0.53) for incident consultations and 0.43 (95% CI 0.33-0.54) for prevalent consultations. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) saw the largest reduction of 0.11 (95% CI 0.07-0.17). Antibiotic prescribing rates fell with a mean reduction of 118.4 items per 1000 patients in 2020, returning to pre-pandemic rates by summer 2021. Prescribing for LRTI decreased 20% and URTI increased 15.9%. Over 60% of antibiotics were issued without an associated same-day infection code, which increased during the pandemic. Infection-related hospitalisations reduced (by 62%), with the largest reduction observed for pneumonia infections (72.9%). Same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infection increased from 1 to 10.5% between the second and third national lockdowns and rose again during 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to consultations and hospital admissions may be driven by reduced transmission of non-COVID-19 infections due to reduced social mixing and lockdowns. Inconsistencies in coding practice emphasises the need for improvement to inform new antibiotic stewardship policies and prevent resistance to novel infections.

Repeated antibiotic exposure and risk of hospitalisation and death following COVID-19 infection (OpenSAFELY): a matched case-control study.

Background: Identifying potential risk factors related to severe COVID-19 outcomes is important. Repeated intermittent antibiotic use is known be associated with adverse outcomes. This study aims to examine whether prior frequent antibiotic exposure is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform, which integrated primary and secondary care, COVID-19 test, and death registration data. This matched case-control study included 0.67 million patients (aged 18-110 years) from an eligible 2.47 million patients with incident COVID-19 by matching with replacement. Inclusion criteria included registration within one general practice for at least 3 years and infection with incident COVID-19. Cases were identified according to different severity of COVID-19 outcomes. Cases and eligible controls were 1:6 matched on age, sex, region of GP practice, and index year and month of COVID-19 infection. Five quintile groups, based on the number of previous 3-year antibiotic prescriptions, were created to indicate the frequency of prior antibiotic exposure. Conditional logistic regression used to compare the differences between case and control groups, adjusting for ethnicity, body mass index, comorbidities, vaccination history, deprivation, and care home status. Sensitivity analyses were done to explore potential confounding and the effects of missing data. Findings: Based on our inclusion criteria, between February 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021, 98,420 patients were admitted to hospitals and 22,660 died. 55 unique antibiotics were prescribed. A dose-response relationship between number of antibiotic prescriptions and risk of severe COVID-19 outcome was observed. Patients in the highest quintile with history of prior antibiotic exposure had 1.80 times greater odds of hospitalisation compared to patients without antibiotic exposure (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.80, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.75-1.84). Similarly, the adjusted OR for hospitalised patients with death outcomes was 1.34 (95% CI 1.28-1.41). Larger number of prior antibiotic type was also associated with more severe COVID-19 related hospital admission. The adjusted OR of quintile 5 exposure (the most frequent) with more than 3 antibiotic types was around 2 times larger than quintile 1 (only 1 type; OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.75-1.84 vs. OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05). Interpretation: Our observational study has provided evidence that antibiotic exposure frequency and diversity may be associated with COVID-19 severity, potentially suggesting adverse effects of repeated intermittent antibiotic use. Future work could work to elucidate causal links and potential mechanisms. Antibiotic stewardship should put more emphasis on long-term antibiotic exposure and its adverse outcome to increase the awareness of appropriate antibiotics use. Funding: Health Data Research UK and National Institute for Health Research.

Knowledge support for optimising antibiotic prescribing for common infections in general practices: evaluation of the effectiveness of periodic feedback, decision support during consultations and peer comparisons in a cluster randomised trial (BRIT2) - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This project applies a Learning Healthcare System (LHS) approach to antibiotic prescribing for common infections in primary care. The approach involves iterations of data analysis, feedback to clinicians and implementation of quality improvement activities by the clinicians. The main research question is, can a knowledge support system (KSS) intervention within an LHS implementation improve antibiotic prescribing without increasing the risk of complications? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, with randomisation of at least 112 general practices in North-West England. General practices participating in the trial will be randomised to the following interventions: periodic practice-level and individual prescriber feedback using dashboards; or the same dashboards plus a KSS. Data from large databases of healthcare records are used to characterise heterogeneity in antibiotic uses, and to calculate risk scores for clinical outcomes and for the effectiveness of different treatment strategies. The results provide the baseline content for the dashboards and KSS. The KSS comprises a display within the electronic health record used during the consultation; the prescriber (general practitioner or allied health professional) will answer standard questions about the patient's presentation and will then be presented with information (eg, patient's risk of complications from the infection) to guide decision making. The KSS can generate information sheets for patients, conveyed by the clinicians during consultations. The primary outcome is the practice-level rate of antibiotic prescribing (per 1000 patients) with secondary safety outcomes. The data from practices participating in the trial and the dashboard infrastructure will be held within regional shared care record systems of the National Health Service in the UK. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by National Health Service Ethics Committee IRAS 290050. The research results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and also disseminated to participating clinical staff and policy and guideline developers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16230629.

Impact of COVID-19 on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing for common infections in primary care in England: a time-series analyses using OpenSAFELY and effects of predictors including deprivation.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the healthcare systems, adding extra pressure to reduce antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate changes in antibiotic prescription patterns after COVID-19 started. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform to access the TPP SystmOne electronic health record (EHR) system in primary care and selected patients prescribed antibiotics from 2019 to 2021. To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing, we evaluated prescribing rates and its predictors and used interrupted time series analysis by fitting binomial logistic regression models. Findings: Over 32 million antibiotic prescriptions were extracted over the study period; 8.7% were broad-spectrum. The study showed increases in broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.38) as an immediate impact of the pandemic, followed by a gradual recovery with a 1.1-1.2% decrease in odds of broad-spectrum prescription per month. The same pattern was found within subgroups defined by age, sex, region, ethnicity, and socioeconomic deprivation quintiles. More deprived patients were more likely to receive broad-spectrum antibiotics, which differences remained stable over time. The most significant increase in broad-spectrum prescribing was observed for lower respiratory tract infection (OR 2.33; 95% CI 2.1-2.50) and otitis media (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.80-2.13). Interpretation: An immediate reduction in antibiotic prescribing and an increase in the proportion of broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing in primary care was observed. The trends recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but the consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR needs further investigation. Funding: This work was supported by Health Data Research UK and by National Institute for Health Research.

The impact of COVID-19 on antibiotic prescribing in primary care in England: Evaluation and risk prediction of appropriateness of type and repeat prescribing.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to predict risks of potentially inappropriate antibiotic type and repeat prescribing and assess changes during COVID-19. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY platform to access the TPP SystmOne electronic health record (EHR) system and selected patients prescribed antibiotics from 2019 to 2021. Multinomial logistic regression models predicted patient's probability of receiving inappropriate antibiotic type or repeat antibiotic course for each common infection. RESULTS: The population included 9.1 million patients with 29.2 million antibiotic prescriptions. 29.1% of prescriptions were identified as repeat prescribing. Those with same day incident infection coded in the EHR had considerably lower rates of repeat prescribing (18.0%) and 8.6% had potentially inappropriate type. No major changes in the rates of repeat antibiotic prescribing during COVID-19 were found. In the 10 risk prediction models, good levels of calibration and moderate levels of discrimination were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no evidence of changes in level of inappropriate or repeat antibiotic prescribing after the start of COVID-19. Repeat antibiotic prescribing was frequent and varied according to regional and patient characteristics. There is a need for treatment guidelines to be developed around antibiotic failure and clinicians provided with individualised patient information.

Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context.

BACKGROUND: Overprescribing of antibiotics is a major concern as it contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Research has found highly variable antibiotic prescribing in (UK) primary care, and to support more effective stewardship, the BRIT Project (Building Rapid Interventions to optimise prescribing) is implementing an eHealth Knowledge Support System. This will provide unique individualised analytics information to clinicians and patients at the point of care. The objective of the current study was to gauge the acceptability of the system to prescribing healthcare professionals and highlight factors to maximise intervention uptake. METHODS: Two mixed-method co-design workshops were held online with primary care prescribing healthcare professionals (n = 16). Usefulness ratings of example features were collected using online polls and online whiteboards. Verbal discussion and textual comments were analysed thematically using inductive (participant-centred) and deductive perspectives (using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability). RESULTS: Hierarchical thematic coding generated three overarching themes relevant to intervention use and development. Clinician concerns (focal issues) were safe prescribing, accessible information, autonomy, avoiding duplication, technical issues and time. Requirements were ease and efficiency of use, integration of systems, patient-centeredness, personalisation, and training. Important features of the system included extraction of pertinent information from patient records (such as antibiotic prescribing history), recommended actions, personalised treatment, risk indicators and electronic patient communication leaflets. Anticipated acceptability and intention to use the knowledge support system was moderate to high. Time was identified as a focal cost/ burden, but this would be outweighed if the system improved patient outcomes and increased prescribing confidence. CONCLUSION: Clinicians anticipate that an eHealth knowledge support system will be a useful and acceptable way to optimise antibiotic prescribing at the point of care. The mixed method workshop highlighted issues to assist person-centred eHealth intervention development, such as the value of communicating patient outcomes. Important features were identified including the ability to efficiently extract and summarise pertinent information from the patient records, provide explainable and transparent risk information, and personalised information to support patient communication. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability enabled structured, theoretically sound feedback and creation of a profile to benchmark future evaluations. This may encourage a consistent user-focused approach to guide future eHealth intervention development.

Clinical and health inequality risk factors for non-COVID-related sepsis during the global COVID-19 pandemic: a national case-control and cohort study.

Background: Sepsis, characterised by significant morbidity and mortality, is intricately linked to socioeconomic disparities and pre-admission clinical histories. This study aspires to elucidate the association between non-COVID-19 related sepsis and health inequality risk factors amidst the pandemic in England, with a secondary focus on their association with 30-day sepsis mortality. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we harnessed the OpenSAFELY platform to execute a cohort study and a 1:6 matched case-control study. A sepsis diagnosis was identified from the incident hospital admissions record using ICD-10 codes. This encompassed 248,767 cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis from a cohort of 22.0 million individuals spanning January 1, 2019, to June 31, 2022. Socioeconomic deprivation was gauged using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score, reflecting indicators like income, employment, and education. Hospitalisation-related sepsis diagnoses were categorised as community-acquired or hospital-acquired. Cases were matched to controls who had no recorded diagnosis of sepsis, based on age (stepwise), sex, and calendar month. The eligibility criteria for controls were established primarily on the absence of a recorded sepsis diagnosis. Associations between potential predictors and odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis underwent assessment through conditional logistic regression models, with multivariable regression determining odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day mortality. Findings: The study included 224,361 (10.2%) cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis and 1,346,166 matched controls. The most socioeconomic deprived quintile was associated with higher odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis than the least deprived quintile (crude OR 1.80 [95% CI 1.77-1.83]). Other risk factors (after adjusting comorbidities) such as learning disability (adjusted OR 3.53 [3.35-3.73]), chronic liver disease (adjusted OR 3.08 [2.97-3.19]), chronic kidney disease (stage 4: adjusted OR 2.62 [2.55-2.70], stage 5: adjusted OR 6.23 [5.81-6.69]), cancer, neurological disease, immunosuppressive conditions were also associated with developing non-COVID-19 sepsis. The incidence rate of non-COVID-19 sepsis decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and rebounded to pre-pandemic levels (April 2021) after national lockdowns had been lifted. The 30-day mortality risk in cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis was higher for the most deprived quintile across all periods. Interpretation: Socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity and learning disabilities were associated with an increased odds of developing non-COVID-19 related sepsis and 30-day mortality in England. This study highlights the need to improve the prevention of sepsis, including more precise targeting of antimicrobials to higher-risk patients. Funding: The UK Health Security Agency, Health Data Research UK, and National Institute for Health Research.

Reduction of heart failure guideline-directed medication during hospitalization: prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes.

AIMS: Optimal management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) includes titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to the highest tolerated dose within the licensed range. During hospitalization, GDMT doses are often significantly altered, although it is unknown whether the cause of hospitalization influences this. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited 711 people with stable HFrEF from specialist heart failure clinics and prospectively assessed events occurring during first unplanned hospitalization. Dose changes of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB), beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and loop diuretics were recorded during 414 hospitalizations, categorized as due to decompensated heart failure, other cardiovascular causes, infection, or other non-cardiovascular causes. Most hospitalizations resulted in no change to GDMT. ACEi/ARB dose was reduced in 21% of hospitalizations and was more common during non-cardiovascular hospitalization (25.4% vs. 13.9%; P = 0.005). ACEi/ARB dose reduction was associated with older age and lower left ventricular ejection fraction at study recruitment, and poorer renal function, lower systolic blood pressure, higher serum potassium, and less frequent care from a cardiologist during admission. People experiencing ACEi/ARB reduction had worse age-adjusted survival after discharge, without differences in heart failure re-hospitalization. De-escalation of beta-blockers occurred in 8% of hospitalizations, most often due to other non-cardiovascular causes; this was not associated with post-discharge survival or re-hospitalization with heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation of HFrEF GDMT is more common during non-cardiovascular hospitalization and for ACEi/ARB is associated with reduced survival. Post-discharge care plans should include robust plans to consider re-escalation of GDMT in these cases.

A first step towards best practice recommendations for the design and statistical analyses of pragmatic clinical trials: A modified Delphi approach.

AIM: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are randomized trials implemented through routine clinical practice, where design parameters of traditional randomized controlled trials are modified to increase generalizability. However, this may introduce statistical challenges. We aimed to identify these challenges and discuss possible solutions leading to best practice recommendations for the design and analysis of PCTs. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus among a panel of 11 experts in clinical trials and statistics. Statistical issues were identified in a focused literature review and aggregated with insights and possible solutions from experts collected through a series of survey iterations. Issues were ranked according to their importance. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were included and combined with experts' insight to generate a list of issues categorized into participants, recruiting sites, randomization, blinding and intervention, outcome (selection and measurement) and data analysis. Consensus was reached about the most important issues: risk of participants' attrition, heterogeneity of "usual care" across sites, absence of blinding, use of a subjective endpoint and data analysis aligned with the trial estimand. Potential issues should be anticipated and preferably be addressed in the trial protocol. The experts provided solutions regarding data collection and data analysis, which were considered of equal importance. DISCUSSION: A set of important statistical issues in PCTs was identified and approaches were suggested to anticipate and/or minimize these through data analysis. Any impact of choosing a pragmatic design feature should be gauged in the light of the trial estimand.

Comparing antibiotic prescribing between clinicians in UK primary care: an analysis in a cohort study of eight different measures of antibiotic prescribing.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to reduce antimicrobial uses in humans. Previous studies have found variations in antibiotic (AB) prescribing between practices in primary care. This study assessed variability of AB prescribing between clinicians. METHODS: Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which collects electronic health records in primary care, was used to select anonymised clinicians providing 500+ consultations during 2012-2017. Eight measures of AB prescribing were assessed, such as overall and incidental AB prescribing, repeat AB courses and extent of risk-based prescribing. Poisson regression models with random effect for clinicians were fitted. RESULTS: 6111 clinicians from 466 general practices were included. Considerable variability between individual clinicians was found for most AB measures. For example, the rate of AB prescribing varied between 77.4 and 350.3 per 1000 consultations; percentage of repeat AB courses within 30 days ranged from 13.1% to 34.3%; predicted patient risk of hospital admission for infection-related complications in those prescribed AB ranged from 0.03% to 0.32% (5th and 95th percentiles). The adjusted relative rate between clinicians in rates of AB prescribing was 5.23. Weak correlation coefficients (<0.5) were found between most AB measures. There was considerable variability in case mix seen by clinicians. The largest potential impact to reduce AB prescribing could be around encouraging risk-based prescribing and addressing repeat issues of ABs. Reduction of repeat AB courses to prescribing habit of median clinician would save 21 813 AB prescriptions per 1000 clinicians per year. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation seen in all measures of AB prescribing and weak correlation between them suggests that a single AB measure, such as prescribing rate, is not sufficient to underpin the optimisation of AB prescribing.

Diabetes mellitus and the causes of hospitalisation in people with heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with increased risk of hospitalisation in people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, little is known about the causes of these events. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 711 people with stable HFrEF. Hospitalisations were categorised by cause as: decompensated heart failure; other cardiovascular; infection or other non-cardiovascular. Rates of hospitalisation and burden of hospitalisation (percentage of follow-up time in hospital) were compared in people with and without DM. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 4.0 years, 1568 hospitalisations occurred in the entire cohort. DM (present in 32% [n=224]) was associated with a higher rate (mean 1.07 vs 0.78 per 100 patient-years; p<0.001) and burden (3.4 vs 2.2% of follow-up time; p<0.001) of hospitalisation. Cause-specific analyses revealed increased rate and burden of hospitalisation due to decompensated heart failure, other cardiovascular causes and infection in people with DM, whereas other non-cardiovascular causes were comparable. Infection made the largest contribution to the burden of hospitalisation in people with and without DM. CONCLUSIONS: In people with HFrEF, DM is associated with a greater burden of hospitalisation due to decompensated heart failure, other cardiovascular events and infection, with infection making the largest contribution.

Investigating the reasons for missing an outpatient appointment in Royal Hospital, Sultanate of Oman: Perspectives of patients and medical staff in a survey.

INTRODUCTION: Missed appointments are a major health issue in the healthcare systems globally. They directly impact on the use of hospital resources, patient's health, and can lead to patient's dissatisfaction. This study was conducted to assess the reasons for missing a hospital appointment. METHODS: A survey was conducted with a randomly selected sample of patients who missed their outpatient appointment in Royal hospital, Sultanate of Oman, from March to April 2021 in six clinics. Patients were interviewed via telephone to answer a structured survey. In addition, a self-administered survey was distributed to medical staff to explore their perspectives. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty patients and 52 medical staff participated in the study. Frequent patient-reported reasons for missed appointment were transportation difficulties (11.4%), no longer needing (7.5%), or forgetting the appointment (6.8%); staff-reported reasons were transportation (23.8%), no SMS received (16.9%), and forgetting the appointment (15.4%). Frequencies of reasons varied substantially between clinics. Family obligations were the main theme in obstetrics (odds ratio [OR] 9.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66-33.78) and in diabetes clinic (OR 10.55; 95% CI 2.68-38.58), where transportation issue was the main theme in Oncology clinic (OR 4.83; 95% CI 1.11-21.02). The recommendations for improvement were mainly around improving the reminder system, the use of telephone reminders, and developing a flexible appointment scheduling system. CONCLUSION: Knowing the reasons for missed appointment from patients and health professionals can help to develop effective interventions. The heterogeneity between clinics in reasons for missed appointment indicates for interventions tailored to clinic and frequent reasons.

Altered protein O-GlcNAcylation in placentas from mothers with diabetes causes aberrant endocytosis in placental trophoblast cells.

Women with pre-existing diabetes have an increased risk of poor pregnancy outcomes, including disordered fetal growth, caused by changes to placental function. Here we investigate the possibility that the hexosamine biosynthetic pathway, which utilises cellular nutrients to regulate protein function via post-translationally modification with O-linked N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc), mediates the placental response to the maternal metabolic milieu. Mass spectrometry analysis revealed that the placental O-GlcNAcome is altered in women with type 1 (n = 6) or type 2 (n = 6) diabetes T2D (≥ twofold change in abundance in 162 and 165 GlcNAcylated proteins respectively compared to BMI-matched controls n = 11). Ingenuity pathway analysis indicated changes to clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME) and CME-associated proteins, clathrin, Transferrin (TF), TF receptor and multiple Rabs, were identified as O-GlcNAcylation targets. Stimulating protein O-GlcNAcylation using glucosamine (2.5 mM) increased the rate of TF endocytosis by human placental cells (p = 0.02) and explants (p = 0.04). Differential GlcNAcylation of CME proteins suggests altered transfer of cargo by placentas of women with pre-gestational diabetes, which may contribute to alterations in fetal growth. The human placental O-GlcNAcome provides a resource to aid further investigation of molecular mechanisms governing placental nutrient sensing.

Prevalence and factors associated with missed hospital appointments: a retrospective review of multiple clinics at Royal Hospital, Sultanate of Oman.

OBJECTIVES: Missed hospital appointments pose a major challenge for healthcare systems. There is a lack of information about drivers of missed hospital appointments in non-Western countries and extent of variability between different types of clinics. The aim was to evaluate the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointments and variability in drivers between multiple outpatient clinics. SETTING: Outpatient clinics in the Royal hospital (tertiary referral hospital in Oman) between 2014 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with a scheduled outpatient clinic appointment (N=7 69 118). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A missed appointment was defined as a patient who did not show up for the scheduled hospital appointment without notifying or asking for the appointment to be cancelled or rescheduled. The outcomes were the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointments overall and variations by clinic. Conditional logistic regression compared patients who attended and those who missed their appointment. RESULTS: The overall rate of missed hospital appointments was 22.3%, which varied between clinics (14.0% for Oncology and 30.3% for Urology). Important predictors were age, sex, service costs, patient's residence distance from hospital, waiting time and appointment day and season. Substantive variability between clinics in ORs for a missed appointment was present for predictors such as service costs and waiting time. Patients aged 81-90 in the Diabetes and Endocrine clinic had an adjusted OR of 0.53 for missed appointments (95% CI 0.37 to 0.74) while those in Obstetrics and Gynaecology had OR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.59). Adjusted ORs for longer waiting times (>120 days) were 2.22 (95% CI 2.10 to 2.34) in Urology but 1.26 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.36) in Oncology. CONCLUSION: Predictors of a missed appointment varied between clinics in their effects. Interventions to reduce the rate of missed appointments should consider these factors and be tailored to clinic.