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

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

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

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

Adherence to the Atrial fibrillation Better Care pathway and the risk of adverse health outcomes in older care home residents with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective data linkage study 2003-18.

BACKGROUND: The Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway is the gold-standard approach to atrial fibrillation (AF) management, but the effect of implementation on health outcomes in care home residents is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between ABC pathway adherence and stroke, transient ischaemic attack, cardiovascular hospitalisation, major bleeding, mortality and a composite of all these outcomes in care home residents. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of older care home residents (≥65 years) in Wales with AF was conducted between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2018 using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Adherence to the ABC pathway was assessed at care home entry using pre-specified definitions. Cox proportional hazard and competing risk models were used to estimate the risk of health outcomes according to ABC adherence. RESULTS: From 14,493 residents (median [interquartile range] age 87.0 [82.6-91.2] years, 35.2% male) with AF, 5,531 (38.2%) were ABC pathway adherent. Pathway adherence was not significantly associated with risk of the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 [0.97-1.05]). There was a significant independent association observed between ABC pathway adherence and a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.70 [0.50-0.98]), but a higher risk of haemorrhagic stroke (1.59 [1.06-2.39]). ABC pathway adherence was not significantly associated with any other individual health outcomes examined. CONCLUSION: An ABC adherent approach in care home residents was not consistently associated with improved health outcomes. Findings should be interpreted with caution owing to difficulties in defining pathway adherence using routinely collected data and an individualised approach is recommended.

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

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

Association of COVID-19 With Major Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Diseases: A Population-Wide Cohort Study of 48 Million Adults in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) induces a prothrombotic state, but long-term effects of COVID-19 on incidence of vascular diseases are unclear. METHODS: We studied vascular diseases after COVID-19 diagnosis in population-wide anonymized linked English and Welsh electronic health records from January 1 to December 7, 2020. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios comparing the incidence of arterial thromboses and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) after diagnosis of COVID-19 with the incidence in people without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses by COVID-19 severity, demographic characteristics, and previous history. RESULTS: Among 48 million adults, 125 985 were hospitalized and 1 319 789 were not hospitalized within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. In England, there were 260 279 first arterial thromboses and 59 421 first VTEs during 41.6 million person-years of follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratios for first arterial thrombosis after COVID-19 diagnosis compared with no COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 21.7 (95% CI, 21.0-22.4) in week 1 after COVID-19 diagnosis to 1.34 (95% CI, 1.21-1.48) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios for first VTE after COVID-19 diagnosis declined from 33.2 (95% CI, 31.3-35.2) in week 1 to 1.80 (95% CI, 1.50-2.17) during weeks 27 to 49. Adjusted hazard ratios were higher, for longer after diagnosis, after hospitalized versus nonhospitalized COVID-19, among Black or Asian versus White people, and among people without versus with a previous event. The estimated whole-population increases in risk of arterial thromboses and VTEs 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.5% and 0.25%, respectively, corresponding to 7200 and 3500 additional events, respectively, after 1.4 million COVID-19 diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: High relative incidence of vascular events soon after COVID-19 diagnosis declines more rapidly for arterial thromboses than VTEs. However, incidence remains elevated up to 49 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis. These results support policies to prevent severe COVID-19 by means of COVID-19 vaccines, early review after discharge, risk factor control, and use of secondary preventive agents in high-risk patients.

Impact of the temporary suspension of the Bowel Screening Wales programme on inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Response to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the temporary disruption of routine services in the UK National Health Service, including cancer screening. Following the reintroduction of services, we explored the impact on inequalities in uptake of the Bowel Screening Wales (BSW) programme to identify groups who might benefit from tailored intervention. METHODS: BSW records were linked to electronic health record and administrative data within the Secured Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank Trusted Research Environment. We examined uptake in the first 3 months (from August to October, 2020) of invitations following the reintroduction of the BSW programme compared with the same period in the preceding 3 years. We analysed inequalities in uptake by sex, age group, income deprivation quintile, urban and rural location, ethnic group, and uptake between different periods using logistic regression models. FINDINGS: Overall uptake remained above the 60% Welsh standard during the COVID-19 pandemic period of 2020-21 but declined compared with the pre-pandemic period of 2019-20 (60·4% vs 62·7%; p<0·001). During the COVID-19 pandemic period of 2020-21, uptake declined for most demographic groups, except for older individuals (70-74 years) and those in the most deprived quintile. Variation by sex, age, income deprivation, and ethnic groups was observed in all periods studied. Among low-uptake groups, including males, younger individuals (60-64 years), those living in most deprived areas, and ethnic minorities, uptake remains below the 60% Welsh standard. INTERPRETATION: Despite the disruption, uptake remained above the Welsh standard and inequalities did not worsen after the programme resumed activities. However, variations associated with sex, age, deprivation, and ethnicity remain. These findings need to be considered in targeting strategies to improve uptake and informed choice in colorectal cancer screening such as co-producing information products with low-uptake groups and upscaling the use of GP-endorsed invitations and reminder letters for bowel screening. FUNDING: Health Data Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Administrative Data Research UK, and Health and Care Research Wales.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy: the impact of multimorbidity and smoking status on vaccine hesitancy, a cohort study of 25,111 women in Wales, UK.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, smoking status, and pregnancy are identified as three risk factors associated with more severe outcomes following a SARS-CoV-2 infection, thus vaccination uptake is crucial for pregnant women living with multimorbidity and a history of smoking. This study aimed to examine the impact of multimorbidity, smoking status, and demographics (age, ethnic group, area of deprivation) on vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Wales using electronic health records (EHR) linkage. METHODS: This cohort study utilised routinely collected, individual-level, anonymised population-scale linked data within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. Pregnant women were identified from 13th April 2021 to 31st December 2021. Survival analysis was employed to examine and compare the length of time to vaccination uptake in pregnancy by considering multimorbidity, smoking status, as well as depression, diabetes, asthma, and cardiovascular conditions independently. The study also assessed the variation in uptake by multimorbidity, smoking status, and demographics, both jointly and separately for the independent conditions, using hazard ratios (HR) derived from the Cox regression model. RESULTS: Within the population cohort, 8,203 (32.7%) received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, with 8,572 (34.1%) remaining unvaccinated throughout the follow-up period, and 8,336 (33.2%) receiving the vaccine postpartum. Women aged 30 years or older were more likely to have the vaccine in pregnancy. Those who had depression were slightly but significantly more likely to have the vaccine compared to those without depression (HR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.14, p = 0.002). Women living with multimorbidity were 1.12 times more likely to have the vaccine compared to those living without multimorbidity (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.19, p = 0.001). Vaccine uptakes were significantly lower among both current smokers and former smokers compared to never smokers (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94, p < 0.001 and HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98, p = 0.015 respectively). Uptake was also lower among those living in the most deprived areas compared to those living in the most affluent areas (HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Younger women, living without multimorbidity, current and former smokers, and those living in the more deprived areas are less likely to have the vaccine, thus, a targeted approach to vaccinations may be required for these groups. Pregnant individuals living with multimorbidity exhibit a slight but statistically significant reduction in vaccine hesitancy towards COVID-19 during pregnancy.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of England's national 'Safe At Home' scheme for reducing hospital admissions for unintentional injury in children aged under 5.

BACKGROUND: Injuries in children aged under 5 years most commonly occur in the home and disproportionately affect those living in the most disadvantaged communities. The 'Safe at Home' (SAH) national home safety equipment scheme, which ran in England between 2009 and 2011, has been shown to reduce injury-related hospital admissions, but there is little evidence of cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a health and local government perspective. Measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per hospital admission averted (ICER) and cost-offset ratio (COR), comparing SAH expenditure to savings in admission expenditure. The study period was split into three periods: T1 (years 0-2, implementation); T2 (years 3-4) and T3 (years 5-6). Analyses were conducted for T2 versus T1 and T3 versus T1. RESULTS: Total cost of SAH was £9 518 066. 202 223 hospital admissions in the children occurred during T1-3, costing £3 320 000. Comparing T3 to T1 SAH reduced admission expenditure by £924 per month per local authority and monthly admission rates by 0.5 per local authority per month compared with control areas. ICER per admission averted was £4209 for T3 versus T1, with a COR of £0.29, suggesting that 29p was returned in savings on admission expenditure for every pound spent on SAH. CONCLUSION: SAH was effective at reducing hospital admissions due to injury and did result in some cost recovery when taking into admissions only. Further analysis of its cost-effectiveness, including emergency healthcare, primary care attendances and wider societal costs, is likely to improve the return on investment further.

Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake in Wales: an examination of the impact of the temporary suspension of the screening programme during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Response to the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the temporary disruption of cancer screening in the UK, and strong public messaging to stay safe and to protect NHS capacity. Following reintroduction in services, we explored the impact on inequalities in uptake of the Bowel Screening Wales (BSW) programme to identify groups who may benefit from tailored interventions. METHODS: Records within the BSW were linked to electronic health records (EHR) and administrative data within the Secured Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. Ethnic group was obtained from a linked data method available within SAIL. We examined uptake for the first 3 months of invitations (August to October) following the reintroduction of BSW programme in 2020, compared to the same period in the preceding 3 years. Uptake was measured across a 6 month follow-up period. Logistic models were conducted to analyse variations in uptake by sex, age group, income deprivation quintile, urban/rural location, ethnic group, and clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) status in each period; and to compare uptake within sociodemographic groups between different periods. RESULTS: Uptake during August to October 2020 (period 2020/21; 60.4%) declined compared to the same period in 2019/20 (62.7%) but remained above the 60% Welsh standard. Variation by sex, age, income deprivation, and ethnic groups was observed in all periods studied. Compared to the pre-pandemic period in 2019/20, uptake declined for most demographic groups, except for older individuals (70-74 years) and those in the most income deprived group. Uptake continues to be lower in males, younger individuals, people living in the most income deprived areas and those of Asian and unknown ethnic backgrounds. CONCLUSION: Our findings are encouraging with overall uptake achieving the 60% Welsh standard during the first three months after the programme restarted in 2020 despite the disruption. Inequalities did not worsen after the programme resumed activities but variations in CRC screening in Wales associated with sex, age, deprivation and ethnic group remain. This needs to be considered in targeting strategies to improve uptake and informed choice in CRC screening to avoid exacerbating disparities in CRC outcomes as screening services recover from the pandemic.

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

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

Harmonising electronic health records for reproducible research: challenges, solutions and recommendations from a UK-wide COVID-19 research collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The CVD-COVID-UK consortium was formed to understand the relationship between COVID-19 and cardiovascular diseases through analyses of harmonised electronic health records (EHRs) across the four UK nations. Beyond COVID-19, data harmonisation and common approaches enable analysis within and across independent Trusted Research Environments. Here we describe the reproducible harmonisation method developed using large-scale EHRs in Wales to accommodate the fast and efficient implementation of cross-nation analysis in England and Wales as part of the CVD-COVID-UK programme. We characterise current challenges and share lessons learnt. METHODS: Serving the scope and scalability of multiple study protocols, we used linked, anonymised individual-level EHR, demographic and administrative data held within the SAIL Databank for the population of Wales. The harmonisation method was implemented as a four-layer reproducible process, starting from raw data in the first layer. Then each of the layers two to four is framed by, but not limited to, the characterised challenges and lessons learnt. We achieved curated data as part of our second layer, followed by extracting phenotyped data in the third layer. We captured any project-specific requirements in the fourth layer. RESULTS: Using the implemented four-layer harmonisation method, we retrieved approximately 100 health-related variables for the 3.2 million individuals in Wales, which are harmonised with corresponding variables for > 56 million individuals in England. We processed 13 data sources into the first layer of our harmonisation method: five of these are updated daily or weekly, and the rest at various frequencies providing sufficient data flow updates for frequent capturing of up-to-date demographic, administrative and clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented an efficient, transparent, scalable, and reproducible harmonisation method that enables multi-nation collaborative research. With a current focus on COVID-19 and its relationship with cardiovascular outcomes, the harmonised data has supported a wide range of research activities across the UK.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Evaluating the cost of managing patients with cellulitis in Wales, UK: A 20-year population-scale study.

This study aimed to estimate costs associated with managing patients with cellulitis from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. The analysis was undertaken through the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank, which brings together population-scale, individual-level anonymised linked data from a wide range of sources, including 80% of primary care general practices within Wales (population coverage ~3.2 million). The data covered a 20-year period from 1999 to 2019. All patients linked to the relevant codes were tracked through primary care settings, recording the number of general practice visits (number of days with an event recorded) and number of in-patient stays. Resources were valued in monetary terms (£ sterling), with costs determined from national published sources of unit costs. These resources were then extrapolated out to reflect UK NHS costs. This is the first attempt to estimate the financial burden of cellulitis using routine data sources on a national scale. The estimated direct annual costs to the Welsh NHS (£28 554 338) are considerable. In-Patient events and length of stay costs are the main cost drivers, with annual Welsh NHS estimates of £19 664 126 with primary care events costing £8 890 212. Initiatives to support patients and healthcare professionals in identifying early signs/risks of cellulitis, improve the accuracy of initial diagnosis, prevent cellulitis recurrence, and improve evidence-based treatment pathways would result in major financial savings, to both the Welsh and UK NHS. In light of these findings, Wales has developed the innovative National Lymphoedema cellulitis Improvement Programme to address these burdens; providing a proactive model of cellulitis care.

Association of COVID-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 with major venous, arterial, or thrombocytopenic events: A population-based cohort study of 46 million adults in England.

BACKGROUND: Thromboses in unusual locations after the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine ChAdOx1-S have been reported, although their frequency with vaccines of different types is uncertain at a population level. The aim of this study was to estimate the population-level risks of hospitalised thrombocytopenia and major arterial and venous thromboses after COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this whole-population cohort study, we analysed linked electronic health records from adults living in England, from 8 December 2020 to 18 March 2021. We estimated incidence rates and hazard ratios (HRs) for major arterial, venous, and thrombocytopenic outcomes 1 to 28 and >28 days after first vaccination dose for ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines. Analyses were performed separately for ages <70 and ≥70 years and adjusted for age, age2, sex, ethnicity, and deprivation. We also prespecified adjustment for anticoagulant medication, combined oral contraceptive medication, hormone replacement therapy medication, history of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, and history of coronavirus infection in analyses of venous thrombosis; and diabetes, hypertension, smoking, antiplatelet medication, blood pressure lowering medication, lipid lowering medication, anticoagulant medication, history of stroke, and history of myocardial infarction in analyses of arterial thromboses. We selected further covariates with backward selection. Of 46 million adults, 23 million (51%) were women; 39 million (84%) were <70; and 3.7 million (8.1%) Asian or Asian British, 1.6 million (3.5%) Black or Black British, 36 million (79%) White, 0.7 million (1.5%) mixed ethnicity, and 1.5 million (3.2%) were of another ethnicity. Approximately 21 million (46%) adults had their first vaccination between 8 December 2020 and 18 March 2021. The crude incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) of all venous events were as follows: prevaccination, 140 [95% confidence interval (CI): 138 to 142]; ≤28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 294 (281 to 307); >28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 359 (338 to 382), ≤28 days post-BNT162b2-S, 241 (229 to 253); >28 days post-BNT162b2-S 277 (263 to 291). The crude incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) of all arterial events were as follows: prevaccination, 546 (95% CI: 541 to 555); ≤28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 1,211 (1,185 to 1,237); >28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 1678 (1,630 to 1,726), ≤28 days post-BNT162b2-S, 1,242 (1,214 to 1,269); >28 days post-BNT162b2-S, 1,539 (1,507 to 1,572). Adjusted HRs (aHRs) 1 to 28 days after ChAdOx1-S, compared with unvaccinated rates, at ages <70 and ≥70 years, respectively, were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.05) and 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63) for venous thromboses, and 0.90 (0.86 to 0.95) and 0.76 (0.73 to 0.79) for arterial thromboses. Corresponding aHRs for BNT162b2 were 0.81 (0.74 to 0.88) and 0.57 (0.53 to 0.62) for venous thromboses, and 0.94 (0.90 to 0.99) and 0.72 (0.70 to 0.75) for arterial thromboses. aHRs for thrombotic events were higher at younger ages for venous thromboses after ChAdOx1-S, and for arterial thromboses after both vaccines. Rates of intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) and of thrombocytopenia in adults aged <70 years were higher 1 to 28 days after ChAdOx1-S (aHRs 2.27, 95% CI: 1.33 to 3.88 and 1.71, 1.35 to 2.16, respectively), but not after BNT162b2 (0.59, 0.24 to 1.45 and 1.00, 0.75 to 1.34) compared with unvaccinated. The corresponding absolute excess risks of ICVT 1 to 28 days after ChAdOx1-S were 0.9 to 3 per million, varying by age and sex. The main limitations of the study are as follows: (i) it relies on the accuracy of coded healthcare data to identify exposures, covariates, and outcomes; (ii) the use of primary reason for hospital admission to measure outcome, which improves the positive predictive value but may lead to an underestimation of incidence; and (iii) potential unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed increases in rates of ICVT and thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1-S vaccination in adults aged <70 years that were small compared with its effect in reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, although more precise estimates for adults aged <40 years are needed. For people aged ≥70 years, rates of arterial or venous thrombotic events were generally lower after either vaccine compared with unvaccinated, suggesting that either vaccine is suitable in this age group.

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

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