Drinking water quality management progress in Ontario, two decades after Walkerton.

Following the waterborne disease outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario, the province made significant efforts to implement recommendations of the public inquiry that resulted. As Ontario reformed its drinking water sector, other jurisdictions were advancing risk-based quality management frameworks for drinking water, including the World Health Organization (WHO) through its water safety plan (WSP) framework. Two decades after the Walkerton tragedy, this paper seeks to: (i) evaluate alignment of Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS) with the WSP framework (ii) review readily available data for evidence that Ontario's DWQMS implementation has improved drinking water safety and promoted a preventive approach through risk-based quality management. Our study found strong alignment between the Ontario DWQMS and WSP frameworks, with supporting programmes and risk assessment procedures present. Analysis of available regulatory data revealed abundant reporting of water quality and adverse incidents in municipal water systems. However, performance data were publicly available, the use of percentage scores for water quality testing obscures the details of system performance and water safety. Reports describing the DWQMS plan and audit results were difficult to obtain and not standardized. There is a need to develop mechanisms to ensure continual improvement of the DWQMS.

OpenSAFELY: impact of national guidance on switching anticoagulant therapy during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately coprescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change and associated monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe coprescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using routine clinical data from 24 million NHS patients in England. RESULTS: 20 000 of 164 000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in coprescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. International normalised ratio (INR) testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). CONCLUSIONS: Increased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people coprescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement for patients with multimorbidities: a cohort study using propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting.

BACKGROUND: Although routine NHS data potentially include all patients, confounding limits their use for causal inference. Methods to minimise confounding in observational studies of implantable devices are required to enable the evaluation of patients with severe systemic morbidity who are excluded from many randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: Stage 1 - replicate the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT), a surgical randomised controlled trial comparing unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Stage 2 - compare the risk benefits and cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement surgery in patients with severe systemic morbidity who would have been ineligible for TOPKAT using the validated methods from stage 1. DESIGN: This was a cohort study. SETTING: Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry database and linked to hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) and patient-reported outcome data. PARTICIPANTS: Stage 1 - people undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery who met the TOPKAT eligibility criteria. Stage 2 - participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of ≥ 3. INTERVENTION: The patients were exposed to either unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the postoperative Oxford Knee Score. The secondary outcome measures were 90-day postoperative complications (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and prosthetic joint infection) and 5-year revision risk and mortality. The main outcome measures for the health economic analysis were health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) and NHS hospital costs. RESULTS: In stage 1, propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting replicated the results of TOPKAT. Propensity score adjustment, propensity score matching and instrumental variables did not. Stage 2 included 2256 unicompartmental knee replacement patients and 57,682 total knee replacement patients who had severe comorbidities, of whom 145 and 23,344 had linked Oxford Knee Scores, respectively. A statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference favouring unicompartmental knee replacement was observed, with a mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score difference of < 2 points using propensity score stratification; no significant difference was observed using inverse probability weighting. Unicompartmental knee replacement more than halved the risk of venous thromboembolism [relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; relative risk 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.96) using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement was not associated with myocardial infarction or prosthetic joint infection using either method. In the long term, unicompartmental knee replacement had double the revision risk of total knee replacement [hazard ratio 2.70 (95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.38) using propensity score stratification; hazard ratio 2.60 (95% confidence interval 1.94 to 3.47) using inverse probability weighting], but half of the mortality [hazard ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; insignificant effect using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year gains than total knee replacement for stage 2 participants. LIMITATIONS: Although some propensity score methods successfully replicated TOPKAT, unresolved confounding may have affected stage 2. Missing Oxford Knee Scores may have led to information bias. CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting successfully replicated TOPKAT, implying that some (but not all) propensity score methods can be used to evaluate surgical innovations and implantable medical devices using routine NHS data. Unicompartmental knee replacement was safer and more cost-effective than total knee replacement for patients with severe comorbidity and should be considered the first option for suitable patients. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to understand the performance of propensity score methods for evaluating surgical innovations and implantable devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as EUPAS17435. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

We compared the risks and benefits of partial and total knee replacements in NHS patients with a complex medical history who would normally be excluded from randomised trials on this topic. We used information that was collected during hospital appointments for people who had a knee replacement between 2009 and 2016. It is difficult to directly compare the two groups because each individual patient has a different medical history. We tested advanced statistical methods to account for these differences. In stage 1, we showed that some of these advanced statistical methods could replicate the results of a recently published surgical trial using routine data from the NHS. We compared patients in the trial with similar patients who were operated on in the NHS. Three of the proposed methods showed results similar to those obtained from the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). In stage 2, we used the successful methods from stage 1 to study the risks, benefits and costs of partial and total knee replacement surgery in patients with complex medical histories. Two of the statistical methods found that patients who had a partial knee replacement had less self-reported pain and better function after surgery than patients who had a total knee replacement. All three methods found that partial knee replacement was safer, was associated with a lower risk of blood clots (a known complication of knee surgery) and had lower mortality over 5 years. However, patients who had a partial knee replacement were twice as likely as those with a total knee replacement to need a second surgery within 5 years. We found that partial knee replacements were less costly to the NHS and were associated with better overall quality of life for patients than total knee replacement.

Medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a historical non-interventional cohort study with validation against RCT results.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment is informed by randomised controlled trial results, but it is unclear if these findings apply to people excluded from these trials. We used data from the TORCH (TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health) randomised controlled trial to validate non-interventional methods for assessing the clinical effectiveness of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, before applying these methods to the analysis of people who would have been excluded from TORCH. OBJECTIVES: To validate the use of non-interventional Clinical Practice Research Datalink data and methods for estimating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment effects against trial results, and, using validated methods, to determine treatment effects in people who would have been excluded from the TORCH trial. DESIGN: A historical non-interventional cohort design, including validation against randomised controlled trial results. SETTING: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. PARTICIPANTS: People aged ≥ 18 years with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease registered in Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD between January 2000 and January 2017. For objective 1, we prepared a cohort that was analogous to the TORCH trial cohort by applying TORCH trial inclusion/exclusion criteria followed by individual matching to TORCH trial participants. For objectives 2 and 3, we prepared cohorts that were analogous to the TORCH trial that, nevertheless, would not have been eligible for the TORCH trial because of age, asthma, comorbidity or mild disease. INTERVENTIONS: The long-acting beta-2 agonist and inhaled corticosteroid combination product Seretide (GlaxoSmithKline plc) [i.e. fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP-SAL)] compared with (1) no FP-SAL exposure or (2) exposure to salmeterol (i.e. the long-acting beta-2 agonist) only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exacerbations, mortality, pneumonia and time to treatment change. RESULTS: For objective 1, the exacerbation rate ratio was comparable to that in the TORCH trial for FP-SAL compared with salmeterol (0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.97, vs. TORCH trial 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.95), but not for FP-SAL compared with no FP-SAL (1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.42, vs. TORCH trial 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.81). Active comparator results were also consistent with the TORCH trial for mortality (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.32, vs. TORCH trial hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.13) and pneumonia (risk ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.87, vs. TORCH trial risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.73). For objectives 2 and 3, active comparator results were consistent with the TORCH trial for exacerbations, with the exception of people with milder chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in whom we observed a stronger protective association (risk ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.70, vs. TORCH trial risk ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.97). For the analysis of mortality, we saw a lack of association with being prescribed FP-SAL (vs. being prescribed salmeterol), with the exception of those with prior asthma, for whom we observed an increase in mortality (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.85, vs. TORCH trial-analogous HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected electronic health record data can be used to successfully measure chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment effects when comparing two treatments, but not for comparisons between active treatment and no treatment. Analyses involving patients who would have been excluded from trials mostly suggests that treatment effects for FP-SAL are similar to trial effects, although further work is needed to characterise a small increased risk of death in those with concomitant asthma. LIMITATIONS: Some of our analyses had small numbers. FUTURE WORK: The differences in treatment effects that we found should be investigated further in other data sets. Currently recommended chronic obstructive pulmonary disease inhaled combination therapy (other than FP-SAL) should also be investigated using these methods. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease affects 3 million people in the UK and is characterised by breathing difficulties that get worse over time, with sudden acute symptoms (exacerbations), possibly requiring hospitalisation. The evidence for use of medicines for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease comes from randomised controlled trial results. Randomised controlled trials generally include younger people with severe disease who do not have any other illnesses apart from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, meaning that the effectiveness of these trials in all people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is unknown. Very large databases of anonymous electronic health records captured during NHS consultations can be used to study patients excluded from trials. However, confidence in results from studies using these data can be low because of fears of unaccounted bias, as patients are not randomised to treatment. In this project, we selected a group of patients from a very large electronic health record database called the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who were very similar to participants in a well-known large chronic obstructive pulmonary disease randomised controlled trial [the TORCH (TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health) trial]. When we analysed data from these patients, we found very similar results to the TORCH trial in relation to the reduction of exacerbations, development of pneumonia and time until death, when comparing one chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment with another. Having shown that our methods could be trusted to produce valid results when comparing one chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment with another, we then went on to analyse patients in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who would have been excluded from the TORCH trial for the following reasons: aged > 80 years, having asthma as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or having only mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. For exacerbations, we found that, for people with milder chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, one of the treatments we studied seemed to work better than in the trial. For the analysis of mortality, we found that, for people with asthma as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, one of the treatments seemed not to work so well, with more people dying. Future studies are needed in different populations (such as in a database from another country) to confirm these results.

Measuring the Effectiveness of Real-World Evidence to Ensure Appropriate Impact.

The value of real-world evidence (RWE) in medicines regulation and health technology assessment has been increasingly emphasized. Nevertheless, although RWE is increasingly used, there has been limited systematic evidence of its value. A recent study that examined the role and impact of RWE in regulatory assessments conducted through the European Medicines Agency provided such evidence. Results of the study demonstrated RWE was important to decision making, particularly for certain questions such as the quantification of adverse events, the evaluation of risk minimization measures, and the assessment of product usage. The study suggested, however, that in many of the assessments further RWE would have been valuable and concluded that RWE has, as yet, played a limited role in hypothesis generation and in the assessment of medication effectiveness. This study had been possible only because of the transparency of the European Medicines Agency decision making. Ensuring transparency of RWE evidence collection, study design and conduct, and of decision making based on this evidence will facilitate further development of the uses and value of RWE. Keywords: benefit-risk assessment; medicines regulation; real-world evidence; regulatory decision making.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of death from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort analysis based on two cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform. METHODS: We conducted two cohort studies from 1 March to 14 June 2020. Working on behalf of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data in England linked to death data. In study 1, we identified people with an NSAID prescription in the last 3 years from the general population. In study 2, we identified people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. We defined exposure as current NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1 March 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate HRs for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications and geographical region. RESULTS: In study 1, we included 536 423 current NSAID users and 1 927 284 non-users in the general population. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14) in the multivariable-adjusted model. In study 2, we included 1 708 781 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175 495 (10%) were current NSAID users. In the multivariable-adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a harmful effect of routinely prescribed NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks of COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about the routine therapeutic use of NSAIDs.

A comprehensive high cost drugs dataset from the NHS in England - An OpenSAFELY-TPP Short Data Report.

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, "high-cost drugs" (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed; drug name; and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

Use of real-world evidence in postmarketing medicines regulation in the European Union: a systematic assessment of European Medicines Agency referrals 2013-2017.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the use, and evaluate the usefulness, of non-interventional studies and routinely collected healthcare data in postmarketing assessments conducted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: We reviewed and systematically assessed all referrals to the EMA made due to safety or efficacy concerns that were evaluated between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2017. We extracted information from the assessment report and the referral notification. Two reviewers independently assessed the contribution of non-interventional evidence to decision-making. RESULTS: The preliminary evidence leading to the assessment in 52 eligible referrals was mostly from spontaneous reports (cited in 26 of 52 referrals) and randomised trials (22/52). In contrast, many evidence types were used for the full assessment. Non-interventional studies were frequently used in the full assessment for the evaluation of product safety (31/52) and product efficacy (18/52). In particular, non-interventional studies were relied on for the evaluation of safety and efficacy in subgroups, the evaluation of safety relating to a rare adverse event, understanding product usage and misuse and for evaluation of the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures. The most common recommendations were changes to product information (43/52) and marketing authorisation withdrawal or suspension (12/52). In the majority of referrals, non-interventional evidence was judged to contribute to the decision made (30/52) and in three referrals it was the primary source of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: European regulatory decision-making relies on multiple evidence types, particularly randomised trials, spontaneous reports and non-interventional studies. Non-interventional studies had an important role particularly for the characterisation and quantification of adverse events, the evaluation of product usage and for evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory action to minimise risk.

Cost saving of switching to equivalent inhalers and its effect on health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Switching inhalers to cheaper equivalent products is often advocated as a necessary cost saving measure, yet the impact on patient's health and healthcare utilisation has not been measured. METHODS: We identified asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients from UK primary care electronic healthcare records between 2000 and 2016. A self-controlled case series was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR); comparing outcome rates during the risk period, 3 months after the exposure (financially motivated switch), and control periods (preswitch and postrisk period). Four outcomes were assessed: disease exacerbation, general practitioner consultation, non-specific respiratory events and adverse-medication events. Medication possession ratio (MPR) was calculated to assess adherence. 2017 National Health Service indicative prices were used to estimate cost differences per equivalent dose. RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 569 901 asthma and 171 231 COPD regular inhaler users, 2% and 6% had been switched, respectively. Inhaler switches between a brand-to-generic inhaler, and all other switches (brand-to-brand, generic-to-generic, generic-to-brand), were associated with reduced exacerbations (brand-to-generic: IRR=0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88; all other: IRR=0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88). Gender, age, therapeutic class, inhaler device and inhaler-technique checks did not significantly modify this association (p<0.05). The rate of consultations, respiratory-events and adverse-medication events did not change significantly (consultations: IRR=1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01; respiratory-events: IRR=0.96, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.97; adverse-medication-events: IRR=1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15). Adherence significantly increased post-switch (median MPR: pre-switch=54%, post-switch=62%; p<0.001). Switching patients, in the cohort of regular inhaler users, to the cheapest equivalent inhaler, could have saved around £6 million annually. CONCLUSION: Switching to an equivalent inhaler in patients with asthma or COPD appeared safe and did not negatively affect patient's health or healthcare utilisation.

Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0.

PURPOSE: Defining a study population and creating an analytic dataset from longitudinal healthcare databases involves many decisions. Our objective was to catalogue scientific decisions underpinning study execution that should be reported to facilitate replication and enable assessment of validity of studies conducted in large healthcare databases. METHODS: We reviewed key investigator decisions required to operate a sample of macros and software tools designed to create and analyze analytic cohorts from longitudinal streams of healthcare data. A panel of academic, regulatory, and industry experts in healthcare database analytics discussed and added to this list. CONCLUSION: Evidence generated from large healthcare encounter and reimbursement databases is increasingly being sought by decision-makers. Varied terminology is used around the world for the same concepts. Agreeing on terminology and which parameters from a large catalogue are the most essential to report for replicable research would improve transparency and facilitate assessment of validity. At a minimum, reporting for a database study should provide clarity regarding operational definitions for key temporal anchors and their relation to each other when creating the analytic dataset, accompanied by an attrition table and a design diagram. A substantial improvement in reproducibility, rigor and confidence in real world evidence generated from healthcare databases could be achieved with greater transparency about operational study parameters used to create analytic datasets from longitudinal healthcare databases.

Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0.

PURPOSE: Defining a study population and creating an analytic dataset from longitudinal healthcare databases involves many decisions. Our objective was to catalogue scientific decisions underpinning study execution that should be reported to facilitate replication and enable assessment of validity of studies conducted in large healthcare databases. METHODS: We reviewed key investigator decisions required to operate a sample of macros and software tools designed to create and analyze analytic cohorts from longitudinal streams of healthcare data. A panel of academic, regulatory, and industry experts in healthcare database analytics discussed and added to this list. CONCLUSION: Evidence generated from large healthcare encounter and reimbursement databases is increasingly being sought by decision-makers. Varied terminology is used around the world for the same concepts. Agreeing on terminology and which parameters from a large catalogue are the most essential to report for replicable research would improve transparency and facilitate assessment of validity. At a minimum, reporting for a database study should provide clarity regarding operational definitions for key temporal anchors and their relation to each other when creating the analytic dataset, accompanied by an attrition table and a design diagram. A substantial improvement in reproducibility, rigor and confidence in real world evidence generated from healthcare databases could be achieved with greater transparency about operational study parameters used to create analytic datasets from longitudinal healthcare databases.

Population trends in the 10-year incidence and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the UK: a cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 2004-2014.

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in the incidence and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the UK by diabetes type, age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region and calendar year. DESIGN: Cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 7.7 million patients ≥12 contributing to the CPRD from 2004 to 2014. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Age-standardised prevalence and incidence of diabetes, DR and severe DR (requiring photocoagulation) by calendar year and population subgroup. Relative risk of developing DR and severe DR by population subgroup. RESULTS: The prevalence of DR was 48.4% in the population type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) (14 846/30 657) and 28.3% (95 807/338 390) in the population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Prevalence of DR remained stable in people with T2DM and decreased in people with T1DM. Screening for DR increased over time for patients with T2DM and remained static for patients with T1DM Incidence of DR increased in parallel with the incidence of T2DM in both diabetic populations. Among patients with T2DM, relative risk of DR varied significantly by region, was increased for older age groups and in men compared with women, with risk of severe DR increased in South Asian groups and more deprived groups. Relative risk of DR for patients with T1DM varied by age and region, but not by gender, ethnic group or deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date examining the burden of DR in the UK. Regional disparities in incidence may relate to differences in screening delivery and disease ascertainment. Evidence that deprivation and ethnicity are associated with a higher risk of severe DR highlights a significant potential health inequality. Findings from this study will have implications for professionals working in the diabetes and sight loss sectors, particularly to inform approaches for diagnosis of retinopathy and campaigning to better tackle the disease for at risk groups.

Acute Cardiovascular Events after Herpes Zoster: A Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Older Residents of the United States.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster is common and can have serious consequences. Additionally, emerging data suggest an increased risk of acute cardiovascular events following herpes zoster. However, to our knowledge, existing association studies compare outcomes between individuals and are therefore vulnerable to between-person confounding. In this study, we used a within-person study design to quantify any short-term increased risk of acute cardiovascular events (stroke and myocardial infarction [MI]) after zoster and to assess whether zoster vaccination modifies this association. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The self-controlled case series method was used to estimate rates of stroke and acute MI in defined periods after herpes zoster compared to other time periods, within individuals. Participants were fully eligible Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 y with a herpes zoster diagnosis and either an ischemic stroke (n = 42,954) or MI (n = 24,237) between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2011. Age-adjusted incidence ratios (IRs) for stroke and MI during predefined periods up to 12 mo after zoster relative to unexposed time periods were calculated using conditional Poisson regression. We observed a marked increase in the rate of acute cardiovascular events in the first week after zoster diagnosis: a 2.4-fold increased ischemic stroke rate (IR 2.37, 95% CI 2.17-2.59) and a 1.7-fold increased MI rate (IR 1.68, 95% CI 1.47-1.92), followed by a gradual resolution over 6 mo. Zoster vaccination did not appear to modify the association with MI (interaction p-value = 0.44). We also found no evidence for a difference in the IR for ischemic stroke between vaccinated (IR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75-1.74) and unvaccinated (IR 1.78, 95% CI 1.68-1.88) individuals during the first 4 wk after zoster diagnosis (interaction p-value = 0.28). The relatively few vaccinated individuals limited the study's power to assess the role of vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke and MI rates are transiently increased after exposure to herpes zoster. We found no evidence for a role of zoster vaccination in these associations. These findings enhance our understanding of the temporality and magnitude of the association between zoster and acute cardiovascular events.

Cutting feedback in Bayesian regression adjustment for the propensity score.

McCandless, Gustafson and Austin (2009) describe a Bayesian approach to regression adjustment for the propensity score to reduce confounding. A unique property of the method is that the treatment and outcome models are combined via Bayes theorem. However, this estimation procedure can be problematic if the outcome model is misspecified. We observe feedback that can bias propensity score estimates. Building on new innovation in Bayesian computation, we propose a technique for cutting feedback in a Bayesian propensity analysis. We use the posterior distribution of the propensity scores as an input in the regression model for the outcome. The method is approximately Bayesian in the sense that it does not use the full likelihood for estimation. Nonetheless, it severs feedback between the treatment and outcome giving propensity score estimates that are free from bias but modeled with uncertainty. We illustrate the method in a matched cohort study investigating the effect of statins on primary stroke prevention.

Post-marketing assessment of the safety of strontium ranelate; a novel case-only approach to the early detection of adverse drug reactions.

AIMS: Post licensing, the evaluation of drug safety relies heavily on the collation of sporadic, spontaneous reports on adverse effects. The aim was to assess the potential utility of a more systematic approach to the detection of adverse events that utilizes routinely collected clinical data from a large primary care population. METHODS: We used the UK General Practice Research Database to assess the risk of several recently reported adverse events linked to the use of strontium ranelate for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The self-controlled case-series method was used to minimize the potential for biases in the quantification of risk estimates. RESULTS: Age-adjusted rate ratios for venous thromboembolism, gastrointestinal disturbance, minor skin complaint and memory loss were 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2, 5.0], 3.0 (95% CI 2.3, 3.8), 2.0 (95% CI 1.3, 3.1) and 1.8 (95% CI 0.2, 14.1), respectively. No cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw, toxic-epidermal necrosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome or drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although we confirmed the association between strontium ranelate and adverse events identified in the Phase III publications, there was no evidence of an association between strontium ranelate and the aforementioned potentially life-threatening adverse events. Our study demonstrates the relative ease with which this method can assess a variety of adverse events associated with a new drug in actual clinical practice. We believe this technique could be more widely adopted to assess the safety profile of new drugs.

Trends in labour and birth interventions among low-risk women in New South Wales.

OBJECTIVE: To examine recent trends in obstetric intervention rates among women at low-risk of poor pregnancy outcome. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analytic study SETTING AND POPULATION: A population of 336,189 women categorised as low-risk of a poor pregnancy outcome who gave birth to a live singleton in NSW from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric intervention rates including oxytocin induction and augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, instrumental births, caesarean section and episiotomy METHODS: Trends over time were assessed by fitting trend-lines to numbers of births or by trends in proportions. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the impact of epidural analgesia on instrumental birth over time. RESULTS: Rates of operative births did not rise despite increases in maternal age and use of epidural analgesia. Instrumental births declined over time from 26% to 22% among primiparas and 5% to 4% among multiparas. There was also a shift to vacuum extraction rather than forceps. Although instrumental birth was strongly associated with epidural analgesia, the strength of the association declined over the study period, for primiparas from an adjusted odds ratio of 7.2 to 5.2 and for multiparas from 13.2 to 10.3. CONCLUSIONS: Increased use of epidural analgesia for labour has been a feature of the management of birth at term during the 1990s. The decline in the strength of association between epidural analgesia and instrumental birth may reflect improved epidural techniques and management of epidural labour, and recognition of the adverse maternal outcomes associated with forceps and vacuum births.