Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 213
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 46(1): 116-122, 2024 Feb 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37861114

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We compared the quality of ethnicity coding within the Public Health Scotland Ethnicity Look-up (PHS-EL) dataset, and other National Health Service datasets, with the 2011 Scottish Census. METHODS: Measures of quality included the level of missingness and misclassification. We examined the impact of misclassification using Cox proportional hazards to compare the risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (hospitalization & death) by ethnic group. RESULTS: Misclassification within PHS-EL was higher for all minority ethnic groups [12.5 to 69.1%] compared with the White Scottish majority [5.1%] and highest in the White Gypsy/Traveller group [69.1%]. Missingness in PHS-EL was highest among the White Other British group [39%] and lowest among the Pakistani group [17%]. PHS-EL data often underestimated severe COVID-19 risk compared with Census data. e.g. in the White Gypsy/Traveller group the Hazard Ratio (HR) was 1.68 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.03, 2.74] compared with the White Scottish majority using Census ethnicity data and 0.73 [95% CI: 0.10, 5.15] using PHS-EL data; and HR was 2.03 [95% CI: 1.20, 3.44] in the Census for the Bangladeshi group versus 1.45 [95% CI: 0.75, 2.78] in PHS-EL. CONCLUSIONS: Poor quality ethnicity coding in health records can bias estimates, thereby threatening monitoring and understanding ethnic inequalities in health.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Etnicidad , Humanos , Medicina Estatal , Web Semántica , Escocia/epidemiología
2.
PLoS Med ; 20(1): e1004156, 2023 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36630477

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Brazil and Scotland have used mRNA boosters in their respective populations since September 2021, with Omicron's emergence accelerating their booster program. Despite this, both countries have reported substantial recent increases in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The duration of the protection conferred by the booster dose against symptomatic Omicron cases and severe outcomes is unclear. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a test-negative design, we analyzed national databases to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a primary series (with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) plus an mRNA vaccine booster (with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the period of Omicron dominance in Brazil and Scotland compared to unvaccinated individuals. Additional analyses included stratification by age group (18 to 49, 50 to 64, ≥65). All individuals aged 18 years or older who reported acute respiratory illness symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022, and April 23, 2022, in Brazil and Scotland were eligible for the study. At 14 to 29 days after the mRNA booster, the VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection of ChAdOx1 plus BNT162b2 booster was 51.6%, (95% confidence interval (CI): [51.0, 52.2], p < 0.001) in Brazil and 67.1% (95% CI [65.5, 68.5], p < 0.001) in Scotland. At ≥4 months, protection against symptomatic infection waned to 4.2% (95% CI [0.7, 7.6], p = 0.02) in Brazil and 37.4% (95% CI [33.8, 40.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland. VE against severe outcomes in Brazil was 93.5% (95% CI [93.0, 94.0], p < 0.001) at 14 to 29 days post-booster, decreasing to 82.3% (95% CI [79.7, 84.7], p < 0.001) and 98.3% (95% CI [87.3, 99.8], p < 0.001) to 77.8% (95% CI [51.4, 89.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland for the same periods. Similar results were obtained with the primary series of BNT162b2 plus homologous booster. Potential limitations of this study were that we assumed that all cases included in the analysis were due to the Omicron variant based on the period of dominance and the limited follow-up time since the booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that mRNA boosters after a primary vaccination course with either mRNA or viral-vector vaccines provided modest, short-lived protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron but substantial and more sustained protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 3 months.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Brasil/epidemiología , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Escocia/epidemiología , ARN Mensajero
3.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 25-35, 2022 01 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34942103

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/prevención & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/administración & dosificación , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Brasil , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Inmunización Secundaria , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Escocia/epidemiología , Factores de Tiempo , Vacunación
4.
Lancet ; 400(10360): 1305-1320, 2022 10 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36244382

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Anciano , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunización Secundaria , Inmunosupresores , Masculino , Irlanda del Norte , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia , Vacunación , Gales/epidemiología
5.
Curr Opin Pulm Med ; 29(3): 138-142, 2023 05 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36825398

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review and summarise recent evidence on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in adults as well as in specific population groups, namely pregnant women, and children and adolescents. We also sought to summarise evidence on vaccine safety in relation to cardiovascular and neurological complications. In order to do so, we drew primarily on evidence from two our own data platforms and supplement these with insights from related large population-based studies and systematic reviews. RECENT FINDINGS: All studies showed high vaccine effectiveness against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and in particular against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. However, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection waned over time. These studies also found that booster vaccines would be needed to maintain high vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Rare cardiovascular and neurological complications have been reported in association with COVID-19 vaccines. SUMMARY: The findings from this paper support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for adults, pregnant women, children and adolescents to be protected against COVID-19. There is a need to continue to monitor the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines as these continue to be deployed in the evolving pandemic.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Embarazo , Adolescente , Adulto , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Suplementos Dietéticos , Hospitalización
6.
Euro Surveill ; 28(3)2023 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36695484

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Humanos , Vacuna BNT162 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la Influenza/efectos adversos , Vacunación/efectos adversos
7.
PLoS Med ; 19(2): e1003927, 2022 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35192598

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , SARS-CoV-2/patogenicidad , Trombosis de los Senos Intracraneales/etiología , Adulto , Anciano , Vacuna BNT162/efectos adversos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/efectos adversos , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reino Unido , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Gales
8.
Lancet ; 397(10285): 1646-1657, 2021 05 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33901420

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19-EAVE II-database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1-adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85-94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75-94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72-89 at 28-34 days post-vaccination). INTERPRETATION: Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunación Masiva , Pandemias/prevención & control , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Escocia/epidemiología , Clase Social , Adulto Joven
9.
Thorax ; 77(5): 497-504, 2022 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34782484

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The QCovid algorithm is a risk prediction tool that can be used to stratify individuals by risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. Version 1 of the algorithm was trained using data covering 10.5 million patients in England in the period 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. We carried out an external validation of version 1 of the QCovid algorithm in Scotland. METHODS: We established a national COVID-19 data platform using individual level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithm in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in our dataset for two time periods matching the original study: 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, and 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Our dataset comprised 5 384 819 individuals, representing 99% of the estimated population (5 463 300) resident in Scotland in 2020. The algorithm showed good calibration in the first period, but systematic overestimation of risk in the second period, prior to temporal recalibration. Harrell's C for deaths in females and males in the first period was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.93), respectively. Harrell's C for hospitalisations in females and males in the first period was 0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.82) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Version 1 of the QCovid algorithm showed high levels of discrimination in predicting the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in adults resident in Scotland for the original two time periods studied, but is likely to need ongoing recalibration prospectively.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Algoritmos , Calibración , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Masculino , Escocia/epidemiología
10.
Br J Psychiatry ; 221(1): 417-424, 2022 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35249568

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions. AIMS: We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (ORadj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (ORadj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (ORadj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.


Asunto(s)
Ansiolíticos , Antipsicóticos , COVID-19 , Adulto , Ansiolíticos/uso terapéutico , Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , Estudios Transversales , Humanos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéutico , Vacunación
11.
Can J Urol ; 29(2): 11080-11086, 2022 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35429426

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: To assess the association between postoperative discharge day after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy with 30-day readmission rates, and specifically compare postoperative day 1 to postoperative day 2 discharge. We hypothesized that discharge on earlier postoperative days would be associated with higher rates of readmission after partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for non-metastatic disease without chemo or radiation therapy from 2010-2014. Readmission rates were compared between postoperative discharge days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze variables associated with 30-day readmission. RESULTS: A total of 19,300 patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy were included, comprising patients discharged on postoperative day 0 (POD0) (n = 601, 3%), POD1 (n = 2,999, 16%), POD2 (n = 6,866, 36%), POD3 (n = 4,568, 24%), POD4 (n = 2,068, 11%), and POD5 or later (n = 2,198, 11%). Rates of 30-day readmission were similar between POD0, POD1 and POD2 discharges (1.8%, 1.9%, 2.2%, respectively), but were higher for discharges on POD3 or later (POD3 3.0%, POD4 4.9%, POD5 or greater 5.5%). On multivariable analysis, odds of 30-day readmission were similar between POD0 (OR 0.83 [95%CI 0.45-1.55], p = 0.56) and POD1 (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.62-1.15], p = 0.28) compared to discharge on POD2. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged on POD2 are not readmitted any less frequently than patients discharged on POD0 or POD1. Implementing protocols with POD1 as the default discharge day after partial nephrectomy should be considered. Future studies designing and evaluating safe and acceptable implementation strategies for these protocols are necessary.


Asunto(s)
Alta del Paciente , Readmisión del Paciente , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Nefrectomía/efectos adversos , Nefrectomía/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos
12.
Thorax ; 76(9): 867-873, 2021 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33782079

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on people with asthma is poorly understood. We hypothesised that lockdown restrictions were associated with reductions in severe asthma exacerbations requiring emergency asthma admissions and/or leading to death. METHODS: Using data from Public Health Scotland and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in Wales, we compared weekly counts of emergency admissions and deaths due to asthma over the first 18 weeks in 2020 with the national averages over 2015-2019. We modelled the impact of instigating lockdown on these outcomes using interrupted time-series analysis. Using fixed-effect meta-analysis, we derived pooled estimates of the overall changes in trends across the two nations. We also investigated trends in asthma-related primary care prescribing and emergency department (ED) attendances in Wales. RESULTS: Lockdown was associated with a 36% pooled reduction in emergency admissions for asthma (incidence rate ratio, IRR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.83, p value 0.001) across both countries. There was no significant change in asthma deaths (pooled IRR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.94, p value 0.37). ED asthma attendances in Wales declined during lockdown (IRR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.99, p value 0.03). A large spike of 121% more inhaled corticosteroids and 133% more oral corticosteroid prescriptions was seen in Wales in the week before lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: National lockdowns were associated with substantial reductions in severe asthma exacerbations leading to hospital admission across both Scotland and Wales, with no corresponding increase in asthma deaths.


Asunto(s)
Asma/mortalidad , COVID-19/prevención & control , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Admisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Administración por Inhalación , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/tendencias , Humanos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Admisión del Paciente/tendencias , Atención Primaria de Salud/tendencias , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología , Gales/epidemiología
13.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 124, 2021 05 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33993870

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing national lockdowns have dramatically changed the healthcare landscape. The pandemic's impact on people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains poorly understood. We hypothesised that the UK-wide lockdown restrictions were associated with reductions in severe COPD exacerbations. We provide the first national level analyses of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and first lockdown on severe COPD exacerbations resulting in emergency hospital admissions and/or leading to death as well as those recorded in primary care or emergency departments. METHODS: Using data from Public Health Scotland and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in Wales, we accessed weekly counts of emergency hospital admissions and deaths due to COPD over the first 30 weeks of 2020 and compared these to the national averages over the preceding 5 years. For both Scotland and Wales, we undertook interrupted time-series analyses to model the impact of instigating lockdown on these outcomes. Using fixed-effect meta-analysis, we derived pooled estimates of the overall changes in trends across the two nations. RESULTS: Lockdown was associated with 48% pooled reduction in emergency admissions for COPD in both countries (incidence rate ratio, IRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58), relative to the 5-year averages. There was no statistically significant change in deaths due to COPD (pooled IRR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33). In Wales, lockdown was associated with 39% reduction in primary care consultations for acute exacerbation of COPD (IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.71) and 46% reduction in COPD-related emergency department attendances (IRR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The UK-wide lockdown was associated with the most substantial reductions in COPD exacerbations ever seen across Scotland and Wales, with no corresponding increase in COPD deaths. This may have resulted from reduced transmission of respiratory infections, reduced exposure to outdoor air pollution and/or improved COPD self-management.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/epidemiología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/mortalidad , Cuarentena , COVID-19/complicaciones , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitalización , Humanos , Incidencia , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Pandemias , Atención Primaria de Salud , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia , Gales
14.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 149, 2021 06 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34158021

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clinically vulnerable individuals have been advised to shield themselves during the COVID-19 epidemic. The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) the rate ratio of severe COVID-19 associated with eligibility for the shielding programme in Scotland across the first and second waves of the epidemic and (2) the relation of severe COVID-19 to transmission-related factors in those in shielding and the general population. METHODS: In a matched case-control design, all 178,578 diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in Scotland from 1 March 2020 to 18 February 2021 were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 1,744,283 controls from the general population. This dataset (REACT-SCOT) was linked to the list of 212,702 individuals identified as eligible for shielding. Severe COVID-19 was defined as cases that entered critical care or were fatal. Rate ratios were estimated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: With those without risk conditions as reference category, the univariate rate ratio for severe COVID-19 was 3.21 (95% CI 3.01 to 3.41) in those with moderate risk conditions and 6.3 (95% CI 5.8 to 6.8) in those eligible for shielding. The highest rate was in solid organ transplant recipients: rate ratio 13.4 (95% CI 9.6 to 18.8). Risk of severe COVID-19 increased with the number of adults but decreased with the number of school-age children in the household. Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with recent exposure to hospital (defined as 5 to 14 days before presentation date): rate ratio 12.3 (95% CI 11.5 to 13.2) overall. The population attributable risk fraction for recent exposure to hospital peaked at 50% in May 2020 and again at 65% in December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of shielding vulnerable individuals was limited by the inability to control transmission in hospital and from other adults in the household. Mitigating the impact of the epidemic requires control of nosocomial transmission.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/transmisión , Adulto , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Niño , Preescolar , Cuidados Críticos , Femenino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Embarazo , Atención Primaria de Salud , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología
15.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 51, 2021 02 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33612113

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the relation of severe COVID-19 to prior drug prescribing. METHODS: Severe cases were defined by entry to critical care or fatal outcome. For this matched case-control study (REACT-SCOT), all 4251 cases of severe COVID-19 in Scotland since the start of the epidemic were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 36,738 controls from the population register. Records were linked to hospital discharges since June 2015 and dispensed prescriptions issued in primary care during the last 240 days. RESULTS: Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with the number of non-cardiovascular drug classes dispensed. This association was strongest in those not resident in a care home, in whom the rate ratio (95% CI) associated with dispensing of 12 or more drug classes versus none was 10.8 (8.8, 13.3), and in those without any of the conditions designated as conferring increased risk of COVID-19. Of 17 drug classes postulated at the start of the epidemic to be "medications compromising COVID", all were associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 and these associations were present in those without any of the designated risk conditions. The fraction of cases in the population attributable to exposure to these drug classes was 38%. The largest effect was for antipsychotic agents: rate ratio 4.18 (3.42, 5.11). Other drug classes with large effects included proton pump inhibitors (rate ratio 2.20 (1.72, 2.83) for = 2 defined daily doses/day), opioids (3.66 (2.68, 5.01) for = 50 mg morphine equivalent/day) and gabapentinoids. These associations persisted after adjusting for covariates and were stronger with recent than with non-recent exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 is associated with polypharmacy and with drugs that cause sedation, respiratory depression, or dyskinesia; have anticholinergic effects; or affect the gastrointestinal system. These associations are not easily explained by co-morbidity. Measures to reduce the burden of mortality and morbidity from COVID-19 should include reinforcing existing guidance on reducing overprescribing of these drug classes and limiting inappropriate polypharmacy. REGISTRATION: ENCEPP number EUPAS35558.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Cuidados Críticos/tendencias , Polifarmacia , Psicotrópicos/efectos adversos , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/inducido químicamente , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Comorbilidad , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Prescripciones de Medicamentos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéutico , Escocia/epidemiología
16.
Eur Respir J ; 57(1)2021 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32732334

RESUMEN

The EarlyCDT-Lung test is a high-specificity blood-based autoantibody biomarker that could contribute to predicting lung cancer risk. We report on the results of a phase IV biomarker evaluation of whether using the EarlyCDT-Lung test and any subsequent computed tomography (CT) scanning to identify those at high risk of lung cancer reduces the incidence of patients with stage III/IV/unspecified lung cancer at diagnosis compared with the standard clinical practice at the time the study began.The Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) trial was a randomised controlled trial of 12 208 participants at risk of developing lung cancer in Scotland in the UK. The intervention arm received the EarlyCDT-Lung test and, if test-positive, low-dose CT scanning 6-monthly for up to 2 years. EarlyCDT-Lung test-negative and control arm participants received standard clinical care. Outcomes were assessed at 2 years post-randomisation using validated data on cancer occurrence, cancer staging, mortality and comorbidities.At 2 years, 127 lung cancers were detected in the study population (1.0%). In the intervention arm, 33 out of 56 (58.9%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage III/IV compared with 52 out of 71 (73.2%) in the control arm. The hazard ratio for stage III/IV presentation was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99). There were nonsignificant differences in lung cancer and all-cause mortality after 2 years.ECLS compared EarlyCDT-Lung plus CT screening to standard clinical care (symptomatic presentation) and was not designed to assess the incremental contribution of the EarlyCDT-Lung test. The observation of a stage shift towards earlier-stage lung cancer diagnosis merits further investigations to evaluate whether the EarlyCDT-Lung test adds anything to the emerging standard of low-dose CT.


Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Pruebas Hematológicas , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Escocia/epidemiología
17.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 76(9): 2437-2445, 2021 08 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34151964

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a healthcare-acquired infection (HAI) causing significant morbidity and mortality. Welsh CDI rates are high in comparison with those in England and Scotland. OBJECTIVES: This retrospective ecological study used aggregated disease surveillance data to understand the impact of total and high-risk Welsh GP antibiotic prescribing on total and stratified inpatient/non-inpatient CDI incidence. METHODS: All cases of confirmed CDI, during the financial years 2014-15 to 2017-18, were linked to aggregated rates of antibiotic prescribing in their GP surgery and classified as 'inpatient', 'non-inpatient' or 'unknown' by Public Health Wales. Multivariable negative-binomial regression models, comparing CDI incidence with antibiotic prescribing rates, were adjusted for potential confounders: location; age; social deprivation; comorbidities (estimated from prevalence of key health indicators) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescription rates. RESULTS: There were 4613 confirmed CDI cases, with an incidence (95% CI) of 1.44 (1.40-1.48) per 1000 registered patients. Unadjusted analysis showed that an increased risk of total CDI incidence was associated with higher total antibiotic prescribing [relative risk (RR) (95% CI) = 1.338 (1.170-1.529) per 1000 items per 1000 specific therapeutic group age-sex related GP prescribing units (STAR-PU)] and that high-risk antibiotic classes were positively associated with total CDI incidence. Location, age ≥65 years and diabetes were associated with increased risk of CDI. After adjusting for confounders, prescribing of clindamycin showed a positive association with total CDI incidence [RR (95% CI) = 1.079 (1.001-1.162) log items per 1000 registered patients]. CONCLUSIONS: An increased risk of CDI is demonstrated at a primary care practice population level, reflecting their antibiotic prescribing rates, particularly clindamycin, and population demographics.


Asunto(s)
Clostridioides difficile , Infecciones por Clostridium , Infección Hospitalaria , Anciano , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Clostridioides , Infecciones por Clostridium/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Clostridium/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Gales/epidemiología
18.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 87(3): 1129-1140, 2021 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32668021

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Due to cardiovascular safety concerns, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended new contraindications and changes to product information for diclofenac across Europe in 2013. This study aims to measure their impact among targeted populations. METHOD: Quarterly interrupted time series regression (ITS) analyses of diclofenac initiation among cohorts with contraindications (congestive cardiac failure [CHF], ischaemic heart disease [IHD], peripheral arterial disease [PAD], cerebrovascular disease [CVD]) and cautions (hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes) from Denmark, the Netherlands, England and Scotland. RESULTS: The regulatory action was associated with significant immediate absolute reductions in diclofenac initiation in all countries for IHD (Denmark -0.08%, 95%CI -0.13, -0.03; England -0.09%, 95%CI -0.13 to -0.06%; the Netherlands -1.84%, 95%CI -2.51 to -1.17%; Scotland -0.34%, 95%CI -0.38 to -0.30%), PAD and hyperlipidaemia, the Netherlands, England and Scotland for hypertension and diabetes, and England and Scotland for CHF and CVD. Post-intervention there was a significant negative trend in diclofenac initiation in the Netherlands for IHD (-0.12%, 95%CI -0.19 to -0.04), PAD (-0.13%, 95%CI -0.22 to -0.05), hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes, and in Scotland for CHF (-0.01%, 95%CI -0.02 to -0.007%), IHD (-0.017, 95%CI -0.02, -0.01%), PAD and hypertension. In England, diclofenac initiation rates fell less steeply. In Denmark changes were more strongly associated with the earlier EMA 2012 regulatory action. CONCLUSION: Although significant reductions in diclofenac initiation occurred, patients with contraindications continued to be prescribed diclofenac, the extent of which varied by country and target condition. Understanding reasons for such variation may help to guide the design or dissemination of future safety warnings.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Diclofenaco , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Diclofenaco/efectos adversos , Inglaterra , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Países Bajos , Análisis de Regresión , Escocia
19.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 1275, 2021 Dec 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34930153

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To investigate the association of primary acute cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) with COVID-19 vaccination through complete ascertainment of all diagnosed CVT in the population of Scotland. METHODS: Case-crossover study comparing cases of CVT recently exposed to vaccination (1-14 days after vaccination) with cases less recently exposed. Cases in Scotland from 1 December 2020 were ascertained through neuroimaging studies up to 17 May 2021 and diagnostic coding of hospital discharges up to 28 April 2021, linked to national vaccination records. The main outcome measure was primary acute CVT. RESULTS: Of 50 primary acute CVT cases, 29 were ascertained only from neuroimaging studies, 2 were ascertained only from hospital discharges, and 19 were ascertained from both sources. Of these 50 cases, 14 had received the Astra-Zeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine and 3 the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine. The incidence of CVT per million doses in the first 14 days after vaccination was 2.2 (95% credible interval 0.9 to 4.1) for ChAdOx1 and 1 (95% credible interval 0.1 to 2.9) for BNT162b2. The rate ratio for CVT associated with exposure to ChAdOx1 in the first 14 days compared with exposure 15-84 days after vaccination was 3.2 (95% credible interval 1.1 to 9.5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support a causal association between CVT and the AstraZeneca vaccine. The absolute risk of post-vaccination CVT in this population-wide study in Scotland was lower than has been reported for populations in Scandinavia and Germany; the explanation for this is not clear.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trombosis de la Vena , Vacuna BNT162 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios Cruzados , Humanos , Neuroimagen , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología , Vacunación , Trombosis de la Vena/diagnóstico por imagen , Trombosis de la Vena/epidemiología
20.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 30(4): 482-491, 2021 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33386650

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyzine is indicated for the management of anxiety, skin and sleep disorders. In 2015, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) concluded that hydroxyzine was pro-arrhythmogenic and changes to the product information were implemented in Europe. This study aimed to evaluate their impact in Denmark, Scotland, England and the Netherlands. METHOD: Quarterly time series analyses measuring hydroxyzine initiation, discontinuation, and switching to other antihistamines, benzodiazepines and antidepressants in Denmark, England, Scotland and the Netherlands from 2009 to 2018. Data were analysed using interrupted time series regression. RESULTS: Hydroxyzine initiation in quarter one 2010 in Denmark, Scotland, England and the Netherlands per 100 000 was: 23.5, 91.5, 35.9 and 34.4 respectively. Regulatory action was associated with a significant: immediate fall in hydroxyzine initiation per 100 000 in England (-12.05, 95%CI -18.47 to -5.63) and Scotland (-19.01, 95%CI -26.99 to -11.02); change to a negative trend in hydroxyzine initiation per 100 000/quarter in England (-1.72, 95%CI -2.69 to -0.75) and Scotland (-2.38, 95%CI -3.32 to -1.44). Regulatory action was associated with a significant: immediate rise in hydroxyzine discontinuation per 100 000 in England (3850, 95%CI 440-7240). No consistent changes were observed in the Netherlands or Denmark. Regulatory action was associated with no switching to other antihistamines, benzodiazepines or antidepressants following hydroxyzine discontinuation in any country. CONCLUSION: The 2015 EMA regulatory action was associated with heterogeneous impact with reductions in hydroxyzine initiation varying by country. There was limited impact on discontinuation with no strong evidence suggesting unintended consequences of major switching to other antihistamines, benzodiazepines or antidepressants.


Asunto(s)
Hidroxizina , Dinamarca , Inglaterra , Humanos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Países Bajos , Análisis de Regresión , Escocia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA