Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly affected mortality worldwide1. There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, and this requires new approaches for the timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England, we created OpenSAFELY-a secure health analytics platform that covers 40% of all patients in England and holds patient data within the existing data centre of a major vendor of primary care electronic health records. Here we used OpenSAFELY to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19-related deaths. COVID-19-related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.53-1.65)); greater age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared with people of white ethnicity, Black and South Asian people were at higher risk, even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48 (1.29-1.69) and 1.45 (1.32-1.58), respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical factors associated with COVID-19-related death in one of the largest cohort studies on this topic so far. More patient records are rapidly being added to OpenSAFELY, we will update and extend our results regularly.

Cardiorenal effects of Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and Angiotensin receptor blockers in people underrepresented in trials: analysis of routinely collected data with emulation of a reference trial (ONTARGET).

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), compared in the ONTARGET trial, each prevent CVD. However, trial results may not be generalisable and their effectiveness in underrepresented groups is unclear. Using trial emulation methods within routine-care data to validate findings, we explored generalisability of ONTARGET results. For people prescribed an ACEi/ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD from 1/1/2001-31/7/2019, we applied trial criteria and propensity-score methods to create an ONTARGET trial-eligible cohort. Comparing ARB to ACEi, we estimated hazard ratios for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure), and secondary outcomes. As the pre-specified criteria were met confirming trial emulation, we then explored treatment heterogeneity among three trial-underrepresented subgroups: females, those aged ≥75 years and those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the trial-eligible population (n=137,155), results for the primary outcome demonstrated similar effects of ARB and ACEi, (HR 0.97 [95% CI: 0.93, 1.01]), meeting the pre-specified validation criteria. When extending this outcome to trial-underrepresented groups, similar treatment effects were observed by sex, age and CKD. This suggests that ONTARGET trial findings are generalisable to trial-underrepresented subgroups.

Applying two approaches to detect unmeasured confounding due to time-varying variables in a self-controlled risk interval design evaluating COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, using myocarditis as a case example.

We test the robustness of the self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) design in a setting where time between doses may introduce time-varying confounding, using both negative control outcomes (NCOs) and quantitative bias analysis (QBA). All vaccinated cases identified from 5 European databases between 1 September 2020 and end of data availability were included. Exposures were doses 1-3 of the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines; outcomes were myocarditis and otitis externa (NCO). The SCRI used a 60-day control window and dose-specific 28-day risk windows, stratified by vaccine brand and adjusted for calendar time. The QBA included two scenarios: (i) baseline probability of the confounder was higher in the control window and (ii) vice versa. The NCO was not associated with any of the COVID-19 vaccine types or doses except Moderna dose 1 (IRR = 1.09, 95%CI 1.01-1.09). The QBA suggested even the strongest literature-reported confounder (COVID-19; RRmyocarditis = 18.3) could only explain away part of the observed effect from IRR = 3 to IRR = 1.40. The SCRI seems robust to unmeasured confounding in the COVID-19 setting, although a strong unmeasured confounder could bias the observed effect upward. Replication of our findings for other safety signals would strengthen this conclusion.

OpenSAFELY: A platform for analysing electronic health records designed for reproducible research.

Electronic health records (EHRs) and other administrative health data are increasingly used in research to generate evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and utilisation of medical products and services, and to inform public health guidance and policy. Reproducibility is a fundamental step for research credibility and promotes trust in evidence generated from EHRs. At present, ensuring research using EHRs is reproducible can be challenging for researchers. Research software platforms can provide technical solutions to enhance the reproducibility of research conducted using EHRs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed the secure, transparent, analytic open-source software platform OpenSAFELY designed with reproducible research in mind. OpenSAFELY mitigates common barriers to reproducible research by: standardising key workflows around data preparation; removing barriers to code-sharing in secure analysis environments; enforcing public sharing of programming code and codelists; ensuring the same computational environment is used everywhere; integrating new and existing tools that encourage and enable the use of reproducible working practices; and providing an audit trail for all code that is run against the real data to increase transparency. This paper describes OpenSAFELY's reproducibility-by-design approach in detail.

Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

Severity of Severe Acute Respiratory System Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Alpha Variant (B.1.1.7) in England.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild-type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and Office for National Statistics all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases with wild-type diagnosed from 16 November 2020 to 11 January 2021. RESULTS: Using data from 185 234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha = 93 153; wild-type = 92 081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-2.13; P < .0001) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (1.62; 1.48-1.78; P < .0001) compared with wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to the intensive care unit, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the CI included the null (aHR: 1.20; 95% CI: .74-1.95; P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalization and mortality than wild-type virus.

Overall and cause-specific hospitalisation and death after COVID-19 hospitalisation in England: A cohort study using linked primary care, secondary care, and death registration data in the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: There is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: With the approval of NHS-England, we conducted a cohort study, using linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February to December 2020) and surviving at least 1 week, and (i) demographically matched controls from the 2019 general population; and (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017 to 2019. We used Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidities considered potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. We included 24,673 postdischarge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls, followed for ≤315 days. COVID-19 patients had median age of 66 years, 13,733 (56%) were male, and 19,061 (77%) were of white ethnicity. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30,968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.22, 2.14 to 2.30, p < 0.001) but slightly lower than the influenza group (aHR 0.95, 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.004). All-cause mortality (7,439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (aHR 4.82, 4.48 to 5.19 versus general population controls [p < 0.001] and 1.74, 1.61 to 1.88 versus influenza controls [p < 0.001]). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than in general population controls and largely similar or lower in COVID-19 compared with influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted or die due to their initial infection or other lower respiratory tract infection (aHR 1.37, 1.22 to 1.54, p < 0.001) and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission or death (aHR 1.37, 1.02 to 1.84, p = 0.039); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with preexisting dementia had higher risk of dementia hospitalisation or death (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2.47, 1.37 to 4.44, p = 0.002). Limitations of our study were that reasons for hospitalisation or death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes, and we did not have data to distinguish COVID-19 variants. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that people discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations, but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmission or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of postdischarge monitoring.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FINDINGS: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories. INTERPRETATION: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Describing the population experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough following second vaccination in England: a cohort study from OpenSAFELY.

BACKGROUND: While the vaccines against COVID-19 are highly effective, COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough is possible despite being fully vaccinated. With SARS-CoV-2 variants still circulating, describing the characteristics of individuals who have experienced COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs could be hugely important in helping to determine who may be at greatest risk. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using routine clinical data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP database of fully vaccinated individuals, linked to secondary care and death registry data and described the characteristics of those experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs. RESULTS: As of 1st November 2021, a total of 15,501,550 individuals were identified as being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, with a median follow-up time of 149 days (IQR: ​107-179). From within this population, a total of 579,780 (<4%) individuals reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. For every 1000 years of patient follow-up time, the corresponding incidence rate (IR) was 98.06 (95% CI 97.93-98.19). There were 28,580 COVID-19-related hospital admissions, 1980 COVID-19-related critical care admissions and 6435 COVID-19-related deaths; corresponding IRs 4.77 (95% CI 4.74-4.80), 0.33 (95% CI 0.32-0.34) and 1.07 (95% CI 1.06-1.09), respectively. The highest rates of breakthrough COVID-19 were seen in those in care homes and in patients with chronic kidney disease, dialysis, transplant, haematological malignancy or who were immunocompromised. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases in England were mild, some differences in rates of breakthrough cases have been identified in several clinical groups. While it is important to note that these findings are simply descriptive and cannot be used to answer why certain groups have higher rates of COVID-19 breakthrough than others, the emergence of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 coupled with the number of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests still occurring is concerning and as numbers of fully vaccinated (and boosted) individuals increases and as follow-up time lengthens, so too will the number of COVID-19 breakthrough cases. Additional analyses, to assess vaccine waning and rates of breakthrough COVID-19 between different variants, aimed at identifying individuals at higher risk, are needed.

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.

Case fatality risk of the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.1.7 in England, 16 November to 5 February.

The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC) is increasing in prevalence across Europe. Accurate estimation of disease severity associated with this VOC is critical for pandemic planning. We found increased risk of death for VOC compared with non-VOC cases in England (hazard ratio: 1.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-2.09; p < 0.0001). Absolute risk of death by 28 days increased with age and comorbidities. This VOC has potential to spread faster with higher mortality than the pandemic to date.

Patterns of COVID-19 testing and mortality by race and ethnicity among United States veterans: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that racial and ethnic minority communities around the world are experiencing a disproportionate burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated racial and ethnic disparities in patterns of COVID-19 testing (i.e., who received testing and who tested positive) and subsequent mortality in the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This retrospective cohort study included 5,834,543 individuals receiving care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs; most (91%) were men, 74% were non-Hispanic White (White), 19% were non-Hispanic Black (Black), and 7% were Hispanic. We evaluated associations between race/ethnicity and receipt of COVID-19 testing, a positive test result, and 30-day mortality, with multivariable adjustment for a wide range of demographic and clinical characteristics including comorbid conditions, health behaviors, medication history, site of care, and urban versus rural residence. Between February 8 and July 22, 2020, 254,595 individuals were tested for COVID-19, of whom 16,317 tested positive and 1,057 died. Black individuals were more likely to be tested (rate per 1,000 individuals: 60.0, 95% CI 59.6-60.5) than Hispanic (52.7, 95% CI 52.1-53.4) and White individuals (38.6, 95% CI 38.4-38.7). While individuals from minority backgrounds were more likely to test positive (Black versus White: odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% CI 1.85-2.01, p < 0.001; Hispanic versus White: OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.74-1.94, p < 0.001), 30-day mortality did not differ by race/ethnicity (Black versus White: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17, p = 0.74; Hispanic versus White: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34, p = 0.94). The disparity between Black and White individuals in testing positive for COVID-19 was stronger in the Midwest (OR 2.66, 95% CI 2.41-2.95, p < 0.001) than the West (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.39, p < 0.001). The disparity in testing positive for COVID-19 between Hispanic and White individuals was consistent across region, calendar time, and outbreak pattern. Study limitations include underrepresentation of women and a lack of detailed information on social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, we found that Black and Hispanic individuals are experiencing an excess burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection not entirely explained by underlying medical conditions or where they live or receive care. There is an urgent need to proactively tailor strategies to contain and prevent further outbreaks in racial and ethnic minority communities.

Extracting data from a chemotherapy prescription platform for real-world oncology research in the UK: a pilot study.

Aim: In the UK, there are limited data sources for evaluating real-world research questions related to oncology therapy. We conducted a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of extracting data directly from a chemotherapy prescription platform (ChemoCare®) utilized in standard care. Patients & methods: Concordance was compared with data extracted manually for patients with advanced melanoma as part of a concurrent chart review (gold-standard) using Cohen's kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: There was high concordance between data automatically extracted from the prescription platform and chart review data. Conclusion: This pilot can be used as a framework for future studies using direct, automated extraction from prescription platforms.

Personalized benefit-risk assessments combining clinical trial and real-world data provide further insights into which patients may benefit most from therapy: Demonstration for a new oral antiplatelet therapy.

PURPOSE: Quantitative benefit-risk (B-R) assessments are used to characterize treatment by combining key benefits and risks into a single metric but have historically been done for the "average" patient. Our aim was to conduct an individualized assessment for the oral antiplatelet vorapaxar by combining trial and real-world data to further personalize the treatment profiles. METHODS: Using linked UK health care databases, we developed risk prediction equations for key ischemic and bleeding events using Cox proportional hazards models. Trial hazard ratios, relative to placebo, were applied to baseline risk estimates to compute expected attributable risks, summed to derive a per-patient net clinical benefit (NCB). High risk subgroups were defined a priori, and Gaussian mixture models (GMM) were fit to characterize the NCB distribution and identify subgroups with similar NCBs. RESULTS: NCB was consistently positive for all subgroups, likely due to the outcome correlation, and would remain positive with a 12-fold increase in bleeding risk. GMMs identified three distinct NCB subgroups. Compared with the middle/lower NCB subgroups, those with a higher NCB tended to be older, female, and have higher CV disease burden. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized B-R assessments are feasible and clinically valuable and can be used to better predict who would benefit most from therapy.

Differences in response to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive patients being treated for tuberculosis in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens are preferred for treatment of adult HIV-positive patients co-infected with tuberculosis (HIV/TB). Few studies have compared outcomes among HIV/TB patients treated with efavirenz or non-efavirenz containing regimens. METHODS: HIV-positive patients aged ≥16 years with a diagnosis of tuberculosis recruited to the TB:HIV study between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2013 in 19 countries in Eastern Europe (EE), Western Europe (WE), and Latin America (LA) who received ART concomitantly with TB treatment were included. Patients either received efavirenz-containing ART starting between 15 days prior to, during, or within 90 days after starting tuberculosis treatment, (efavirenz group), or other ART regimens (non-efavirenz group). Patients who started ART more than 90 days after initiation of TB treatment, or who experienced ART interruption of more than 15 days during TB treatment were excluded. We describe rates and factors associated with death, virological suppression, and loss to follow up at 12 months using univariate, multivariate Cox, and marginal structural models to compare the two groups of patients. RESULTS: Of 965 patients (647 receiving efavirenz-containing ART, and 318 a non-efavirenz regimen) 50% were from EE, 28% from WE, and 22% from LA. Among those not receiving efavirenz-containing ART, regimens mainly contained a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (57%), or raltegravir (22%). At 12 months 1.4% of patients in WE had died, compared to 20% in EE: rates of virological suppression ranged from 21% in EE to 61% in WE. After adjusting for potential confounders, rates of death (adjusted Hazard Ratio; aHR, 95%CI: 1.13, 0.72-1.78), virological suppression (aHR, 95%CI: 0.97, 0.76-1.22), and loss to follow up (aHR, 95%CI: 1.17, 0.81-1.67), were similar in patients treated with efavirenz and non-efavirenz containing ART regimens. CONCLUSION: In this large, prospective cohort, the response to ART varied significantly across geographical regions, whereas the ART regimen (efavirenz or non-efavirenz containing) did not impact on the proportion of patients who were virologically-suppressed, lost to follow up or dead at 12 months.

Performing studies using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink: to link or not to link?

The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is a repository of electronic medical records collected during routine primary care clinical practice in the UK, and is one of the most widely used sources of real-world data for healthcare research. Although CPRD provides access to comprehensive longitudinal patient records, the data does not fully capture diagnoses or outcomes occurring in secondary care and/or mortality. We provide here an overview of CPRD and the potential bias when using unlinked data in certain situations. Linkage of CPRD to other datasets can help to overcome these limitations. We discuss when to consider linkage to secondary care, disease-specific data sources or the official mortality data when conducting research using CPRD data.

Low-frequency drug-resistant HIV-1 and risk of virological failure to first-line NNRTI-based ART: a multicohort European case-control study using centralized ultrasensitive 454 pyrosequencing.

OBJECTIVES: It is still debated if pre-existing minority drug-resistant HIV-1 variants (MVs) affect the virological outcomes of first-line NNRTI-containing ART. METHODS: This Europe-wide case-control study included ART-naive subjects infected with drug-susceptible HIV-1 as revealed by population sequencing, who achieved virological suppression on first-line ART including one NNRTI. Cases experienced virological failure and controls were subjects from the same cohort whose viraemia remained suppressed at a matched time since initiation of ART. Blinded, centralized 454 pyrosequencing with parallel bioinformatic analysis in two laboratories was used to identify MVs in the 1%-25% frequency range. ORs of virological failure according to MV detection were estimated by logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty samples (76 cases and 184 controls), mostly subtype B (73.5%), were used for the analysis. Identical MVs were detected in the two laboratories. 31.6% of cases and 16.8% of controls harboured pre-existing MVs. Detection of at least one MV versus no MVs was associated with an increased risk of virological failure (OR = 2.75, 95% CI = 1.35-5.60, P = 0.005); similar associations were observed for at least one MV versus no NRTI MVs (OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 0.76-6.77, P = 0.140) and at least one MV versus no NNRTI MVs (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.12-5.18, P = 0.024). A dose-effect relationship between virological failure and mutational load was found. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing MVs more than double the risk of virological failure to first-line NNRTI-based ART.

A comparison of four self-controlled study designs in an analysis of COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis using five European databases.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the possible extent of bias due to violation of a core assumption (event-dependent exposures) when using self-controlled designs to analyse the association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. METHODS: We used data from five European databases (Spain: BIFAP, FISABIO VID, and SIDIAP; Italy: ARS-Tuscany; England: CPRD Aurum) converted to the ConcePTION Common Data Model. Individuals who experienced both myocarditis and were vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 September 2020 and the end of data availability in each country were included. We compared a self-controlled risk interval study (SCRI) using a pre-vaccination control window, an SCRI using a post-vaccination control window, a standard SCCS and an extension of the SCCS designed to handle violations of the assumption of event-dependent exposures. RESULTS: We included 1,757 cases of myocarditis. For analyses of the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, to which all databases contributed information, we found results consistent with a null effect in both of the SCRI and extended SCCS, but some indication of a harmful effect in a standard SCCS. For the second dose, we found evidence of a harmful association for all study designs, with relatively similar effect sizes (SCRI pre = 1.99, 1.40 - 2.82; SCRI post 2.13, 95 %CI - 1.43, 3.18; standard SCCS 1.79, 95 %CI 1.31 - 2.44, extended SCCS 1.52, 95 %CI = 1.08 - 2.15). Adjustment for calendar time did not change these conclusions. Findings using all designs were also consistent with a harmful effect following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the known association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis, we have demonstrated that two forms of SCRI and two forms of SCCS led to largely comparable results, possibly because of limited violation of the assumption of event-dependent exposures.

Effects of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: protocol for a UK cohort study using routinely collected electronic health records with validation against the ONTARGET trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death globally, responsible for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide in 2017. Medications to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events are prescribed based on evidence from clinical trials which explore treatment effects in an indicated sample of the general population. However, these results may not be fully generalisable because of trial eligibility criteria that generally restrict to younger patients with fewer comorbidities. Therefore, evidence of effectiveness of medications for groups underrepresented in clinical trials such as those aged ≥75 years, from ethnic minority backgrounds or with low kidney function may be limited.Using individual anonymised data from the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and the Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) trial, in collaboration with the original trial investigators, we aim to investigate clinical trial replicability within a real-world setting in the area of cardiovascular disease. If the original trial results are replicable, we will estimate treatment effects and risk in groups underrepresented and excluded from the original clinical trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will develop a cohort analogous to the ONTARGET trial within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2019 using the trial eligibility criteria and propensity score matching. The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospitalisation for congestive heart failure. If results from the cohort study fall within pre-specified limits, we will expand the cohort to include under represented and excluded groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Ref: 22658). The study has been approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (protocol no. 20_012). Access to the individual patient data from the ONTARGET trial was obtained by the trial investigators. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

Linaclotide utilization and potential for off-label use and misuse in three European countries.

Introduction: Linaclotide is approved for adults with moderate-to-severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with constipation (IBS-C). Linaclotide is not indicated for weight loss or for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); it is contraindicated in patients with mechanical bowel obstruction (MBO). Some patients with obesity or eating disorders (ED) may use linaclotide off-label for weight loss or as a laxative. Objectives: To describe the use of linaclotide in clinical practice, including patients with potential for off-label use or misuse. Methods: Post-authorization safety study conducted in three databases from the linaclotide launch date to 2017: the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the United Kingdom (UK), the Information System for Research in Primary Care database in Spain and the linked Patient, Prescription and Causes of Death Registries in Sweden. Cohorts of patients were identified as having IBS using diagnostic and treatment codes; IBS subtypes were identified using symptoms and treatment codes; patients with obesity, ED, MBO, and IBD were identified using diagnostic codes or body mass index. Results: There were 1319, 1981, and 5081 linaclotide users from the United Kingdom, Spain, and Sweden with a median age of 45, 57, and 51 years, respectively; most were females. In the United Kingdom, Spain, and Sweden, respectively: 59.0%, 60.3%, and 31.3% of linaclotide users had an IBS diagnosis recorded, and among those, 68.8%, 61.3%, and 92.7% were classified as IBS-C. The proportions of linaclotide users considered at risk for potential off-label use for weight loss or as a laxative were 17.1%, 29.7%, and 1.7%, and the proportions of users considered at risk of misuse due to a history of MBO or IBD were 3.5%, 4.6%, and 5.7% in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Sweden, respectively. Conclusions: Potential linaclotide off-label use and misuse appears limited, as evidenced by the small sizes of the patient subgroups at risk for off-label use and misuse.