Classification of patients with osteoarthritis through clusters of comorbidities using 633 330 individuals from Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To explore clustering of comorbidities among patients with a new diagnosis of OA and estimate the 10-year mortality risk for each identified cluster. METHODS: This is a population-based cohort study of individuals with first incident diagnosis of OA of the hip, knee, ankle/foot, wrist/hand or 'unspecified' site between 2006 and 2020, using SIDIAP (a primary care database representative of Catalonia, Spain). At the time of OA diagnosis, conditions associated with OA in the literature that were found in ≥1% of the individuals (n = 35) were fitted into two cluster algorithms, k-means and latent class analysis. Models were assessed using a range of internal and external evaluation procedures. Mortality risk of the obtained clusters was assessed by survival analysis using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: We identified 633 330 patients with a diagnosis of OA. Our proposed best solution used latent class analysis to identify four clusters: 'low-morbidity' (relatively low number of comorbidities), 'back/neck pain plus mental health', 'metabolic syndrome' and 'multimorbidity' (higher prevalence of all studied comorbidities). Compared with the 'low-morbidity' cluster, the 'multimorbidity' cluster had the highest risk of 10-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.19 [95% CI: 2.15, 2.23]), followed by the 'metabolic syndrome' cluster (adjusted HR: 1.24 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.27]) and the 'back/neck pain plus mental health' cluster (adjusted HR: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.09, 1.15]). CONCLUSION: Patients with a new diagnosis of OA can be clustered into groups based on their comorbidity profile, with significant differences in 10-year mortality risk. Further research is required to understand the interplay between OA and particular comorbidity groups, and the clinical significance of such results.

Characterising complex health needs and the use of preventive therapies in the older population: a population-based cohort analysis of UK primary care and hospital linked data.

BACKGROUND: While several definitions exist for multimorbidity, frailty or polypharmacy, it is yet unclear to what extent single healthcare markers capture the complexity of health-related needs in older people in the community. We aimed to identify and characterise older people with complex health needs based on healthcare resource use (unplanned hospitalisations or polypharmacy) or frailty using large population-based linked records. METHODS: In this cohort study, data was extracted from UK primary care records (CPRD GOLD), with linked Hospital Episode Statistics inpatient data. People aged > 65 on 1st January 2010, registered in CPRD for ≥ 1 year were included. We identified complex health needs as the top quintile of unplanned hospitalisations, number of prescribed medicines, and electronic frailty index. We characterised all three cohorts, and quantified point-prevalence and incidence rates of preventive medicines use. RESULTS: Overall, 90,597, 110,225 and 116,076 individuals were included in the hospitalisation, frailty, and polypharmacy cohorts respectively; 28,259 (5.9%) were in all three cohorts, while 277,332 (58.3%) were not in any (background population). Frailty and polypharmacy cohorts had the highest bi-directional overlap. Most comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease were more common in the frailty and polypharmacy cohorts compared to the hospitalisation cohort. Generally, prevalence of preventive medicines use was highest in the polypharmacy cohort compared to the other two cohorts: For instance, one-year point-prevalence of statins was 64.2% in the polypharmacy cohort vs. 60.5% in the frailty cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Three distinct groups of older people with complex health needs were identified. Compared to the hospitalisation cohort, frailty and polypharmacy cohorts had more comorbidities and higher preventive therapies use. Research is needed into the benefit-risk of different definitions of complex health needs and use of preventive therapies in the older population.

Estimating the population health burden of musculoskeletal conditions using primary care electronic health records.

OBJECTIVES: Better indicators from affordable, sustainable data sources are needed to monitor population burden of musculoskeletal conditions. We propose five indicators of musculoskeletal health and assessed if routinely available primary care electronic health records (EHR) can estimate population levels in musculoskeletal consulters. METHODS: We collected validated patient-reported measures of pain experience, function and health status through a local survey of adults (≥35 years) presenting to English general practices over 12 months for low back pain, shoulder pain, osteoarthritis and other regional musculoskeletal disorders. Using EHR data we derived and validated models for estimating population levels of five self-reported indicators: prevalence of high impact chronic pain, overall musculoskeletal health (based on Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire), quality of life (based on EuroQoL health utility measure), and prevalence of moderate-to-severe low back pain and moderate-to-severe shoulder pain. We applied models to a national EHR database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) to obtain national estimates of each indicator for three successive years. RESULTS: The optimal models included recorded demographics, deprivation, consultation frequency, analgesic and antidepressant prescriptions, and multimorbidity. Applying models to national EHR, we estimated that 31.9% of adults (≥35 years) presenting with non-inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders in England in 2016/17 experienced high impact chronic pain. Estimated population health levels were worse in women, older aged and those in the most deprived neighbourhoods, and changed little over 3 years. CONCLUSION: National and subnational estimates for a range of subjective indicators of non-inflammatory musculoskeletal health conditions can be obtained using information from routine electronic health records.

Association of Tramadol vs Codeine Prescription Dispensation With Mortality and Other Adverse Clinical Outcomes.

Importance: Although tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, few safety studies have compared it with other opioids. Objective: To assess the associations of tramadol, compared with codeine, with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes as used in outpatient settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, population-based, propensity score-matched cohort study using a primary care database with routinely collected medical records and pharmacy dispensations covering more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain (≈6 million people). Patients 18 years or older with 1 or more year of available data and dispensation of tramadol or codeine (2007-2017) were included and followed up to December 31, 2017. Exposures: New prescription dispensation of tramadol or codeine (no dispensation in the previous year). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes studied were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, fractures, constipation, delirium, falls, opioid abuse/dependence, and sleep disorders within 1 year after the first dispensation. Absolute rate differences (ARDs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using cause-specific Cox models. Results: Of the 1 093 064 patients with a tramadol or codeine dispensation during the study period (326 921 for tramadol, 762 492 for codeine, 3651 for both drugs concomitantly), a total of 368 960 patients (184 480 propensity score-matched pairs) were included after study exclusions and propensity score matching (mean age, 53.1 [SD, 16.1] years; 57.3% women). Compared with codeine, tramadol dispensation was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (incidence, 13.00 vs 5.61 per 1000 person-years; HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.08-2.56]; ARD, 7.37 [95% CI, 6.09-8.78] per 1000 person-years), cardiovascular events (incidence, 10.03 vs 8.67 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05-1.27]; ARD, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.45-2.36] per 1000 person-years), and fractures (incidence, 12.26 vs 8.13 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.37-1.65]; ARD, 4.10 [95% CI, 3.02-5.29] per 1000 person-years). No significant difference was observed for the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, a new prescription dispensation of tramadol, compared with codeine, was significantly associated with a higher risk of subsequent all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures, but there was no significant difference in the risk of constipation, delirium, falls, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders. The findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the potential for residual confounding.

Results of a phase II clinical trial of 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) and methotrexate in patients with BRCA-defective tumours.

BACKGROUND: Tumour cells with BRCA1/2 gene mutations demonstrate increased sensitivity to platinum and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) was found to selectively kill BRCA-defective cells in a xenograft model as effectively as the PARP inhibitor AG014699, even after these cells acquired resistance to a PARP inhibitor or cisplatin. METHODS: This phase II single-arm trial investigated the activity of 6MP 55-75 mg/m2 per day, and methotrexate 15-20 mg/m2 per week in advanced breast or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 germline mutation, who had progressed after ≥1 previous line of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was objective response including stable disease (SD) as an assessment of clinical benefit rate (CBR), at 8 weeks, by RECIST v1.1. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In total, 67 evaluable patients were recruited; 55 ovarian and 11 breast cancer patients. In total, 21 patients had SD (31%), one had a partial response (1.5%); CBR was 33% at 8 weeks. In total, 12/67 patients (18%) had SD at 16 weeks. In total, five ovarian cancer patients had SD for over 200 days. Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI 6.9-14.5), median PFS 1.9 months (1.7-2.8). CONCLUSIONS: The overall activity of 6MP and methotrexate in these patients was low; however, there was a small group of patients who appeared to derive longer-term clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01432145 http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

Effect of Digoxin vs Bisoprolol for Heart Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation on Patient-Reported Quality of Life: The RATE-AF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure. Objective: To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a ß-blocker). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019. Interventions: Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 µg/d; mean dose, 161 µg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting. Results: Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, -1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, -2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391337 and clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-005043-13.

Study protocol: a multi-centre randomised study of induction chemotherapy followed by capecitabine ± nelfinavir with high- or standard-dose radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP-2).

BACKGROUND: Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation is a treatment option for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). However, overall survival is comparable to chemotherapy alone and local progression occurs in nearly half of all patients, suggesting chemoradiation strategies should be optimised. SCALOP-2 is a randomised phase II trial testing the role of radiotherapy dose escalation and/or the addition of the radiosensitiser nelfinavir, following induction chemotherapy of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEMABX). A safety run-in phase (stage 1) established the nelfinavir dose to administer with chemoradiation in the randomised phase (stage 2). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma receive three cycles of induction GEMABX chemotherapy prior to radiological assessment. Those with stable/responding disease are eligible for further trial treatment. In Stage 1, participants received one further cycle of GEMABX followed by capecitabine-chemoradiation with escalating doses of nelfinavir in a rolling-six design. Stage 2 aims to register 262 and randomise 170 patients with responding/stable disease to one of five arms: capecitabine with high- (arms C + D) or standard-dose (arms A + B) radiotherapy with (arms A + C) or without (arms B + D) nelfinavir, or three more cycles of GEMABX (arm E). Participants allocated to the chemoradiation arms receive another cycle of GEMABX before chemoradiation begins. Co-primary outcomes are 12-month overall survival (radiotherapy dose-escalation question) and progression-free survival (nelfinavir question). Secondary outcomes include toxicity, quality of life, disease response rate, resection rate, treatment compliance, and CA19-9 response. SCALOP-2 incorporates a detailed radiotherapy quality assurance programme. DISCUSSION: SCALOP-2 aims to optimise chemoradiation in LAPC and incorporates a modern induction regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No: 2013-004968-56; ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02024009.

Epidemiology of paediatric presentations with musculoskeletal problems in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disease is a common cause of morbidity, but there is a paucity of musculoskeletal research focusing on paediatric populations, particularly in primary care settings. In particular, there is limited information on population consultation frequency in paediatric populations, and frequency varies by age and sex. Few studies have examined paediatric musculoskeletal consultation frequency for different body regions. The objective was to determine the annual consultation prevalence of regional musculoskeletal problems in children in primary care. METHODS: Musculoskeletal codes within the Read morbidity Code system were identified and grouped into body regions. Consultations for children aged three to seventeen in 2006 containing these codes were extracted from recorded consultations at twelve general practices contributing to a general practice consultation database (CiPCA). Annual consultation prevalence per 10,000 registered persons for the year 2006 was determined, stratified by age and sex, for problems in individual body regions. RESULTS: Over 8 % (8.27%, 95% CI 7.86 to 8.68%) of the 16,862 children consulted with a musculoskeletal problem during 2006. Annual consultation prevalence for any musculoskeletal problem was significantly higher in males than females (male: female prevalence ratio 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.31). Annual consultation prevalence increased with age and the most common body regions consulted for were the foot, knee and back all of which had over 100 consultations (109, 104 and 101 respectively) per 10,000 persons per year. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new and detailed information on patterns of paediatric musculoskeletal consultations in primary care. Musculoskeletal problems in children are varied and form a significant part of the paediatric primary care workload. The findings of this study may be used as a resource for planning future studies.

A phase-I trial of pre-operative, margin intensive, stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer: the 'SPARC' trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer in the UK is surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy, but rates of resection with clear margins are unsatisfactory and overall survival remains poor. Meta-analysis of single-arm studies shows the potential of neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy but the relative radio-resistance of pancreatic cancer means the efficacy of conventional dose schedules is limited. Stereotactic radiotherapy achieves sufficient accuracy and precision to enable pre-operative margin-intensive dose escalation with the goal of increasing rates of clear resection margins and local disease control. METHODS/DESIGN: SPARC is a "rolling-six" design single-arm study to establish the maximum tolerated dose for margin-intensive stereotactic radiotherapy before resection of pancreatic cancer at high risk of positive resection margins. Eligible patients will have histologically or cytologically proven pancreatic cancer defined as borderline-resectable per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria or operable tumour in contact with vessels increasing the risk of positive margin. Up to 24 patients will be recruited from up to 5 treating centres and a 'rolling-six' design is utilised to minimise delays and facilitate ongoing recruitment during dose-escalation. Radiotherapy will be delivered in 5 daily fractions and surgery, if appropriate, will take place 5-6 weeks after radiotherapy. The margin-intense radiotherapy concept includes a systematic method to define the target volume for a simultaneous integrated boost in the region of tumour-vessel infiltration, and up to 4 radiotherapy dose levels will be investigated. Maximum tolerated dose is defined as the highest dose at which no more than 1 of 6 patients or 0 of 3 patients experience a dose limiting toxicity. Secondary endpoints include resection rate, resection margin status, response rate, overall survival and progression free survival at 12 and 24 months. Translational work will involve exploratory analyses of the cytological and humoral immunological responses to stereotactic radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Radiotherapy quality assurance of target definition and radiotherapy planning is enforced with pre-trial test cases and on-trial review. Recruitment began in April 2015. DISCUSSION: This prospective multi-centre study aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose of pre-operative margin-intensified stereotactic radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer at high risk of positive resection margins with a view to subsequent definitive comparison with other neoadjuvant treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14138956 . Funded by CRUK.

Longitudinal trajectories of frailty are associated with short-term mortality in older people: A joint latent class models analysis using two UK primary care databases.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty is a dynamic health state that changes over time. Our hypothesis was that there are identifiable subgroups of the older population that have specific patterns of deterioration. The objective of this study was to evaluate the application of joint latent class model (JLCM) in identifying trajectories of frailty progression over time and their group-specific risk of death in older people. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The primary care records of UK patients, aged over 65 as of January 1st 2010, included in the CPRD: GOLD and AURUM databases, were analysed and linked to mortality data. Electronic frailty index (eFI) scores were calculated at baseline and annually in subsequent years (2010-2013). JLCM was used to divide the population into clusters with different trajectories and associated mortality hazard ratios (HR). The model was built in GOLD and validated in AURUM. RESULTS: Five trajectory clusters were identified and characterised based on baseline and speed of progression: low-slow, low-moderate, low-rapid, high-slow and high-rapid. The high-rapid cluster had the highest average starting eFI score; 7.9, while low-rapid cluster had the steepest rate of eFI progression; 1.7. Taking the low-slow cluster as reference, low-rapid and high-rapid had the highest HRs: 3.73 (95%CI 3.71 to 3.76) and 3.63 (3.57 to 3.69), respectively. Good validation was found in the AURUM population. CONCLUSION: Our research found that there are vulnerable subgroups of the older population who are currently frail or have rapid frailty progression. Such groups may be targeted for greater healthcare monitoring.

The Unseen Hand: AI-Based Prescribing Decision Support Tools and the Evaluation of Drug Safety and Effectiveness.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools to guide prescribing decisions is full of promise and may enhance patient outcomes. These tools can perform actions such as choosing the 'safest' medication, choosing between competing medications, promoting de-prescribing or even predicting non-adherence. These tools can exist in a variety of formats; for example, they may be directly integrated into electronic medical records or they may exist in a stand-alone website accessible by a web browser. One potential impact of these tools is that they could manipulate our understanding of the benefit-risk of medicines in the real world. Currently, the benefit risk of approved medications is assessed according to carefully planned agreements covering spontaneous reporting systems and planned surveillance studies. But AI-based tools may limit or even block prescription to high-risk patients or prevent off-label use. The uptake and temporal availability of these tools may be uneven across healthcare systems and geographies, creating artefacts in data that are difficult to account for. It is also hard to estimate the 'true impact' that a tool had on a prescribing decision. International borders may also be highly porous to these tools, especially in cases where tools are available over the web. These tools already exist, and their use is likely to increase in the coming years. How they can be accounted for in benefit-risk decisions is yet to be seen.

Evaluating the comparability of osteoporosis treatments using propensity score and negative control outcome methods in UK and Denmark electronic health record databases.

Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments is heterogeneous. This may be attributed to different populations and clinical practice, but also to differing methodologies ensuring comparability of treatment groups before treatment effect estimation and the amount of residual confounding by indication. This study assessed the comparability of denosumab vs oral bisphosphonate (OBP) groups using propensity score (PS) methods and negative control outcome (NCO) analysis. A total of 280 288 women aged ≥50 years initiating denosumab or OBP in 2011-2018 were included from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and the Danish National Registries (DNR). Balance of observed covariates was assessed using absolute standardised mean difference (ASMD) before and after PS weighting, matching, and stratification, with ASMD >0.1 indicating imbalance. Residual confounding was assessed using NCOs with ≥100 events. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between treatment and NCO was estimated using Cox models. Presence of residual confounding was evaluated with two approaches1: >5% of NCOs with 95% CI excluding 1,2 >5% of NCOs with an upper CI <0.75 or lower CI >1.3. The number of imbalanced covariates before adjustment (CPRD 22/87; DNR 18/83) decreased, with 2-11% imbalance remaining after weighting, matching or stratification. Using approach 1, residual confounding was present for all PS methods in both databases (≥8% of NCOs), except for stratification in DNR (3.8%). Using approach 2, residual confounding was present in CPRD with PS matching (5.3%) and stratification (6.4%), but not with weighting (4.3%). Within DNR, no NCOs had HR estimates with upper or lower CI limits beyond the specified bounds indicating residual confounding for any PS method. Achievement of covariate balance and determination of residual bias were dependent upon several factors including the population under study, PS method, prevalence of NCO, and the threshold indicating residual confounding.

Treatment groups in clinical practice may not be comparable as patient characteristics differ according to the need for the prescribed medication, known as confounding. We assessed comparability of two common osteoporosis treatments, denosumab and oral bisphosphonate, in 280 288 postmenopausal women using electronic health records from UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Danish National Registries (DNR). We evaluated comparability of recorded patient characteristics with three propensity score (PS) methods, matching, stratification, and weighting. We assessed residual confounding from unrecorded patient characteristics via negative control outcomes (NCO), events known not to be associated with treatment such as delirium. We found that achieving comparability of osteoporosis treatment groups depended on the study population, PS method, and definition of residual confounding. Weighting and stratification performed the best in DNR and CPRD, respectively. Using a stricter threshold based on statistical significance for the NCO suggested the treatment groups were not comparable, except for PS stratification in DNR. Applying clinically significant thresholds of treatment effect size showed comparability using weighting in CPRD and all PS methods in DNR. Studies should consider more than one PS method to test robustness and identify the largest number of NCO to give the greatest flexibility in detecting residual confounding.

Random effects modelling versus logistic regression for the inclusion of cluster-level covariates in propensity score estimation: A Monte Carlo simulation and registry cohort analysis.

Purpose: Surgeon and hospital-related features, such as volume, can be associated with treatment choices and outcomes. Accounting for these covariates with propensity score (PS) analysis can be challenging due to the clustered nature of the data. We studied six different PS estimation strategies for clustered data using random effects modelling (REM) compared with logistic regression. Methods: Monte Carlo simulations were used to generate variable cluster-level confounding intensity [odds ratio (OR) = 1.01-2.5] and cluster size (20-1,000 patients per cluster). The following PS estimation strategies were compared: i) logistic regression omitting cluster-level confounders; ii) logistic regression including cluster-level confounders; iii) the same as ii) but including cross-level interactions; iv), v), and vi), similar to i), ii), and iii), respectively, but using REM instead of logistic regression. The same strategies were tested in a trial emulation of partial versus total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, where observational versus trial-based estimates were compared as a proxy for bias. Performance metrics included bias and mean square error (MSE). Results: In most simulated scenarios, logistic regression, including cluster-level confounders, led to the lowest bias and MSE, for example, with 50 clusters × 200 individuals and confounding intensity OR = 1.5, a relative bias of 10%, and MSE of 0.003 for (i) compared to 32% and 0.010 for (iv). The results from the trial emulation also gave similar trends. Conclusion: Logistic regression, including patient and surgeon-/hospital-level confounders, appears to be the preferred strategy for PS estimation.

Characterising the treatment of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination in 4 European countries and the US: An international network cohort study.

Background: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been identified as a rare adverse event following some COVID-19 vaccines. Various guidelines have been issued on the treatment of TTS. We aimed to characterize the treatment of TTS and other thromboembolic events (venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) after COVID-19 vaccination and compared to historical (pre-vaccination) data in Europe and the US. Methods: We conducted an international network cohort study using 8 primary care, outpatient, and inpatient databases from France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, The United Kingdom, and The United States. We investigated treatment pathways after the diagnosis of TTS, VTE, or ATE for a pre-vaccination (background) cohort (01/2017-11/2020), and a vaccinated cohort of people followed for 28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine recorded from 12/2020 onwards). Results: Great variability was observed in the proportion of people treated (with any recommended therapy) across databases, both before and after vaccination. Most patients with TTS received heparins, platelet aggregation inhibitors, or direct Xa inhibitors. The majority of VTE patients (before and after vaccination) were first treated with heparins in inpatient settings and direct Xa inhibitors in outpatient settings. In ATE patients, treatments were also similar before and after vaccinations, with platelet aggregation inhibitors prescribed most frequently. Inpatient and claims data also showed substantial heparin use. Conclusion: TTS, VTE, and ATE after COVID-19 vaccination were treated similarly to background events. Heparin use post-vaccine TTS suggests most events were not identified as vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia by the treating clinicians.

Genetic risk and incident venous thromboembolism in middle-aged and older adults following COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination has been associated with increased venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. However, it is unknown whether genetic predisposition to VTE is associated with an increased risk of thrombosis following vaccination. METHODS: Using data from the UK Biobank, which contains in-depth genotyping and linked vaccination and health outcomes information, we generated a polygenic risk score (PRS) using 299 genetic variants. We prospectively assessed associations between PRS and incident VTE immediately after first- and the second-dose vaccination and among historical unvaccinated cohorts during the pre- and early pandemic. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) for PRS-VTE associations using Cox models. RESULTS: Of 359 310 individuals receiving one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 160 327 (44.6%) were males, and the mean age at the vaccination date was 69.05 (standard deviation [SD] 8.04) years. After 28- and 90-days' follow-up, 88 and 299 individuals developed VTE, respectively, equivalent to an incidence rate of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.08) and 0.92 (0.82-1.04) per 100 000 person-days. The PRS was significantly associated with a higher risk of VTE (HR per 1 SD increase in PRS, 1.41 (1.15-1.73) in 28 days and 1.36 (1.22-1.52) in 90 days). Similar associations were found in the historical unvaccinated cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The strength of genetic susceptibility with post-COVID-19-vaccination VTE is similar to that seen in historical data. Additionally, the observed PRS-VTE associations were equivalent for adenovirus- and mRNA-based vaccines. These findings suggest that, at the population level, the VTE that occurred after the COVID-19 vaccination has a similar genetic etiology to the conventional VTE.

Trends of Dispensed Opioids in Catalonia, Spain, 2007-19: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Over 5 Million Individuals.

Objective: To characterize the trend of opioid use (number of users, dispensations and oral morphine milligram equivalents) in Catalonia (Spain). Design, setting, and participants: This population-based cohort study included all individuals aged 18 years or older, registered in the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP), which covers >75% of the population in Catalonia, Spain, from 1 January 2007, to 31 December 2019. Main exposure and outcomes: The exposures were all commercialized opioids and their combinations (ATC-codes): codeine, tramadol, oxycodone, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, and other opioids (dihydrocodeine, hydromorphone, dextropropoxyphene, buprenorphine, pethidine, pentazocine). The main outcomes were the annual figures per 1,000 individuals of 1) opioid users, 2) dispensations, and 3) oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Results were stratified separately by opioid types, age (5-year age groups), sex (male or female), living area (rural or urban), and socioeconomic status (from least, U1, to most deprived, U5). The overall trends were quantified using the percentage change (PC) between 2007 and 2019. Results: Among 4,656,197 and 4,798,114 residents from 2007 to 2019, the number of opioid users, dispensations and morphine milligram equivalents per 1,000 individuals increased 12% (percentage change: 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.9-12.3%), 105% (95% confidence interval 83%-126%) and 339% (95% CI 289%-390%) respectively. Tramadol represented the majority of opioid use in 2019 (61, 59, and 54% of opioid users, dispensations, and total MME, respectively). Individuals aged 80 years or over reported the sharpest increase regarding opioid users (PC: 162%), dispensations (PC: 424%), and MME (PC: 830%). Strong opioids were increasingly prescribed for non-cancer pains over the years. Conclusion: Despite the modest increase of opioid users, opioid dispensations and MME increased substantially, particularly in the older population. In addition, strong opioids were incrementally indicated for non-cancer pains over the years. These findings suggest a transition of opioid prescriptions from intermittent to chronic and weak to strong and call for more rigorous opioid stewardship.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Catalonia, Spain.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compare rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the background (expected) rates in the general population. In addition, we compare the rates of the same adverse events among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 with background rates. Primary care and linked hospital data from Catalonia, Spain informed the study, with participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-23/06/2021), COVID-19 cases (01/09/2020-23/06/2021) or present in the database as of 01/01/2017. We included 2,021,366 BNT162b2 (1,327,031 with 2 doses), 592,408 ChAdOx1, 174,556 COVID-19 cases, and 4,573,494 background participants. Standardised incidence ratios for venous thromboembolism were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) and 0.92 (0.81-1.05) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, and 0.92 (0.71-1.18) after first dose ChAdOx1. The standardised incidence ratio for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 was 10.19 (9.43-11.02). Standardised incidence ratios for arterial thromboembolism were 1.02 (0.95-1.09) and 1.04 (0.97-1.12) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.06 (0.91-1.23) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.13 (3.83-4.45) for COVID-19. Standardised incidence ratios for thrombocytopenia were 1.49 (1.43-1.54) and 1.40 (1.35-1.45) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.28 (1.19-1.38) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.59 (4.41- 4.77) for COVID-19. While rates of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia were generally similar to background rates, the standardised incidence ratio for pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia after first-dose BNT162b2 was 1.70 (1.11-2.61). These findings suggest that the safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 are similar, with rates of adverse events seen after vaccination typically similar to background rates. Meanwhile, rates of adverse events are much increased for COVID-19 cases further underlining the importance of vaccination.

Bariatric surgery increases the rate of major fracture: self-controlled case series study in UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Conflicting results exist about the relationship between bariatric surgery and fracture risk. Also, prediction of who is at increased risk of fracture after bariatric surgery is not currently available. Hence, we used a combination of a self-controlled case series (SCCS) study to establish the association between bariatric surgery and fracture, and develop a prediction model for postoperative fracture risk estimation using a cohort study. Patients from UK Primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD linked to Hospital Episode Statistics undergoing bariatric surgery with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 between 1997 and 2018 were included in the cohort. Those sustaining one or more fractures in the 5 years before or after surgery were included in the SCCS. Fractures were considered in three categories: (i) any except skull and digits (primary outcome); (ii) major (hip, vertebrae, wrist/forearm, and humerus); and (iii) peripheral (forearm and lower leg). Of 5487 participants, 252 (4.6%) experienced 272 fractures (of which 80 were major and 135 peripheral) and were included in the SCCS analyses. Major fracture risk increased after surgery, incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 2.77 (95% CI, 1.34-5.75) and 3.78 (95% CI, 1.42-10.08) at ≤3 years and 3.1 to 5 years postsurgery when compared to 5 years prior to surgery, respectively. Any fracture risk was higher only in the 2.1 to 5 years following surgery (IRR 1.73; 95% CI, 1.08-2.77) when compared to 5 years prior to surgery. No excess risk of peripheral fracture after surgery was identified. A prediction tool for major fracture was developed using 5487 participants included in the cohort study. It was also internally validated (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC ROC] 0.70) with use of anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics and female as major predictors. Hence, major fractures are nearly threefold more likely after bariatric surgery. A simple prediction tool with five variables identifies high risk patients for major fracture. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Improving the diagnosis of heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the echocardiographic assessment of heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by comparing conventional averaging of consecutive beats with an index-beat approach, whereby measurements are taken after two cycles with similar R-R interval. METHODS: Transthoracic echocardiography was performed using a standardised and blinded protocol in patients enrolled in the RATE-AF (RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation) randomised trial. We compared reproducibility of the index-beat and conventional consecutive-beat methods to calculate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS) and E/e' (mitral E wave max/average diastolic tissue Doppler velocity), and assessed intraoperator/interoperator variability, time efficiency and validity against natriuretic peptides. RESULTS: 160 patients were included, 46% of whom were women, with a median age of 75 years (IQR 69-82) and a median heart rate of 100 beats per minute (IQR 86-112). The index-beat had the lowest within-beat coefficient of variation for LVEF (32%, vs 51% for 5 consecutive beats and 53% for 10 consecutive beats), GLS (26%, vs 43% and 42%) and E/e' (25%, vs 41% and 41%). Intraoperator (n=50) and interoperator (n=18) reproducibility were both superior for index-beats and this method was quicker to perform (p<0.001): 35.4 s to measure E/e' (95% CI 33.1 to 37.8) compared with 44.7 s for 5-beat (95% CI 41.8 to 47.5) and 98.1 s for 10-beat (95% CI 91.7 to 104.4) analyses. Using a single index-beat did not compromise the association of LVEF, GLS or E/e' with natriuretic peptide levels. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with averaging of multiple beats in patients with AF, the index-beat approach improves reproducibility and saves time without a negative impact on validity, potentially improving the diagnosis and classification of heart failure in patients with AF.