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.

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.

The risk of acute kidney injury in colorectal cancer survivors: an english population-based matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer survival has improved in recent decades but there are concerns that survivors may develop kidney problems due to adverse effects of cancer treatment or complications of the cancer itself. We quantified the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in colorectal cancer survivors compared to people with no prior cancer. METHODS: Retrospective matched cohort study using electronic health record primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD linked to hospital data in England (HES-APC). Individuals with colorectal cancer between 1997-2018 were individually matched on age, sex, and GP practice to people with no prior cancer. We used Cox models to estimate hazard ratios for an incident hospital diagnosis of AKI in colorectal cancer survivors compared to individuals without cancer, overall and stratified by time since diagnosis adjusted for other individual-level factors (adj-HR). RESULTS: Twenty thousand three hundred forty colorectal cancer survivors were matched to 100,058 cancer-free individuals. Colorectal cancer survivors were at increased risk of developing AKI compared to people without cancer (adj-HR = 2.16; 95%CI 2.05-2.27). The HR was highest in the year after diagnosis (adj-HR 7.47, 6.66-8.37), and attenuated over time, but there was still increased AKI risk > 5 years after diagnosis (adj-HR = 1.26, 1.17-1.37). The association between colorectal cancer and AKI was greater for younger people, men, and those with pre-existing chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer survivors were at increased risk of AKI for several years after cancer diagnosis, suggesting a need to prioritise monitoring, prevention, and management of kidney problems in this group of cancer survivors.

Type 2 diabetes risks and determinants in second-generation migrants and mixed ethnicity people of South Asian and African Caribbean descent in the UK.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Excess risks of type 2 diabetes in UK South Asians (SA) and African Caribbeans (AC) compared with Europeans remain unexplained. We studied risks and determinants of type 2 diabetes in first- and second-generation (born in the UK) migrants, and in those of mixed ethnicity. METHODS: Data from the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of ~500,000 participants aged 40-69 at recruitment, were used. Type 2 diabetes was assigned using self-report and HbA1c. Ethnicity was both self-reported and genetically assigned using admixture level scores. European, mixed European/South Asian (MixESA), mixed European/African Caribbean (MixEAC), SA and AC groups were analysed, matched for age and sex to enable comparison. In the frames of this cross-sectional study, we compared type 2 diabetes in second- vs first-generation migrants, and mixed ethnicity vs non-mixed groups. Risks and explanations were analysed using logistic regression and mediation analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Type 2 diabetes prevalence was markedly elevated in SA (599/3317 = 18%) and AC (534/4180 = 13%) compared with Europeans (140/3324 = 4%). Prevalence was lower in second- vs first-generation SA (124/1115 = 11% vs 155/1115 = 14%) and AC (163/2200 = 7% vs 227/2200 = 10%). Favourable adiposity (i.e. lower waist/hip ratio or BMI) contributed to lower risk in second-generation migrants. Type 2 diabetes in mixed populations (MixESA: 52/831 = 6%, MixEAC: 70/1045 = 7%) was lower than in comparator ethnic groups (SA: 18%, AC: 13%) and higher than in Europeans (4%). Greater socioeconomic deprivation accounted for 17% and 42% of the excess type 2 diabetes risk in MixESA and MixEAC compared with Europeans, respectively. Replacing self-reported with genetically assigned ethnicity corroborated the mixed ethnicity analysis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Type 2 diabetes risks in second-generation SA and AC migrants are a fifth lower than in first-generation migrants. Mixed ethnicity risks were markedly lower than SA and AC groups, though remaining higher than in Europeans. Distribution of environmental risk factors, largely obesity and socioeconomic status, appears to play a key role in accounting for ethnic differences in type 2 diabetes risk.

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.

Factors associated with excess all-cause mortality in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A time series analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Excess mortality captures the total effect of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mortality and is not affected by misspecification of cause of death. We aimed to describe how health and demographic factors were associated with excess mortality during, compared to before, the pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analysed a time series dataset including 9,635,613 adults (≥40 years old) registered at United Kingdom general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We extracted weekly numbers of deaths and numbers at risk between March 2015 and July 2020, stratified by individual-level factors. Excess mortality during Wave 1 of the UK pandemic (5 March to 27 May 2020) compared to the prepandemic period was estimated using seasonally adjusted negative binomial regression models. Relative rates (RRs) of death for a range of factors were estimated before and during Wave 1 by including interaction terms. We found that all-cause mortality increased by 43% (95% CI 40% to 47%) during Wave 1 compared with prepandemic. Changes to the RR of death associated with most sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were small during Wave 1 compared with prepandemic. However, the mortality RR associated with dementia markedly increased (RR for dementia versus no dementia prepandemic: 3.5, 95% CI 3.4 to 3.5; RR during Wave 1: 5.1, 4.9 to 5.3); a similar pattern was seen for learning disabilities (RR prepandemic: 3.6, 3.4 to 3.5; during Wave 1: 4.8, 4.4 to 5.3), for black or South Asian ethnicity compared to white, and for London compared to other regions. Relative risks for morbidities were stable in multiple sensitivity analyses. However, a limitation of the study is that we cannot assume that the risks observed during Wave 1 would apply to other waves due to changes in population behaviour, virus transmission, and risk perception. CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the UK COVID-19 pandemic appeared to amplify baseline mortality risk to approximately the same relative degree for most population subgroups. However, disproportionate increases in mortality were seen for those with dementia, learning disabilities, non-white ethnicity, or living in London.

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.

Immortal time bias for life-long conditions in retrospective observational studies using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Immortal time bias is common in observational studies but is typically described for pharmacoepidemiology studies where there is a delay between cohort entry and treatment initiation. METHODS: This study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked national mortality data in England from 2000 to 2019 to investigate immortal time bias for a specific life-long condition, intellectual disability. Life expectancy (Chiang's abridged life table approach) was compared for 33,867 exposed and 980,586 unexposed individuals aged 10+ years using five methods: (1) treating immortal time as observation time; (2) excluding time before date of first exposure diagnosis; (3) matching cohort entry to first exposure diagnosis; (4) excluding time before proxy date of inputting first exposure diagnosis (by the physician); and (5) treating exposure as a time-dependent measure. RESULTS: When not considered in the design or analysis (Method 1), immortal time bias led to disproportionately high life expectancy for the exposed population during the first calendar period (additional years expected to live: 2000-2004: 65.6 [95% CI: 63.6,67.6]) compared to the later calendar periods (2005-2009: 59.9 [58.8,60.9]; 2010-2014: 58.0 [57.1,58.9]; 2015-2019: 58.2 [56.8,59.7]). Date of entry of diagnosis (Method 4) was unreliable in this CPRD cohort. The final methods (Method 2, 3 and 5) appeared to solve the main theoretical problem but residual bias may have remained. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that immortal time bias is a significant issue for studies of life-long conditions that use electronic health record data and requires careful consideration of how clinical diagnoses are entered onto electronic health record systems.

Recording of 'COVID-19 vaccine declined': a cohort study on 57.9 million National Health Service patients' records in situ using OpenSAFELY, England, 8 December 2020 to 25 May 2021.

BackgroundPriority patients in England were offered COVID-19 vaccination by mid-April 2021. Codes in clinical record systems can denote the vaccine being declined.AimWe describe records of COVID-19 vaccines being declined, according to clinical and demographic factors.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study between 8 December 2020 and 25 May 2021 with primary care records for 57.9 million patients using OpenSAFELY, a secure health analytics platform. COVID-19 vaccination priority patients were those aged ≥ 50 years or ≥ 16 years clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) or 'at risk'. We describe the proportion recorded as declining vaccination for each group and stratified by clinical and demographic subgroups, subsequent vaccination and distribution of clinical code usage across general practices.ResultsOf 24.5 million priority patients, 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline recorded, while 2,155,076 (8.8%) had neither a vaccine nor decline recorded. Those recorded as declining, who were subsequently vaccinated (n = 125,587; 18.9%) were overrepresented in the South Asian population (32.3% vs 22.8% for other ethnicities aged ≥ 65 years). The proportion of declining unvaccinated patients was highest in CEV (3.3%), varied strongly with ethnicity (black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, white 1.5% for ≥ 80 years) and correlated positively with increasing deprivation.ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are commonly used in England, but substantially more common among black and South Asian people, and in more deprived areas. Qualitative research is needed to determine typical reasons for recorded declines, including to what extent they reflect patients actively declining.

Associations between breast cancer survivorship and adverse mental health outcomes: A matched population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women globally, and 5-year net survival probabilities in high-income countries are generally >80%. A cancer diagnosis and treatment are often traumatic events, and many women struggle to cope during this period. Less is known, however, about the long-term mental health impact of the disease, despite many women living several years beyond their breast cancer and mental health being a major source of disability in modern societies. The objective of this study was to quantify the risk of several adverse mental health-related outcomes in women with a history of breast cancer followed in primary care in the United Kingdom National Health Service, compared to similar women who never had cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a matched cohort study using data routinely collected in primary care across the UK to quantify associations between breast cancer history and depression, anxiety, and other mental health-related outcomes. All women with incident breast cancer in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD primary care database between 1988 and 2018 (N = 57,571, mean = 62 ± 14 years) were matched 1:4 to women with no prior cancer (N = 230,067) based on age, primary care practice, and eligibility of the data for linkage to hospital data sources. Cox models were used to estimate associations between breast cancer survivorship and each mental health-related outcome, further adjusting for diabetes, body mass index (BMI), and smoking and drinking status at baseline. Breast cancer survivorship was positively associated with anxiety (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-1.36; p < 0.001), depression (1.35; 1.32-1.38; p < 0.001), sexual dysfunction (1.27; 1.17-1.38; p < 0.001), and sleep disorder (1.68; 1.63-1.73; p < 0.001), but not with cognitive dysfunction (1.00; 0.97-1.04; p = 0.88). Positive associations were also found for fatigue (HR = 1.28; 1.25-1.31; p < 0.001), pain (1.22; 1.20-1.24; p < 0.001), receipt of opioid analgesics (1.86; 1.83-1.90; p < 0.001), and fatal and nonfatal self-harm (1.15; 0.97-1.36; p = 0.11), but CI was wide, and the relationship was not statistically significant for the latter. HRs for anxiety and depression decreased over time (p-interaction <0.001), but increased risks persisted for 2 and 4 years, respectively, after cancer diagnosis. Increased levels of pain and sleep disorder persisted for 10 years. Younger age was associated with larger HRs for depression, cognitive dysfunction, pain, opioid analgesics use, and sleep disorders (p-interaction <0.001 in each case). Limitations of the study include the potential for residual confounding by lifestyle factors and detection bias due to cancer survivors having greater healthcare contact. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that compared to women with no prior cancer, breast cancer survivors had higher risk of anxiety, depression, sleep problems, sexual dysfunction, fatigue, receipt of opioid analgesics, and pain. Relative risks estimates tended to decrease over time, but anxiety and depression were significantly increased for 2 and 4 years after breast cancer diagnosis, respectively, while associations for fatigue, pain, and sleep disorders were elevated for at least 5-10 years after diagnosis. Early diagnosis and increased awareness among patients, healthcare professionals, and policy makers are likely to be important to mitigate the impacts of these raised risks.

Ethnic differences in guideline-indicated statin initiation for people with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care, 2006-2019: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is 2-3 times more prevalent in people of South Asian and African/African Caribbean ethnicity than people of European ethnicity living in the UK. The former 2 groups also experience excess atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) complications of diabetes. We aimed to study ethnic differences in statin initiation, a cornerstone of ASCVD primary prevention, for people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Observational cohort study of UK primary care records, from 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2019. Data were studied from 27,511 (88%) people of European ethnicity, 2,386 (8%) people of South Asian ethnicity, and 1,142 (4%) people of African/African Caribbean ethnicity with incident type 2 diabetes, no previous ASCVD, and statin use indicated by guidelines. Statin initiation rates were contrasted by ethnicity, and the number of ASCVD events that could be prevented by equalising prescribing rates across ethnic groups was estimated. Median time to statin initiation was 79, 109, and 84 days for people of European, South Asian, and African/African Caribbean ethnicity, respectively. People of African/African Caribbean ethnicity were a third less likely to receive guideline-indicated statins than European people (n/N [%]: 605/1,142 [53%] and 18,803/27,511 [68%], respectively; age- and gender-adjusted HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.60 to 0.76], p < 0.001). The HR attenuated marginally in a model adjusting for total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (0.77 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.85], p < 0.001), with no further diminution when deprivation, ASCVD risk factors, comorbidity, polypharmacy, and healthcare usage were accounted for (fully adjusted HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.68, 0.85], p < 0.001). People of South Asian ethnicity were 10% less likely to receive a statin than European people (1,489/2,386 [62%] and 18,803/27,511 [68%], respectively; fully adjusted HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.85 to 0.98], p = 0.008, adjusting for all covariates). We estimated that up to 12,600 ASCVD events could be prevented over the lifetimes of people currently affected by type 2 diabetes in the UK by equalising statin prescribing across ethnic groups. Limitations included incompleteness of recording of routinely collected data. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we observed that people of African/African Caribbean ethnicity with type 2 diabetes were substantially less likely, and people of South Asian ethnicity marginally less likely, to receive guideline-indicated statins than people of European ethnicity, even after accounting for sociodemographics, healthcare usage, ASCVD risk factors, and comorbidity. Underuse of statins in people of African/African Caribbean or South Asian ethnicity with type 2 diabetes is a missed opportunity to prevent cardiovascular events.

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.

Are socio-economic inequalities in breast cancer survival explained by peri-diagnostic factors?

BACKGROUND: Patients living in more deprived localities have lower cancer survival in England, but the role of individual health status at diagnosis and the utilisation of primary health care in explaining these differentials has not been widely considered. We set out to evaluate whether pre-existing individual health status at diagnosis and primary care consultation history (peri-diagnostic factors) could explain socio-economic differentials in survival amongst women diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women aged 15-99 years diagnosed in England using linked routine data. Ecologically-derived measures of income deprivation were combined with individually-linked data from the English National Cancer Registry, Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) databases. Smoking status, alcohol consumption, BMI, comorbidity, and consultation histories were derived for all patients. Time to breast surgery was derived for women diagnosed after 2005. We estimated net survival and modelled the excess hazard ratio of breast cancer death using flexible parametric models. We accounted for missing data using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Net survival was lower amongst more deprived women, with a single unit increase in deprivation quintile inferring a 4.4% (95% CI 1.4-8.8) increase in excess mortality. Peri-diagnostic co-variables varied by deprivation but did not explain the differentials in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that socio-economic inequalities in survival cannot be explained by consultation history or by pre-existing individual health status, as measured in primary care. Differentials in the effectiveness of treatment, beyond those measuring the inclusion of breast surgery and the timing of surgery, should be considered as part of the wider effort to reduce inequalities in premature mortality.

Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors in the United States: A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that cardiovascular risks are increased in breast cancer survivors, but few studies have quantified the risks of a range of specific clinically important cardiovascular outcomes in detail. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women aged >65 years with incident breast cancer from 2004 to 2013 in the SEER-Medicare linked database were matched with 5 cancer-free female counterparts (5:1 ratio). Prevalence of specific cardiovascular outcomes at baseline was measured, then Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for the risk of individual cardiovascular outcomes during follow-up. Modification of the effect was investigated by time since diagnosis, race/ethnicity, prior cardiovascular disease (CVD), and age. RESULTS: In all, 91,473 women with breast cancer and 454,197 without breast cancer were included. Women with breast cancer had lower baseline prevalence of all CVDs. Compared with cancer-free controls, breast cancer survivors had substantially increased risks of deep vein thrombosis (adjusted HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.62-1.73; 386,484 person-years of follow-up) and pericarditis (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.49; 390,776 person-years of follow-up); evidence of smaller increased risks of sudden cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, heart failure, and valvular heart disease (adjusted HRs ranging from 1.05-1.09, lower CI limits all ≥1); and evidence of lower risk of incident angina, myocardial infarction, revascularization, peripheral vascular disease, and stroke (adjusted HRs ranging from 0.89-0.98, upper CI limits all ≤1). Increased risks of arrhythmia, heart failure, pericarditis, and deep vein thrombosis persisted >5 years after cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Women with a history of breast cancer were at increased risk of several CVDs, persisting into survivorship. Monitoring and managing cardiovascular risk throughout the long-term follow-up of women diagnosed with breast cancer should be a priority.

HbA1c and brain health across the entire glycaemic spectrum.

AIM: To understand the relationship between HbA1c and brain health across the entire glycaemic spectrum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from the UK Biobank cohort consisting of 500,000 individuals aged 40-69 years. HbA1c and diabetes diagnosis were used to define baseline glycaemic categories. Our outcomes included incident all-cause dementia, vascular dementia (VD), Alzheimer's dementia (AD), hippocampal volume (HV), white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, cognitive function and decline. The reference group was normoglycaemic individuals (HbA1c ≥35 & <42 mmol/mol). Our maximum analytical sample contained 449,973 individuals with complete data. RESULTS: Prediabetes and known diabetes increased incident VD (HR 1.54; 95% CI = 1.04, 2.28 and HR 2.97; 95% CI = 2.26, 3.90, respectively). Known diabetes increased all-cause and AD risk (HR 1.91; 95% CI = 1.66, 2.21 and HR 1.84; 95% CI = 1.44, 2.36, respectively). Prediabetes and known diabetes elevated the risks of cognitive decline (OR 1.42; 1.48, 2.96 and OR 1.39; 1.04, 1.75, respectively). Prediabetes, undiagnosed and known diabetes conferred higher WMH volumes (3%, 22% and 7%, respectively) and lower HV (36, 80 and 82 mm3 , respectively), whereas low-normal HbA1c had 1% lower WMH volume and 12 mm3 greater HV. CONCLUSION: Both prediabetes and known diabetes are harmful in terms of VD, cognitive decline and AD risks, as well as lower HV. Associations appeared to be somewhat driven by antihypertensive medication, which implies that certain cardiovascular drugs may ameliorate some of the excess risk. Low-normal HbA1c levels, however, are associated with more favourable brain health outcomes and warrant more in-depth investigation.

Proton pump inhibitors and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and both all-cause and cause-specific mortality. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. We compared 733 885 new users of PPIs to 124 410 new users of H2 receptor antagonists (H2Ras). In a secondary analysis we compared 689 602 PPI new users to 1 361 245 nonusers of acid suppression therapy matched on age, sex and calendar year. Hazard ratios for all-cause and cause-specific mortality were estimated using propensity score (PS) weighted Cox models. RESULTS: PPI prescription was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios decreasing considerably by increasing adjustment (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-1.69; PS-weighted HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.33-1.44; high-dimensional PS-weighted HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37). Short-term associations were observed with mortality from causes where a causal short-term association is unexpected (eg, lung cancer mortality: PS-weighted HR at 6 months 1.77, 95% CI 1.39-2.25). Adjusted hazard ratios were substantially higher when compared to nonusers (PS-weighted HR all-cause mortality 1.96, 95% CI 1.94-1.99) rather than H2RA users. CONCLUSIONS: PPI prescription was strongly associated with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. However, the change in hazard ratios (a) by increasing adjustment and (b) between comparator groups indicates that residual confounding is likely to explain the association between poor health outcomes and PPI use, and fully accounting for this using observational data may not be possible.

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.