Sex differences in cancer outcomes across the range of eGFR.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have increased incidence and mortality from most cancer types. We hypothesised that odds of presenting with advanced cancer may vary according to differences in eGFR, that this could contribute to increased all-cause mortality and that sex differences may exist. METHODS: Data were from Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank, including people with de-novo cancer diagnosis (2011-2017) and two kidney function tests within two years prior to diagnosis to determine baseline eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2). Logistic regression models determined odds of presenting with advanced cancer by baseline eGFR. Cox proportional hazards models tested associations between baseline eGFRcr and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: eGFR < 30 was associated with higher odds of presenting with advanced cancer of prostate, breast and female genital organs, but not other cancer sites. Compared to eGFR > 75-90, eGFR < 30 was associated with greater hazards of all-cause mortality in both sexes, but the association was stronger in females (female: HR 1.71, 95%CI 1.56-1.88; male versus female comparison HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.78-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Lower or higher eGFR was not associated with substantially higher odds of presenting with advanced cancer across most cancer sites, but was associated with reduced survival. A stronger assocation with all-cause mortality in females compared to males with eGFR < 30 is concerning and warrants further scrutiny.

Detecting and managing the patient with chronic kidney disease in primary care: A review of the latest guidelines.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major global health problem, affecting about 9.5% of the population and 850 million people worldwide. In primary care, most CKD is caused by diabetes and/or hypertension, but a substantial proportion of cases may have alternative causes. During the early stages, CKD is asymptomatic, and many people are unaware that they are living with the disease. Despite the lack of symptoms, CKD is associated with elevated risks of cardiovascular disease, progressive kidney disease, kidney failure and premature mortality. Risk reduction strategies are effective and cost-effective but require early diagnosis through testing of the estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria in high-risk populations. Once diagnosed, the treatment of CKD centres around lifestyle interventions, blood pressure and glycaemic control, and preventative treatments for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression. Most patients with CKD should be managed with statins, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Additional treatment options to reduce cardiorenal risk are available in patients with diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The Kidney Failure Risk Equation is a new tool that can support the identification of patients at high risk of progressive kidney disease and kidney failure and can be used to guide referrals to nephrology. This review summarizes the latest guidance relevant to managing adults with, or at risk of, CKD and provides practical advice for managing patients with CKD in primary care.

Treatment effect modification due to comorbidity: Individual participant data meta-analyses of 120 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: People with comorbidities are underrepresented in clinical trials. Empirical estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity are lacking, leading to uncertainty in treatment recommendations. We aimed to produce estimates of treatment effect modification by comorbidity using individual participant data (IPD). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We obtained IPD for 120 industry-sponsored phase 3/4 trials across 22 index conditions (n = 128,331). Trials had to be registered between 1990 and 2017 and have recruited ≥300 people. Included trials were multicentre and international. For each index condition, we analysed the outcome most frequently reported in the included trials. We performed a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to estimate modification of treatment effect by comorbidity. First, for each trial, we modelled the interaction between comorbidity and treatment arm adjusted for age and sex. Second, for each treatment within each index condition, we meta-analysed the comorbidity-treatment interaction terms from each trial. We estimated the effect of comorbidity measured in 3 ways: (i) the number of comorbidities (in addition to the index condition); (ii) presence or absence of the 6 commonest comorbid diseases for each index condition; and (iii) using continuous markers of underlying conditions (e.g., estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)). Treatment effects were modelled on the usual scale for the type of outcome (absolute scale for numerical outcomes, relative scale for binary outcomes). Mean age in the trials ranged from 37.1 (allergic rhinitis trials) to 73.0 (dementia trials) and percentage of male participants range from 4.4% (osteoporosis trials) to 100% (benign prostatic hypertrophy trials). The percentage of participants with 3 or more comorbidities ranged from 2.3% (allergic rhinitis trials) to 57% (systemic lupus erythematosus trials). We found no evidence of modification of treatment efficacy by comorbidity, for any of the 3 measures of comorbidity. This was the case for 20 conditions for which the outcome variable was continuous (e.g., change in glycosylated haemoglobin in diabetes) and for 3 conditions in which the outcomes were discrete events (e.g., number of headaches in migraine). Although all were null, estimates of treatment effect modification were more precise in some cases (e.g., sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for type 2 diabetes-interaction term for comorbidity count 0.004, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) while for others credible intervals were wide (e.g., corticosteroids for asthma-interaction term -0.22, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.54). The main limitation is that these trials were not designed or powered to assess variation in treatment effect by comorbidity, and relatively few trial participants had >3 comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of treatment effect modification rarely consider comorbidity. Our findings demonstrate that for trials included in this analysis, there was no empirical evidence of treatment effect modification by comorbidity. The standard assumption used in evidence syntheses is that efficacy is constant across subgroups, although this is often criticised. Our findings suggest that for modest levels of comorbidities, this assumption is reasonable. Thus, trial efficacy findings can be combined with data on natural history and competing risks to assess the likely overall benefit of treatments in the context of comorbidity.

Comorbidity and health-related quality of life in people with a chronic medical condition in randomised clinical trials: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life metrics evaluate treatments in ways that matter to patients, so are often included in randomised clinical trials (hereafter trials). Multimorbidity, where individuals have 2 or more conditions, is negatively associated with quality of life. However, whether multimorbidity predicts change over time or modifies treatment effects for quality of life is unknown. Therefore, clinicians and guideline developers are uncertain about the applicability of trial findings to people with multimorbidity. We examined whether comorbidity count (higher counts indicating greater multimorbidity) (i) is associated with quality of life at baseline; (ii) predicts change in quality of life over time; and/or (iii) modifies treatment effects on quality of life. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Included trials were registered on the United States trials registry for selected index medical conditions and drug classes, phase 2/3, 3 or 4, had ≥300 participants, a nonrestrictive upper age limit, and were available on 1 of 2 trial repositories on 21 November 2016 and 18 May 2018, respectively. Of 124 meeting these criteria, 56 trials (33,421 participants, 16 index conditions, and 23 drug classes) collected a generic quality of life outcome measure (35 EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D), 31 36-item short form survey (SF-36) with 10 collecting both). Blinding and completeness of follow up were examined for each trial. Using trials where individual participant data (IPD) was available from 2 repositories, a comorbidity count was calculated from medical history and/or prescriptions data. Linear regressions were fitted for the association between comorbidity count and (i) quality of life at baseline; (ii) change in quality of life during trial follow up; and (iii) treatment effects on quality of life. These results were then combined in Bayesian linear models. Posterior samples were summarised via the mean, 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles as credible intervals (95% CI) and via the proportion with values less than 0 as the probability (PBayes) of a negative association. All results are in standardised units (obtained by dividing the EQ-5D/SF-36 estimates by published population standard deviations). Per additional comorbidity, adjusting for age and sex, across all index conditions and treatment comparisons, comorbidity count was associated with lower quality of life at baseline and with a decline in quality of life over time (EQ-5D -0.02 [95% CI -0.03 to -0.01], PBayes > 0.999). Associations were similar, but with wider 95% CIs crossing the null for SF-36-PCS and SF-36-MCS (-0.05 [-0.10 to 0.01], PBayes = 0.956 and -0.05 [-0.10 to 0.01], PBayes = 0.966, respectively). Importantly, there was no evidence of any interaction between comorbidity count and treatment efficacy for either EQ-5D or SF-36 (EQ-5D -0.0035 [95% CI -0.0153 to -0.0065], PBayes = 0.746; SF-36-MCS (-0.0111 [95% CI -0.0647 to 0.0416], PBayes = 0.70 and SF-36-PCS -0.0092 [95% CI -0.0758 to 0.0476], PBayes = 0.631. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment effects on quality of life did not differ by multimorbidity (measured via a comorbidity count) at baseline-for the medical conditions studied, types and severity of comorbidities and level of quality of life at baseline, suggesting that evidence from clinical trials is likely to be applicable to settings with (at least modestly) higher levels of comorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A prespecified protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018048202).

Personalised lung cancer risk stratification and lung cancer screening: do general practice electronic medical records have a role?

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom (UK), cancer screening invitations are based on general practice (GP) registrations. We hypothesize that GP electronic medical records (EMR) can be utilised to calculate a lung cancer risk score with good accuracy/clinical utility. METHODS: The development cohort was Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-SAIL (2.3 million GP EMR) and the validation cohort was UK Biobank-UKB (N = 211,597 with GP-EMR availability). Fast backward method was applied for variable selection and area under the curve (AUC) evaluated discrimination. RESULTS: Age 55-75 were included (SAIL: N = 574,196; UKB: N = 137,918). Six-year lung cancer incidence was 1.1% (6430) in SAIL and 0.48% (656) in UKB. The final model included 17/56 variables in SAIL for the EMR-derived score: age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking status, family history, body mass index (BMI), BMI:smoking interaction, alcohol misuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, dementia, hypertension, painful condition, stroke, peripheral vascular disease and history of previous cancer and previous pneumonia. The GP-EMR-derived score had AUC of 80.4% in SAIL and 74.4% in UKB and outperformed ever-smoked criteria (currently the first step in UK lung cancer screening pilots). DISCUSSION: A GP-EMR-derived score may have a role in UK lung cancer screening by accurately targeting high-risk individuals without requiring patient contact.

Assessing Representativeness of Randomised Controlled Trials using Serious Adverse Events.

Context: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. Objectives: We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial Serious Adverse Events (SAEs: most of which reflect hospitalisations/deaths) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care (which, in a trial setting, would be SAEs be definition). Study design: Secondary analysis of trial and routine healthcare data. Dataset and population: 483 trials (n=636,267) from clinicaltrials.gov across 21 index conditions. A routine care comparison was identified from SAIL databank (n=2.3M). Instrument: SAIL data were used to derive the expected rate of hospitalisations/deaths by age, sex and index condition. Outcomes: We calculated the expected number of SAEs for each trial compared to the observed number of SAEs (observed/expected SAE ratio). We then re-calculated the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for comorbidity count in 125 trials for which we accessed individual participant data. Results: For 12/21 index conditions the observed/expected SAE ratio was <1, indicating fewer SAEs in trials than expected given community rates of hospitalisations and deaths. A further 6/21 had point estimates <1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.56-0.65; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34-0.55; Parkinson's disease) to 0.88 (0.59-1.33; IBD). Higher comorbidity count was associated with SAEs/hospitalisations and deaths across index conditions. For most trials, the observed/expected ratio was attenuated but remained <1 after additionally accounting for comorbidity count. Conclusion: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common.

Associations between multimorbidity and adverse health outcomes in UK Biobank and the SAIL Databank: A comparison of longitudinal cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Cohorts such as UK Biobank are increasingly used to study multimorbidity; however, there are concerns that lack of representativeness may lead to biased results. This study aims to compare associations between multimorbidity and adverse health outcomes in UK Biobank and a nationally representative sample. METHODS AND FINDINGS: These are observational analyses of cohorts identified from linked routine healthcare data from UK Biobank participants (n = 211,597 from England, Scotland, and Wales with linked primary care data, age 40 to 70, mean age 56.5 years, 54.6% women, baseline assessment 2006 to 2010) and from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank (n = 852,055 from Wales, age 40 to 70, mean age 54.2, 50.0% women, baseline January 2011). Multimorbidity (n = 40 long-term conditions [LTCs]) was identified from primary care Read codes and quantified using a simple count and a weighted score. Individual LTCs and LTC combinations were also assessed. Associations with all-cause mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were assessed using Weibull or negative binomial models adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, over 7.5 years follow-up for both datasets. Multimorbidity was less common in UK Biobank than SAIL (26.9% and 33.0% with ≥2 LTCs in UK Biobank and SAIL, respectively). This difference was attenuated, but persisted, after standardising by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. The association between increasing multimorbidity count and mortality, hospitalisation, and MACE was similar between both datasets at LTC counts of ≤3; however, above this level, UK Biobank underestimated the risk associated with multimorbidity (e.g., mortality hazard ratio for 2 LTCs 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.57 to 1.68) in SAIL and 1.51 (1.43 to 1.59) in UK Biobank, hazard ratio for 5 LTCs was 3.46 (3.31 to 3.61) in SAIL and 2.88 (2.63 to 3.15) in UK Biobank). Absolute risk of mortality, hospitalisation, and MACE, at all levels of multimorbidity, was lower in UK Biobank than SAIL (adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic status). Both cohorts produced similar hazard ratios for some LTCs (e.g., hypertension and coronary heart disease), but UK Biobank underestimated the risk for others (e.g., alcohol-related disorders or mental health conditions). Hazard ratios for some LTC combinations were similar between the cohorts (e.g., cardiovascular conditions); however, UK Biobank underestimated the risk for combinations including other conditions (e.g., mental health conditions). The main limitations are that SAIL databank represents only part of the UK (Wales only) and that in both cohorts we lacked data on severity of the LTCs included. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that UK Biobank accurately estimates relative risk of mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and MACE associated with LTC counts ≤3. However, for counts ≥4, and for some LTC combinations, estimates of magnitude of association from UK Biobank are likely to be conservative. Researchers should be mindful of these limitations of UK Biobank when conducting and interpreting analyses of multimorbidity. Nonetheless, the richness of data available in UK Biobank does offers opportunities to better understand multimorbidity, particularly where complementary data sources less susceptible to selection bias can be used to inform and qualify analyses of UK Biobank.

The presence and impact of multimorbidity clusters on adverse outcomes across the spectrum of kidney function.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more chronic conditions) is common amongst people with chronic kidney disease, but it is unclear which conditions cluster together and if this changes as kidney function declines. We explored which clusters of conditions are associated with different estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) and studied associations between these clusters and adverse outcomes. METHODS: Two population-based cohort studies were used: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements project (SCREAM, Sweden, 2006-2018) and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL, Wales, 2006-2021). We studied participants in SCREAM (404,681 adults) and SAIL (533,362) whose eGFR declined lower than thresholds (90, 75, 60, 45, 30 and 15 mL/min/1.73m2). Clusters based on 27 chronic conditions were identified. We described the most common chronic condition(s) in each cluster and studied their association with adverse outcomes using Cox proportional hazards models (all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)). RESULTS: Chronic conditions became more common and clustered differently across lower eGFR categories. At eGFR 90, 75, and 60 mL/min/1.73m2, most participants were in large clusters with no prominent conditions. At eGFR 15 and 30 mL/min/1.73m2, clusters involving cardiovascular conditions were larger and were at the highest risk of adverse outcomes. At eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73m2, in the heart failure, peripheral vascular disease and diabetes cluster in SCREAM, ACM hazard ratio (HR) is 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31-3.07) and MACE HR is 4.18 (CI 3.65-4.78); in the heart failure and atrial fibrillation cluster in SAIL, ACM HR is 2.23 (CI 2.04 to 2.44) and MACE HR is 3.43 (CI 3.22-3.64). Chronic pain and depression were common and associated with adverse outcomes when combined with physical conditions. At eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73m2, in the chronic pain, heart failure and myocardial infarction cluster in SCREAM, ACM HR is 2.00 (CI 1.62-2.46) and MACE HR is 4.09 (CI 3.39-4.93); in the depression, chronic pain and stroke cluster in SAIL, ACM HR is 1.38 (CI 1.18-1.61) and MACE HR is 1.58 (CI 1.42-1.76). CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of multimorbidity and corresponding risk of adverse outcomes varied with declining eGFR. While diabetes and cardiovascular disease are known high-risk conditions, chronic pain and depression emerged as important conditions and associated with adverse outcomes when combined with physical conditions.

Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data.

BACKGROUND: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial serious adverse events (SAE) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of individual (125 trials, n=122,069) and aggregate-level drug trial data (483 trials, n=636,267) for 21 index conditions compared to population-based routine healthcare data (routine care). Trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov . Routine care comparison from linked primary care and hospital data from Wales, UK (n=2.3M). Our outcome of interest was SAEs (routinely reported in trials). In routine care, SAEs were based on hospitalisations and deaths (which are SAEs by definition). We compared trial SAEs in trials to expected SAEs based on age/sex standardised routine care populations with the same index condition. Using IPD, we assessed the relationship between multimorbidity count and SAEs in both trials and routine care and assessed the impact on the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for multimorbidity. RESULTS: For 12/21 index conditions, the pooled observed/expected SAE ratio was <1, indicating fewer SAEs in trial participants than in routine care. A further 6/21 had point estimates <1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median pooled estimate of observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55-0.64; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34-0.55; Parkinson's disease) to 0.87 (0.58-1.29; inflammatory bowel disease). Higher multimorbidity count was associated with SAEs across all index conditions in both routine care and trials. For most trials, the observed/expected SAE ratio moved closer to 1 after additionally accounting for multimorbidity count, but it nonetheless remained below 1 for most. CONCLUSIONS: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess the applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common.

Multimorbidity and frailty in middle-aged adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Context: Frailty and multimorbidity are common in type 2 diabetes, including in middle-aged people (<65 years). Clinical guidelines recommend adjustment of treatment targets in people with frailty or multimorbidity. However, guidelines do not specify how frailty/multimorbidity should be identified. It is not clear if recommendations should be applied to people with frailty/multimorbidity at younger ages. Objective: Assess prevalence and clinical implications of frailty/multimorbidity in middle- to older-aged people with type 2 diabetes using four different measures. Design: Cohort, baseline 2006-2010, median 8 years follow-up. Setting: Community Participants: UK Biobank participants (n=20,566) with type 2 diabetes aged 40-72 years. Exposures: Four measures of frailty (frailty phenotype and frailty index) and multimorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity index and numerical count of long-term conditions (LTCs)). Outcomes: Mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular- and cancer-related mortality), Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event (MACE), hospitalization with hypoglycaemia, fall or fracture. Results: Frailty and multimorbidity are prevalent in in people with type 2 diabetes from age 40-72. Individuals identified differed depending on which measure was used: 42% frail of multimorbid by at least one scale; 2.2% were identified by all four scales. Each measure was associated with increased risk of mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer-related), MACE, hypoglycaemia and falls. The absolute risk of 5-year mortality was higher in older versus younger participants with a given level of frailty (e.g. 1.9%, 4.4%, and 9.9% in men aged, 45, 55, and 65, respectively, using frailty phenotype) or multimorbidity (e.g. 1.3%, 3.7%, and 7.8% in med with 4 long-term conditions aged 45, 55, and 65, respectively). No measure was associated with baseline HbA1c. For the frailty index, Charlson Comorbidity index, and LTC count, the relationship between HbA1c and mortality was consistent across all levels of frailty/multimorbidity. For the frailty phenotype, the relationship between HbA1c and mortality was steeper and more linear in frail compared with pre-frail or robust participants. Conclusion: Assessment of frailty/multimorbidity should be embedded within routine management of middle-aged and older people with type 2 diabetes. Method of identification as well as features such as age impact baseline risk and should influence clinical decisions (eg. glycaemic control).

Multimorbidity in a selected cohort compared to a representative sample: Does selection bias influence outcomes?

Context: UK Biobank is increasingly used to study causes, associations, and implications of multimorbidity. However, UK Biobank is criticised for lack of representativeness and 'healthy volunteer bias'. Selection bias can lead to spurious or biased estimates of associations between exposures and outcomes. Objectives: To compare association between multimorbidity and adverse health outcomes in UK Biobank and a nationally representative sample. Design: Cohorts identified from linked routine healthcare data from UK Biobank and from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Setting: Community. Participants: UK Biobank participants (n=211,597, age 40-70) with linked primary care data and a sample from a nationally representative routine data source (SAIL) (n=852,055, age 40-70). Main outcome measures: Multimorbidity (n=40 long-term conditions [LTCs]) was identified from primary care Read codes and quantified using a simple count and a weighted score. Individual LTCs and LTC combinations were also assessed. Associations with all-cause mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were assessed using Weibull or Poisson models and adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Results: Multimorbidity was less common in UK Biobank than SAIL. This difference was attenuated, but persisted, after standardising by age, sex and socioeconomic status. The effect of increasing multimorbidity count on mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and MACE was similar between UK Biobank and SAIL at LTC counts of ≤3, however above this level UK Biobank underestimated the risk associated with multimorbidity. Absolute risk of mortality, hospitalisation and MACE, at all levels of multimorbidity, was lower in UK Biobank than SAIL (adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic status). Both cohorts produced similar hazard ratios for some LTCs (e.g. hypertension and coronary heart disease) but underestimated the risk for others (e.g. alcohol problems or mental health conditions). Similarly hazard ratios for some LTC combinations were similar between the cohorts (e.g. cardiovascular, respiratory conditions), UK Biobank underestimated the risk for combinations including pain or mental health conditions. Conclusions: UK Biobank accurately estimates risk of outcomes associated with LTC counts ≤3. However, for counts ≥4 estimates of magnitude of association from UK Biobank are likely to be conservative.

Representativeness of antihypertensive trials: analysis of serious adverse events.

Context: Representativeness of 'standard' antihypertensive drug trials is uncertain, with limited recruitment of older people. Some trials specifically recruit older participants to address this. Trials are obliged to report hospitalizations and deaths, regardless of cause, as Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). If older-people's trials are representative, we would expect rates of SAEs in trials to be similar to the rate of hospitalisation and death in the community, and higher than standard trials. Objective: To compare the rate of SAEs in hypertension trials to rates of hospitalisation and death among people taking similar treatments in the community. Study Design: Observational study comparing trial populations to a community cohort. Dataset: We identified trials of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone system (RAAS) drugs for hypertension from clinicatrials.gov. We identified a community comparison population of people with hypertension starting RAAS drugs using primary care data from the Wales, UK (SAIL databank). Population studied: Trial participants from 110 RAAS hypertension trials (11 older-people's trials, mean age 73, and 99 standard trials, mean age 56). Community cohort of people with hypertension (n=56,036, mean age 60) starting RAAS drugs. Outcomes: SAEs in trials (mostly accounted for by hospitalizations or deaths) and all-cause hospitalizations/deaths in the community comparison. SAE rates in older-people and standard trials were compared, adjusting for trial characteristics. The community rate was used to calculate the expected rate of hospitalizations/deaths given the age/sex distribution of each trial. We then compared the expected rate with the observed rate of SAEs in each trial. Results: Older-people's trials had higher SAEs rate than standard trials (0.18 versus 0.11 events/person/year, adjusted IRR 1.74, 95% CI 1.03-2.92). The hospitalisation and death rate in the community for those taking RAAS antihypertensives was much greater than the rate of SAEs reported in standard (ratio 3.70 (3.12-4.55)) and older-people's trials (4.35 (2.56-7.69)), adjusting for age and sex. Conclusion: Trials report substantially fewer SAEs than expected from rates of hospitalisations and deaths among similar-aged people receiving equivalent treatments in the community. SAE rates may be a useful metric to assess trial representativeness. Clinicians should be cautious when applying trial recommendations to older people, even when trials focus on older people.

Camp Draws You Back Into Life Again: Exploring the Impact of a Therapeutic Recreation-Based Bereavement Camp for Families Who Have Lost a Child to Serious Illness.

This qualitative study explores the perceptions of impact associated with engaging in a therapeutic recreation-based bereavement camp for families whose child has died from serious illness. Interviews were completed with 12 parents who had participated in a three-camp cycle of the program over 12-month period, including a subgroup who had also attended a reunion camp. Interviews were also conducted with program staff. Thematic analysis generated key themes relating to the perceived impact which suggest that those engaged in this program perceived positive contributions associated with participation, including perceptions of positive impact on coping with bereavement, access to support and implications for family functioning. This study highlights the areas of impact associated with engagement in a therapeutic recreation-based bereavement intervention, and the potential contribution of wider access to these programs for families whose child has died from serious illness.

Association between patterns of alcohol consumption (beverage type, frequency and consumption with food) and risk of adverse health outcomes: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption is a leading contributor to death and disability worldwide, but previous research has not examined the effects of different patterns of alcohol consumption. The study objective was to understand the relationship between different alcohol consumption patterns and adverse health outcomes risk, adjusting for average amount consumed among regular drinkers. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of UK Biobank (UKB) participants. Abstainers, infrequent alcohol consumers or those with previous cancer, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or liver cirrhosis were excluded. We used beverage type, consumption with food and consumption frequency as exposures and adjusted for potential confounding. All-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events-MACE (MI/stroke/cardiovascular death), accidents/injuries, liver cirrhosis, all-cause and alcohol-related cancer incidence over 9-year median follow-up period were outcomes of interest. RESULTS: The final sample size for analysis was N = 309,123 (61.5% of UKB sample). Spirit drinking was associated with higher adjusted mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.25; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.14-1.38), MACE (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.15-1.50), cirrhosis (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.08-2.03) and accident/injuries (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.03-1.19) risk compared to red wine drinking, after adjusting for the average weekly alcohol consumption amounts. Beer/cider drinkers were also at a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.27), MACE (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.05-1.27), cirrhosis (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.06-1.74) and accidents/injuries (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17). Alcohol consumption without food was associated with higher adjusted mortality (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02-1.17) risk, compared to consumption with food. Alcohol consumption over 1-2 times/week had higher adjusted mortality (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16) and MACE (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23) risk, compared to 3-4 times/week, adjusting for the amount of alcohol consumed. CONCLUSION: Red wine drinking, consumption with food and spreading alcohol intake over 3-4 days were associated with lower risk of mortality and vascular events among regular alcohol drinkers, after adjusting for the effects of average amount consumed. Selection bias and residual confounding are important possible limitations. These findings, if replicated and validated, have the potential to influence policy and practice advice on less harmful patterns of alcohol consumption.

Hospitalisation events in people with chronic kidney disease as a component of multimorbidity: parallel cohort studies in research and routine care settings.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically co-exists with multimorbidity (presence of 2 or more long-term conditions: LTCs). The associations between CKD, multimorbidity and hospitalisation rates are not known. The aim of this study was to examine hospitalisation rates in people with multimorbidity with and without CKD. Amongst people with CKD, the aim was to identify risk factors for hospitalisation. METHODS: Two cohorts were studied in parallel: UK Biobank (a prospective research study: 2006-2020) and Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL: a routine care database, Wales, UK: 2011-2018). Adults were included if their kidney function was measured at baseline. Nine categories of participants were used: zero LTCs; one, two, three and four or more LTCs excluding CKD; and one, two, three and four or more LTCs including CKD. Emergency hospitalisation events were obtained from linked hospital records. RESULTS: Amongst 469,339 UK Biobank participants, those without CKD had a median of 1 LTC and those with CKD had a median of 3 LTCs. Amongst 1,620,490 SAIL participants, those without CKD had a median of 1 LTC and those with CKD had a median of 5 LTCs. Compared to those with zero LTCs, participants with four or more LTCs (excluding CKD) had high event rates (rate ratios UK Biobank 4.95 (95% confidence interval 4.82-5.08)/SAIL 3.77 (3.71-3.82)) with higher rates if CKD was one of the LTCs (rate ratios UK Biobank 7.83 (7.42-8.25)/SAIL 9.92 (9.75-10.09)). Amongst people with CKD, risk factors for hospitalisation were advanced CKD, age over 60, multiple cardiometabolic LTCs, combined physical and mental LTCs and complex patterns of multimorbidity (LTCs in three or more body systems). CONCLUSIONS: People with multimorbidity have high rates of hospitalisation. Importantly, the rates are two to three times higher when CKD is one of the multimorbid conditions. Further research is needed into the mechanism underpinning this to inform strategies to prevent hospitalisation in this very high-risk group.

Impact of COVID-19 on care-home mortality and life expectancy in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 deaths are commoner among care-home residents, but the mortality burden has not been quantified. METHODS: Care-home residency was identified via a national primary care registration database linked to mortality data. Life expectancy was estimated using Makeham-Gompertz models to (i) describe yearly life expectancy from November 2015 to October 2020 (ii) compare life expectancy (during 2016-18) between care-home residents and the wider population and (iii) apply care-home life expectancy estimates to COVID-19 death counts to estimate years of life lost (YLL). RESULTS: Among care-home residents, life expectancy in 2015/16 to 2019/20 ranged from 2.7 to 2.3 years for women and 2.3 to 1.8 years for men. Age-sex-specific life expectancy in 2016-18 in care-home residents was lower than in the Scottish population (10 and 2.5 years in those aged 70 and 90, respectively). Applying care home-specific life expectancies to COVID-19 deaths yield mean YLLs for care-home residents of 2.6 and 2.2 for women and men, respectively. In total YLL care-home residents have lost 3,560 years in women and 2,046 years in men. Approximately half of deaths and a quarter of YLL attributed to COVID-19 were accounted for by the 5% of over-70s who were care-home residents. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection has led to the loss of substantial years of life in care-home residents aged 70 years and over in Scotland. Prioritising the 5% of older adults who are care-home residents for vaccination is justified not only in terms of total deaths, but also in terms of YLL.

Staff and Parent Perspectives on a Therapeutic Recreation-Based Bereavement Camp for Families Whose Child Has Died From Serious Illness.

This study explores the nature of a therapeutic recreation-based bereavement camp for families whose child has died from serious illness. Open-ended surveys and interviews were conducted with parents attending a three-camp cycle over a 12-month period or a reunion camp. Thirteen parents completed open-ended surveys before and after each camp and six of these also completed interviews after the final camp. Six additional parents completed interviews after the reunion camp. Six staff working with families during the camps were also interviewed. Content analysis of surveys and thematic analysis of interviews revealed the aims, structure, and content of the camp. The findings suggest a model whereby shared experience allows for normalization and offers a nonjudgmental place to share stories, discuss difficulties come together as a family, and create a support network. These findings highlight the value of therapeutic recreation-based bereavement interventions for families whose child has died from serious illness.

Multimorbidity, mortality, and HbA1c in type 2 diabetes: A cohort study with UK and Taiwanese cohorts.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging interest in multimorbidity in type 2 diabetes (T2D), which can be either concordant (T2D related) or discordant (unrelated), as a way of understanding the burden of disease in T2D. Current diabetes guidelines acknowledge the complex nature of multimorbidity, the management of which should be based on the patient's individual clinical needs and comorbidities. However, although associations between multimorbidity, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mortality in people with T2D have been studied to some extent, significant gaps remain, particularly regarding different patterns of multimorbidity, including concordant and discordant conditions. This study explores associations between multimorbidity (total condition counts/concordant/discordant/different combinations of conditions), baseline HbA1c, and all-cause mortality in T2D. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We studied two longitudinal cohorts of people with T2D using the UK Biobank (n = 20,569) and the Taiwan National Diabetes Care Management Program (NDCMP) (n = 59,657). The number of conditions in addition to T2D was used to quantify total multimorbidity, concordant, and discordant counts, and the effects of different combinations of conditions were also studied. Outcomes of interest were baseline HbA1c and all-cause mortality. For the UK Biobank and Taiwan NDCMP, mean (SD) ages were 60.2 (6.8) years and 60.8 (11.3) years; 7,579 (36.8%) and 31,339 (52.5%) were female; body mass index (BMI) medians (IQR) were 30.8 (27.7, 34.8) kg/m2 and 25.6 (23.5, 28.7) kg/m2; and 2,197 (10.8%) and 9,423 (15.8) were current smokers, respectively. Increasing total and discordant multimorbidity counts were associated with lower HbA1c and increased mortality in both datasets. In Taiwan NDCMP, for those with four or more additional conditions compared with T2D only, the mean difference (95% CI) in HbA1c was -0.82% (-0.88, -0.76) p < 0.001. In UK Biobank, hazard ratios (HRs) (95% CI) for all-cause mortality in people with T2D and one, two, three, and four or more additional conditions compared with those without comorbidity were 1.20 (0.91-1.56) p < 0.001, 1.75 (1.35-2.27) p < 0.001, 2.17 (1.67-2.81) p < 0.001, and 3.14 (2.43-4.03) p < 0.001, respectively. Both concordant/discordant conditions were significantly associated with mortality; however, HRs were largest for concordant conditions. Those with four or more concordant conditions had >5 times the mortality (5.83 [4.28-7.93] p <0.001). HRs for NDCMP were similar to those from UK Biobank for all multimorbidity counts. For those with two conditions in addition to T2D, cardiovascular diseases featured in 18 of the top 20 combinations most highly associated with mortality in UK Biobank and 12 of the top combinations in the Taiwan NDCMP. In UK Biobank, a combination of coronary heart disease and heart failure in addition to T2D had the largest effect size on mortality, with a HR (95% CI) of 4.37 (3.59-5.32) p < 0.001, whereas in the Taiwan NDCMP, a combination of painful conditions and alcohol problems had the largest effect size on mortality, with an HR (95% CI) of 4.02 (3.08-5.23) p < 0.001. One limitation to note is that we were unable to model for changes in multimorbidity during our study period. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity patterns associated with the highest mortality differed between UK Biobank (a population predominantly comprising people of European descent) and the Taiwan NDCMP, a predominantly ethnic Chinese population. Future research should explore the mechanisms underpinning the observed relationship between increasing multimorbidity count and reduced HbA1c alongside increased mortality in people with T2D and further examine the implications of different patterns of multimorbidity across different ethnic groups. Better understanding of these issues, especially effects of condition type, will enable more effective personalisation of care.

Identifying frailty in trials: an analysis of individual participant data from trials of novel pharmacological interventions.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in clinical practice, but trials rarely report on participant frailty. Consequently, clinicians and guideline-developers assume frailty is largely absent from trials and have questioned the relevance of trial findings to frail people. Therefore, we examined frailty in phase 3/4 industry-sponsored clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for three exemplar conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We constructed a 40-item frailty index (FI) in 19 clinical trials (7 T2DM, 8 RA, 4 COPD, mean age 42-65 years) using individual-level participant data. Participants with a FI > 0.24 were considered 'frail'. Baseline disease severity was assessed using HbA1c for T2DM, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) for RA, and % predicted FEV1 for COPD. Using generalised gamma regression, we modelled FI on age, sex, and disease severity. In negative binomial regression, we modelled serious adverse event rates on FI and combined results for each index condition in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: All trials included frail participants: prevalence 7-21% in T2DM trials, 33-73% in RA trials, and 15-22% in COPD trials. The 99th centile of the FI ranged between 0.35 and 0.45. Female sex was associated with higher FI in all trials. Increased disease severity was associated with higher FI in RA and COPD, but not T2DM. Frailty was associated with age in T2DM and RA trials, but not in COPD. Across all trials, and after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity, higher FI predicted increased risk of serious adverse events; the pooled incidence rate ratios (per 0.1-point increase in FI scale) were 1.46 (95% CI 1.21-1.75), 1.45 (1.13-1.87), and 1.99 (1.43-2.76) for T2DM, RA, and COPD, respectively. CONCLUSION: The upper limit of frailty in trials is lower than has been described in the general population. However, mild to moderate frailty was common, suggesting trial data may be harnessed to inform disease management in people living with frailty. Participants with higher FI experienced more serious adverse events, suggesting screening for frailty in trial participants would enable identification of those that merit closer monitoring. Frailty is identifiable and prevalent among middle-aged and older participants in phase 3/4 drug trials and has clinically important safety implications.

Comparison of two different frailty measurements and risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19: findings from UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been associated with worse prognosis following COVID-19 infection. While several studies have reported the association between frailty and COVID-19 mortality or length of hospital stay, there have been no community-based studies on the association between frailty and risk of severe infection. Considering that different definitions have been identified to assess frailty, this study aimed to compare the association between frailty and severe COVID-19 infection in UK Biobank using two frailty classifications: the frailty phenotype and the frailty index. METHODS: A total of 383,845 UK Biobank participants recruited 2006-2010 in England (211,310 [55.1%] women, baseline age 37-73 years) were included. COVID-19 test data were provided by Public Health England (available up to 28 June 2020). An adapted version of the frailty phenotype derived by Fried et al. was used to define frailty phenotype (robust, pre-frail, or frail). A previously validated frailty index was derived from 49 self-reported questionnaire items related to health, disease and disability, and mental wellbeing (robust, mild frailty, and moderate/severe frailty). Both classifications were derived from baseline data (2006-2010). Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyse the associations between both frailty classifications and severe COVID-19 infection (resulting in hospital admission or death), adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Of UK Biobank participants included, 802 were admitted to hospital with and/or died from COVID19 (323 deaths and 479 hospitalisations). After analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher risk of COVID-19 was observed for pre-frail (risk ratio (RR) 1.47 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71]) and frail (RR 2.66 [95% CI 2.04; 3.47]) individuals compared to those classified as robust using the frailty phenotype. Similar results were observed when the frailty index was used (RR mildly frail 1.46 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71] and RR moderate/severe frailty 2.43 [95% CI 1.91; 3.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection resulting in hospital admission or death, irrespective of how it was measured and independent of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Public health strategies need to consider the additional risk that COVID-19 poses in individuals with frailty, including which additional preventive measures might be required.