Multiple adverse outcomes associated with antipsychotic use in people with dementia: population based matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate risks of multiple adverse outcomes associated with use of antipsychotics in people with dementia. DESIGN: Population based matched cohort study. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital and mortality data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), England. POPULATION: Adults (≥50 years) with a diagnosis of dementia between 1 January 1998 and 31 May 2018 (n=173 910, 63.0% women). Each new antipsychotic user (n=35 339, 62.5% women) was matched with up to 15 non-users using incidence density sampling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, stratified by periods of antipsychotic use, with absolute risks calculated using cumulative incidence in antipsychotic users versus matched comparators. An unrelated (negative control) outcome of appendicitis and cholecystitis combined was also investigated to detect potential unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Compared with non-use, any antipsychotic use was associated with increased risks of all outcomes, except ventricular arrhythmia. Current use (90 days after a prescription) was associated with elevated risks of pneumonia (hazard ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10 to 2.28), acute kidney injury (1.72, 1.61 to 1.84), venous thromboembolism (1.62, 1.46 to 1.80), stroke (1.61, 1.52 to 1.71), fracture (1.43, 1.35 to 1.52), myocardial infarction (1.28, 1.15 to 1.42), and heart failure (1.27, 1.18 to 1.37). No increased risks were observed for the negative control outcome (appendicitis and cholecystitis). In the 90 days after drug initiation, the cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users was 4.48% (4.26% to 4.71%) versus 1.49% (1.45% to 1.53%) in the matched cohort of non-users (difference 2.99%, 95% CI 2.77% to 3.22%). CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. The range of adverse outcomes was wider than previously highlighted in regulatory alerts, with the highest risks soon after initiation of treatment.

Impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on adult mental health-related dispensed medications, hospitalizations and specialist outpatient visits in Norway and Sweden: Interrupted time series analysis.

AIMS: Norway and Sweden had different early pandemic responses that may have impacted mental health management. The aim was to assess the impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on mental health-related care. METHODS: We used national registries in Norway and Sweden (1 January 2018-31 December 2020) to define 2 cohorts: (i) general adult population; and (ii) mental health adult population. Interrupted times series regression analyses evaluated step and slope changes compared to prepandemic levels for monthly rates of medications (antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, lithium, opioid analgesics, psychostimulants), hospitalizations (for anxiety, bipolar, depressive/mood, eating and schizophrenia/delusional disorders) and specialist outpatient visits. RESULTS: In Norway, immediate reductions occurred in the general population for medications (-12% antidepressants to -7% hypnotics/sedatives) except for antipsychotics; and hospitalizations (-33% anxiety disorders to -17% bipolar disorders). Increasing slope change occurred for all medications except psychostimulants (+1.1%/month hypnotics/sedatives to +1.7%/month antidepressants); and hospitalization for anxiety disorders (+5.5%/month), depressive/mood disorders (+1.7%/month) and schizophrenia/delusional disorders (+2%/month). In Sweden, immediate reductions occurred for antidepressants (-7%) and opioids (-10%) and depressive/mood disorder hospitalizations (-11%) only with increasing slope change in psychostimulant prescribing of (0.9%/month). In contrast to Norway, increasing slope changes occurred in specialist outpatient visits for depressive/mood disorders, eating disorders and schizophrenia/delusional disorders (+1.5, +1.9 and +2.3%/month, respectively). Similar changes occurred in the pre-existing mental health cohorts. CONCLUSION: Differences in early COVID-19 policy response may have contributed to differences in adult mental healthcare provision in Norway and Sweden.

Comparative Effectiveness of Second-line Antihyperglycemic Agents for Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Large-scale, Multinational, Federated Analysis of the LEGEND-T2DM Study.

Background: SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their effectiveness relative to each other and other second-line antihyperglycemic agents is unknown, without any major ongoing head-to-head trials. Methods: Across the LEGEND-T2DM network, we included ten federated international data sources, spanning 1992-2021. We identified 1,492,855 patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) on metformin monotherapy who initiated one of four second-line agents (SGLT2is, GLP1-RAs, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor [DPP4is], sulfonylureas [SUs]). We used large-scale propensity score models to conduct an active comparator, target trial emulation for pairwise comparisons. After evaluating empirical equipoise and population generalizability, we fit on-treatment Cox proportional hazard models for 3-point MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, death) and 4-point MACE (3-point MACE + heart failure hospitalization) risk, and combined hazard ratio (HR) estimates in a random-effects meta-analysis. Findings: Across cohorts, 16·4%, 8·3%, 27·7%, and 47·6% of individuals with T2DM initiated SGLT2is, GLP1-RAs, DPP4is, and SUs, respectively. Over 5·2 million patient-years of follow-up and 489 million patient-days of time at-risk, there were 25,982 3-point MACE and 41,447 4-point MACE events. SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs were associated with a lower risk for 3-point MACE compared with DPP4is (HR 0·89 [95% CI, 0·79-1·00] and 0·83 [0·70-0·98]), and SUs (HR 0·76 [0·65-0·89] and 0·71 [0·59-0·86]). DPP4is were associated with a lower 3-point MACE risk versus SUs (HR 0·87 [0·79-0·95]). The pattern was consistent for 4-point MACE for the comparisons above. There were no significant differences between SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs for 3-point or 4-point MACE (HR 1·06 [0·96-1·17] and 1·05 [0·97-1·13]). Interpretation: In patients with T2DM and established CVD, we found comparable cardiovascular risk reduction with SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs, with both agents more effective than DPP4is, which in turn were more effective than SUs. These findings suggest that the use of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2is should be prioritized as second-line agents in those with established CVD. Funding: National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

The implications of competing risks and direct treatment disutility in cardiovascular disease and osteoporotic fracture: risk prediction and cost effectiveness analysis.

Background: Clinical guidelines commonly recommend preventative treatments for people above a risk threshold. Therefore, decision-makers must have faith in risk prediction tools and model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for people at different levels of risk. Two problems that arise are inadequate handling of competing risks of death and failing to account for direct treatment disutility (i.e. the hassle of taking treatments). We explored these issues using two case studies: primary prevention of cardiovascular disease using statins and osteoporotic fracture using bisphosphonates. Objectives: Externally validate three risk prediction tools [QRISK®3, QRISK®-Lifetime, QFracture-2012 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK)]; derive and internally validate new risk prediction tools for cardiovascular disease [competing mortality risk model with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CRISK-CCI)] and fracture (CFracture), accounting for competing-cause death; quantify direct treatment disutility for statins and bisphosphonates; and examine the effect of competing risks and direct treatment disutility on the cost-effectiveness of preventative treatments. Design, participants, main outcome measures, data sources: Discrimination and calibration of risk prediction models (Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants: aged 25-84 years for cardiovascular disease and aged 30-99 years for fractures); direct treatment disutility was elicited in online stated-preference surveys (people with/people without experience of statins/bisphosphonates); costs and quality-adjusted life-years were determined from decision-analytic modelling (updated models used in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making). Results: CRISK-CCI has excellent discrimination, similar to that of QRISK3 (Harrell's c = 0.864 vs. 0.865, respectively, for women; and 0.819 vs. 0.834, respectively, for men). CRISK-CCI has systematically better calibration, although both models overpredict in high-risk subgroups. People recommended for treatment (10-year risk of ≥ 10%) are younger when using QRISK-Lifetime than when using QRISK3, and have fewer observed events in a 10-year follow-up (4.0% vs. 11.9%, respectively, for women; and 4.3% vs. 10.8%, respectively, for men). QFracture-2012 underpredicts fractures, owing to under-ascertainment of events in its derivation. However, there is major overprediction among people aged 85-99 years and/or with multiple long-term conditions. CFracture is better calibrated, although it also overpredicts among older people. In a time trade-off exercise (n = 879), statins exhibited direct treatment disutility of 0.034; for bisphosphonates, it was greater, at 0.067. Inconvenience also influenced preferences in best-worst scaling (n = 631). Updated cost-effectiveness analysis generates more quality-adjusted life-years among people with below-average cardiovascular risk and fewer among people with above-average risk. If people experience disutility when taking statins, the cardiovascular risk threshold at which benefits outweigh harms rises with age (≥ 8% 10-year risk at 40 years of age; ≥ 38% 10-year risk at 80 years of age). Assuming that everyone experiences population-average direct treatment disutility with oral bisphosphonates, treatment is net harmful at all levels of risk. Limitations: Treating data as missing at random is a strong assumption in risk prediction model derivation. Disentangling the effect of statins from secular trends in cardiovascular disease in the previous two decades is challenging. Validating lifetime risk prediction is impossible without using very historical data. Respondents to our stated-preference survey may not be representative of the population. There is no consensus on which direct treatment disutilities should be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. Not all the inputs to the cost-effectiveness models could be updated. Conclusions: Ignoring competing mortality in risk prediction overestimates the risk of cardiovascular events and fracture, especially among older people and those with multimorbidity. Adjustment for competing risk does not meaningfully alter cost-effectiveness of these preventative interventions, but direct treatment disutility is measurable and has the potential to alter the balance of benefits and harms. We argue that this is best addressed in individual-level shared decision-making. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021249959. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/12/22) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Before offering a medicine to prevent disease, prescribers must expect it to do more good than harm. This balance depends on how likely it is that the person will develop the disease we want to prevent. But people might first die for other reasons. We call this a 'competing risk'. In most cases, the mathematical tools we use to estimate the chance of developing a disease do not account for competing risks. Another problem is that, when weighing up the benefits and harms of medicines, we ignore the hassle they cause patients, even when they do not cause side effects. We used two examples: statins to prevent heart disease and bisphosphonates to prevent fractures. First, we assessed if existing tools get predictions wrong by not accounting for competing risks. We found that they exaggerate the chance of heart attacks and strokes. However, the exaggeration is greatest among people who would clearly benefit from preventative treatment. So it may not change treatment decisions much. The fracture prediction tool we studied was very inaccurate, exaggerating risk among older people, but underestimating risk among younger people. We made a new fracture risk prediction tool. It gave better predictions, but it was still inaccurate for people aged > 85 years and those with several health problems. Next, we asked people questions designed to put a number on the hassle that statins and bisphosphonates cause. Most people thought that taking either is inconvenient, but the hassle factor for bisphosphonates is bigger. Finally, we updated the mathematical models that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence used when recommending statins and bisphosphonates. We worked out if competing risks and the hassle of taking medicines make a difference to results. Statins remain a good idea for almost everyone, unless they really hate the idea of taking them. But bisphosphonates would do more harm than good for anyone who agrees with the hassle factor we found.

Multinational patterns of second line antihyperglycaemic drug initiation across cardiovascular risk groups: federated pharmacoepidemiological evaluation in LEGEND-T2DM.

Objective: To assess the uptake of second line antihyperglycaemic drugs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are receiving metformin. Design: Federated pharmacoepidemiological evaluation in LEGEND-T2DM. Setting: 10 US and seven non-US electronic health record and administrative claims databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network in eight countries from 2011 to the end of 2021. Participants: 4.8 million patients (≥18 years) across US and non-US based databases with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had received metformin monotherapy and had initiated second line treatments. Exposure: The exposure used to evaluate each database was calendar year trends, with the years in the study that were specific to each cohort. Main outcomes measures: The outcome was the incidence of second line antihyperglycaemic drug use (ie, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sulfonylureas) among individuals who were already receiving treatment with metformin. The relative drug class level uptake across cardiovascular risk groups was also evaluated. Results: 4.6 million patients were identified in US databases, 61 382 from Spain, 32 442 from Germany, 25 173 from the UK, 13 270 from France, 5580 from Scotland, 4614 from Hong Kong, and 2322 from Australia. During 2011-21, the combined proportional initiation of the cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) increased across all data sources, with the combined initiation of these drugs as second line drugs in 2021 ranging from 35.2% to 68.2% in the US databases, 15.4% in France, 34.7% in Spain, 50.1% in Germany, and 54.8% in Scotland. From 2016 to 2021, in some US and non-US databases, uptake of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased more significantly among populations with no cardiovascular disease compared with patients with established cardiovascular disease. No data source provided evidence of a greater increase in the uptake of these two drug classes in populations with cardiovascular disease compared with no cardiovascular disease. Conclusions: Despite the increase in overall uptake of cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs as second line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus, their uptake was lower in patients with cardiovascular disease than in people with no cardiovascular disease over the past decade. A strategy is needed to ensure that medication use is concordant with guideline recommendations to improve outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Antipsychotic drug prescribing and mortality in people with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study in Wales, UK.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that antipsychotic drug prescribing, which has been associated with increased mortality in people with dementia, might have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic due to social restrictions imposed to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We used multisource, routinely collected health-care data from Wales, UK to investigate prescribing and mortality variations in people with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used individual-level, anonymised, population-scale linked health data to identify adults aged 60 years and older with a diagnosis of dementia in Wales, UK. We used the CVD-COVID-UK initiative to access Welsh routinely collected electronic health record data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. Patients who were alive and registered with a SAIL general practice on Jan 1, 2016, and who received a dementia diagnosis before the age of 60 years and before or during the study period were included. We explored antipsychotic drug prescribing rate changes over 67 months, between Jan 1, 2016, and Aug 1, 2021, overall and stratified by age and dementia subtype. We used time-series analyses to examine all-cause and myocardial infarction and stroke mortality over the study period and identified the leading causes of death in people with dementia between Jan 1, 2020, and Aug 1, 2021. FINDINGS: Of 3 106 690 participants in SAIL between Jan 1, 2016 and Aug 1, 2021, 57 396 people (35 148 [61·2%] women and 22 248 [38·8%] men) met inclusion criteria for this study and contributed 101 428 person-years of follow-up. Of the 57 396 people with dementia, 11 929 (20·8%) were prescribed an antipsychotic drug at any point during follow-up. Accounting for seasonality, antipsychotic drug prescribing increased during the second half of 2019 and throughout 2020. However, the absolute difference in prescribing rates was small, ranging from 1253 prescriptions per 10 000 person-months in March, 2019, to 1305 per 10 000 person-months in September, 2020. All-cause mortality and stroke mortality increased throughout 2020, while myocardial infarction mortality declined. From Jan 1, 2020, to Aug 1, 2021, 1286 (17·1%) of 7508 participants who died had COVID-19 recorded as the underlying cause of death. INTERPRETATION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antipsychotic drug prescribing in people with dementia in the UK increased slightly; however, it is unlikely that this was solely related to the pandemic and this increase was unlikely to be a major factor in the substantial increase in mortality during 2020. The long-term increase in antipsychotic drug prescribing in younger people and in those with Alzheimer's disease warrants further investigation using resources with access to more granular clinical data. Although deprescribing antipsychotic medications remains an essential aspect of dementia care, the results of this study suggest that changes in prescribing and deprescribing practices as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are not required. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation (via the British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre led by Health Data Research UK), and the Scottish Neurological Research Fund.

External validation of the QLifetime cardiovascular risk prediction tool: population cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of lifetime cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is recommended in many clinical guidelines, but lifetime risk models are rarely externally validated. The aim of this study was to externally validate the QRiskLifetime incident CVD risk prediction tool. METHODS: Independent external validation of QRiskLifetime using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data, examining discrimination and calibration in the whole population and stratified by age, and reclassification compared to QRISK3. Since lifetime CVD risk is unobservable, performance was evaluated at 10-years' follow-up, and lifetime performance inferred in terms of performance for in the different age-groups from which lifetime predictions are derived. RESULTS: One million, two hundreds sixty thousand and three hundreds twenty nine women and 1,223,265 men were included in the analysis. Discrimination was excellent in the whole population (Harrell's-C = 0.844 in women, 0.808 in men), but moderate to poor stratified by age-group (Harrell's C in people aged 30-44 0.714 for both men and women, in people aged 75-84 0.578 in women and 0.556 in men). Ten-year CVD risk was under-predicted in the whole population, and in all age-groups except women aged 45-64, with worse under-prediction in older age-groups. Compared to those at highest QRISK3 estimated 10-year risk, those with highest lifetime risk were younger (mean age: women 50.5 vs. 71.3 years; men 46.3 vs. 63.8 years) and had lower systolic blood pressure and prevalence of treated hypertension, but had more family history of premature CVD, and were more commonly minority ethnic. Over 10-years, the estimated number needed to treat (NNT) with a statin to prevent one CVD event in people with QRISK3 ≥ 10% was 34 in women and 37 in men, compared to 99 and 100 for those at highest lifetime risk. CONCLUSIONS: QRiskLifetime underpredicts 10-year CVD risk in nearly all age-groups, so is likely to also underpredict lifetime risk. Treatment based on lifetime risk has considerably lower medium-term benefit than treatment based on 10-year risk.

Contextualising adverse events of special interest to characterise the baseline incidence rates in 24 million patients with COVID-19 across 26 databases: a multinational retrospective cohort study.

Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

The impact of varying the number and selection of conditions on estimated multimorbidity prevalence: A cross-sectional study using a large, primary care population dataset.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity prevalence rates vary considerably depending on the conditions considered in the morbidity count, but there is no standardised approach to the number or selection of conditions to include. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using English primary care data for 1,168,260 participants who were all people alive and permanently registered with 149 included general practices. Outcome measures of the study were prevalence estimates of multimorbidity (defined as ≥2 conditions) when varying the number and selection of conditions considered for 80 conditions. Included conditions featured in ≥1 of the 9 published lists of conditions examined in the study and/or phenotyping algorithms in the Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK) Phenotype Library. First, multimorbidity prevalence was calculated when considering the individually most common 2 conditions, 3 conditions, etc., up to 80 conditions. Second, prevalence was calculated using 9 condition-lists from published studies. Analyses were stratified by dependent variables age, socioeconomic position, and sex. Prevalence when only the 2 commonest conditions were considered was 4.6% (95% CI [4.6, 4.6] p < 0.001), rising to 29.5% (95% CI [29.5, 29.6] p < 0.001) considering the 10 commonest, 35.2% (95% CI [35.1, 35.3] p < 0.001) considering the 20 commonest, and 40.5% (95% CI [40.4, 40.6] p < 0.001) when considering all 80 conditions. The threshold number of conditions at which multimorbidity prevalence was >99% of that measured when considering all 80 conditions was 52 for the whole population but was lower in older people (29 in >80 years) and higher in younger people (71 in 0- to 9-year-olds). Nine published condition-lists were examined; these were either recommended for measuring multimorbidity, used in previous highly cited studies of multimorbidity prevalence, or widely applied measures of "comorbidity." Multimorbidity prevalence using these lists varied from 11.1% to 36.4%. A limitation of the study is that conditions were not always replicated using the same ascertainment rules as previous studies to improve comparability across condition-lists, but this highlights further variability in prevalence estimates across studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that varying the number and selection of conditions results in very large differences in multimorbidity prevalence, and different numbers of conditions are needed to reach ceiling rates of multimorbidity prevalence in certain groups of people. These findings imply that there is a need for a standardised approach to defining multimorbidity, and to facilitate this, researchers can use existing condition-lists associated with highest multimorbidity prevalence.

Age, sex, and socioeconomic differences in multimorbidity measured in four ways: UK primary care cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity poses major challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Definitions with cut-offs in excess of ≥2 long-term conditions (LTCs) might better capture populations with complexity but are not standardised. AIM: To examine variation in prevalence using different definitions of multimorbidity. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of 1 168 620 people in England. METHOD: Comparison of multimorbidity (MM) prevalence using four definitions: MM2+ (≥2 LTCs), MM3+ (≥3 LTCs), MM3+ from 3+ (≥3 LTCs from ≥3 International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision chapters), and mental-physical MM (≥2 LTCs where ≥1 mental health LTC and ≥1 physical health LTC are recorded). Logistic regression was used to examine patient characteristics associated with multimorbidity under all four definitions. RESULTS: MM2+ was most common (40.4%) followed by MM3+ (27.5%), MM3+ from 3+ (22.6%), and mental-physical MM (18.9%). MM2+, MM3+, and MM3+ from 3+ were strongly associated with oldest age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 58.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 56.13 to 60.14; aOR 77.69, 95% CI = 75.33 to 80.12; and aOR 102.06, 95% CI = 98.61 to 105.65; respectively), but mental-physical MM was much less strongly associated (aOR 4.32, 95% CI = 4.21 to 4.43). People in the most deprived decile had equivalent rates of multimorbidity at a younger age than those in the least deprived decile. This was most marked in mental-physical MM at 40-45 years younger, followed by MM2+ at 15-20 years younger, and MM3+ and MM3+ from 3+ at 10-15 years younger. Females had higher prevalence of multimorbidity under all definitions, which was most marked for mental-physical MM. CONCLUSION: Estimated prevalence of multimorbidity depends on the definition used, and associations with age, sex, and socioeconomic position vary between definitions. Applicable multimorbidity research requires consistency of definitions across studies.

Estimated impact from the withdrawal of primary care financial incentives on selected indicators of quality of care in Scotland: controlled interrupted time series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the withdrawal of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scheme in primary care in Scotland in 2016 had an impact on selected recorded quality of care, compared with England where the scheme continued. DESIGN: Controlled interrupted time series regression analysis. SETTING: General practices in Scotland and England. PARTICIPANTS: 979 practices with 5 599 171 registered patients in Scotland, and 7921 practices with 56 270 628 registered patients in England in 2013-14, decreasing to 864 practices in Scotland and 6873 in England in 2018-19, mainly due to practice mergers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in quality of care at one year and three years after withdrawal of QOF financial incentives in Scotland at the end of the 2015-16 financial year for 16 indicators (two complex processes, nine intermediate outcomes, and five treatments) measured annually for financial years from 2013-14 to 2018-19. RESULTS: A significant decrease in performance was observed for 12 of the 16 quality of care indicators in Scotland one year after QOF was abolished and for 10 of the 16 indicators three years after QOF was abolished, compared with England. At three years, the absolute percentage point difference between Scotland and England was largest for recording (by tick box) of mental health care planning (-40.2 percentage points, 95% confidence interval -45.5 to -35.0) and diabetic foot screening (-22.8, -33.9 to -11.7). Substantial reductions were, however, also observed for intermediate outcomes, including blood pressure control in patients with peripheral arterial disease (-18.5, -22.1 to -14.9), stroke or transient ischaemic attack (-16.6, -20.6 to -12.7), hypertension (-13.7, -19.4 to -7.9), diabetes (-12.7, -15.0 to -12.4), or coronary heart disease (-12.8, -14.9 to -10.8), and for glycated haemoglobin control in people with HbA1c levels ≤75 mmol/mol (-5.0, -8.4 to -1.5). No significant differences were observed between Scotland and England for influenza immunisation and antiplatelet or anticoagulant treatment for coronary heart disease three years after withdrawal of incentives. CONCLUSION: The abolition of financial incentives in Scotland was associated with reductions in recorded quality of care for most performance indicators. Changes to pay for performance should be carefully designed and implemented to monitor and respond to any reductions in care quality.

Cardiovascular Safety in Type 2 Diabetes With Sulfonylureas as Second-line Drugs: A Nationwide Population-Based Comparative Safety Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world cardiovascular (CV) safety for sulfonylureas (SU), in comparison with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and thiazolidinediones (TZD), through development of robust methodology for causal inference in a whole nation study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cohort study was performed including people with type 2 diabetes diagnosed in Scotland before 31 December 2017, who failed to reach HbA1c 48 mmol/mol despite metformin monotherapy and initiated second-line pharmacotherapy (SU/DPP4i/TZD) on or after 1 January 2010. The primary outcome was composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including hospitalization for myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure, and CV death. Secondary outcomes were each individual end point and all-cause death. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and an instrumental variable (IV) approach were used to control confounding in a similar way to the randomization process in a randomized control trial. RESULTS: Comparing SU to non-SU (DPP4i/TZD), the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.91-1.09) from the multivariable Cox regression and 1.02 (0.91-1.13) and 1.03 (0.91-1.16) using two different IVs. For all-cause death, the HR from Cox regression and the two IV analyses was 1.03 (0.94-1.13), 1.04 (0.93-1.17), and 1.03 (0.90-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to the understanding that second-line SU for glucose lowering are unlikely to increase CV risk or all-cause mortality. Given their potent efficacy, microvascular benefits, cost effectiveness, and widespread use, this study supports that SU should remain a part of the global diabetes treatment portfolio.

Derivation and validation of the CFracture competing risk fracture prediction tool compared with QFracture in older people and people with comorbidity: a population cohort study.

BACKGROUND: UK guidelines recommend the QFracture tool to predict the risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, but QFracture calibration is poor, partly because it does not account for competing mortality risk. The aim of this study was to derive and validate a competing risk model to predict major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture (CFracture) and compare its performance with that of QFracture in UK primary care. METHODS: We used UK linked primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database to identify people aged 30-99 years, split into derivation and validation cohorts. In the derivation cohort, we derived models (CFracture) using the same covariates as QFracture with Fine-Gray competing risk modelling, and included the Charlson Comorbidity Index score as an additional predictor of non-fracture death. In a separate validation cohort, we examined discrimination (using Harrell's C-statistic) and calibration of CFracture compared with QFracture. Reclassification analysis examined differences in the characteristics of patients reclassified as higher risk by CFracture but not by QFracture. FINDINGS: The derivation cohort included 1 831 606 women and 1 789 820 men, and the validation cohort included 915 803 women and 894 910 men. Overall discrimination of CFracture was excellent (C-statistic=0·813 [95% CI 0·810-0·816] for major osteoporotic fracture and 0·914 [0·908-0·919] for hip fracture in women; 0·734 [0·729-0·740] for major osteoporotic fracture and 0·886 [0·877-0·895] for hip fracture in men) and was similar to QFracture. CFracture calibration overall and in people younger than 75 years was generally excellent. CFracture overpredicted major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture in older people and people with comorbidity, but was better calibrated than QFracture. Patients classified as high-risk by CFracture but not by QFracture had a higher prevalence of current smoking and previous fracture, but lower prevalence of dementia, cancer, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and diabetes. INTERPRETATION: CFracture has similar discrimination to QFracture but is better calibrated overall and in younger people. Both models performed poorly in adults aged 85 years and older. Competing risk models should be recommended for fracture risk prediction to guide treatment recommendations. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research, Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on secondary care for cardiovascular disease in the UK: an electronic health record analysis across three countries.

BACKGROUND: Although morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 have been widely reported, the indirect effects of the pandemic beyond 2020 on other major diseases and health service activity have not been well described. METHODS AND RESULTS: Analyses used national administrative electronic hospital records in England, Scotland, and Wales for 2016-21. Admissions and procedures during the pandemic (2020-21) related to six major cardiovascular conditions [acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure (HF), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), aortic aneurysm (AA), and venous thromboembolism(VTE)] were compared with the annual average in the pre-pandemic period (2016-19). Differences were assessed by time period and urgency of care.In 2020, there were 31 064 (-6%) fewer hospital admissions [14 506 (-4%) fewer emergencies, 16 560 (-23%) fewer elective admissions] compared with 2016-19 for the six major cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) combined. The proportional reduction in admissions was similar in all three countries. Overall, hospital admissions returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021. Elective admissions remained substantially below expected levels for almost all conditions in all three countries [-10 996 (-15%) fewer admissions]. However, these reductions were offset by higher than expected total emergency admissions [+25 878 (+6%) higher admissions], notably for HF and stroke in England, and for VTE in all three countries. Analyses for procedures showed similar temporal variations to admissions. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights increasing emergency cardiovascular admissions during the pandemic, in the context of a substantial and sustained reduction in elective admissions and procedures. This is likely to increase further the demands on cardiovascular services over the coming years.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without asthma from the United States, South Korea, and Europe.

Objective: Large international comparisons describing the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 are limited. The aim of the study was to perform a large-scale descriptive characterization of COVID-19 patients with asthma.Methods: We included nine databases contributing data from January to June 2020 from the US, South Korea (KR), Spain, UK and the Netherlands. We defined two cohorts of COVID-19 patients ('diagnosed' and 'hospitalized') based on COVID-19 disease codes. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes in people with asthma defined by codes and prescriptions.Results: The diagnosed and hospitalized cohorts contained 666,933 and 159,552 COVID-19 patients respectively. Exacerbation in people with asthma was recorded in 1.6-8.6% of patients at presentation. Asthma prevalence ranged from 6.2% (95% CI 5.7-6.8) to 18.5% (95% CI 18.2-18.8) in the diagnosed cohort and 5.2% (95% CI 4.0-6.8) to 20.5% (95% CI 18.6-22.6) in the hospitalized cohort. Asthma patients with COVID-19 had high prevalence of comorbidity including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality ranged from 2.1% (95% CI 1.8-2.4) to 16.9% (95% CI 13.8-20.5) and similar or lower compared to COVID-19 patients without asthma. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 15-30% of hospitalized COVID-19 asthma patients.Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma among COVID-19 patients varies internationally. Asthma patients with COVID-19 have high comorbidity. The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation was low. Whilst mortality was similar among COVID-19 patients with and without asthma, this could be confounded by differences in clinical characteristics. Further research could help identify high-risk asthma patients.[Box: see text]Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2025392 .

Changing co-morbidity and increasing deprivation among people living with HIV: UK population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The great success of HIV treatments means that, increasingly, people living with HIV (PLHIV) are growing old enough to develop age-associated comorbid conditions. We investigated the evolution of comorbid conditions and demographics among PLHIV in England. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study linking Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care, hospitalization, death registry and Index of Multiple Deprivation data, we measured the prevalence of 304 individual health conditions, categorized into 47 condition groups (36 non-communicable, 11 communicable). Using logistic regression, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) for the likelihood of each condition and condition group in 2015 versus 2008, adjusting for age, sex and deprivation. RESULTS: In 2015, there were 964 CPRD-registered PLHIV compared with 1987 in 2008; 62% were male and 38% female in both cohorts. The 2015 cohort was older, with 51.1% aged 45-64 years and 7.2% aged 65-84 years compared with 31.8% and 3.2%, respectively, in 2008. Deprivation was higher in 2015, at 23.9% (quintile 4) and 28.7% (quintile 5) compared with 5.8% and 6.6%, respectively, in 2008. Of 36 non-communicable condition groups, 14 (39%) occurred in ≥ 10% of PLHIV in 2015, of which seven were more likely in 2015 than in 2008: renal-chronic-kidney-disease [odds ratio (OR) = 1.96 (95% CI: 1.33-2.90); endocrine-obesity [OR = 1.76 (1.12-2.77)]; rheumatology [OR = 1.64 (1.30-2.07)]; dermatology [OR = 1.55(1.29-1.85)]; genito-urinary-gynaecological [OR = 1.44(1.18-1.76)]; eyes-ears/nose/throat [OR = 1.31(1.08-1.59)]; and gastro-intestinal conditions [OR = 1.28 (1.04-1.58)]. Two condition groups, respiratory-chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease [OR = 0.36 (0.19-0.69)] and endocrine-diabetes [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.70)], were less likely in 2015. Ten out of 11 communicable infectious condition groups were less likely in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Although infections in PLHIV have fallen, chronic non-communicable comorbidity is increasingly prevalent. Alongside the marked increases in deprivation and ageing, this study suggests that socio-economic measures in addition to healthcare provision are needed to achieve holistic health for PLHIV.

Assessing the impact of a national clinical guideline for the management of chronic pain on opioid prescribing rates: a controlled interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Opioids can be effective analgesics, but long-term use may be associated with harms. In 2013, the first national, comprehensive, evidence-based pain management guideline was published, from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN 136: Management of Chronic Pain) with key recommendations on analgesic prescribing. This study aimed to examine the potential impact on national opioid prescribing rates in Scotland. METHODS: Trends in national and regional community opioid prescribing data for Scotland were analysed from quarter one (Q1) 2005 to Q2 2020. Interrupted time series regression examined the association of SIGN 136 publication with prescribing rates for opioid-containing drugs. Gabapentinoid prescribing was used as a comparison drug. RESULTS: After a positive prescribing trend pre-publication, the timing of SIGN 136 publication was associated with a negative change in the trend of opioid prescribing rates (-2.82 items per 1000 population per quarter [PTPPQ]; P < 0.01). By Q2 2020, the relative reduction in the opioid prescribing rate was -20.67% (95% CI: -23.61, -17.76). This persisted after correcting for gabapentinoid prescribing and was mainly driven by the reduction in weak opioids, whereas strong opioid prescribing rates continued to rise. Gabapentinoid prescribing showed a significant rise in level (8.00 items per 1000 population; P = 0.01) and trend (0.27 items PTPPQ; P = 0.01) following SIGN 136 publication. CONCLUSIONS: The publication of SIGN 136 was associated with a reduction in opioid prescribing rates. This suggests that changes in clinical policy through evidence-based national clinical guidelines may affect community opioid prescribing, though this may be partially replaced by gabapentinoids, and other factors may also contribute.

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes-diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services-using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis. Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89-1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71-1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services. Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers-further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.

Patient outcomes following AKI and AKD: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common and associated with adverse outcomes as well as important healthcare costs. However, evidence examining the epidemiology of acute kidney disease (AKD)-recently defined as AKI persisting between 7 and 90 days-remains limited. The aims of this study were to establish the rates of early AKI recovery, progression to AKD and non-recovery; examine risk factors associated with non-recovery and investigate the association between recovery timing and adverse outcomes, in a population-based cohort. METHODS: All adult residents of Tayside & Fife, Scotland, UK, with at least one episode of community or hospital-managed AKI using KDIGO creatinine-based definition during the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018 were identified. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with non-recovery, and Cox modelling was used to establish associations between AKI recovery timing and risks of mortality and development of de novo CKD. RESULTS: Over 9 years, 56,906 patients with at least one AKI episode were identified with 18,773 (33%) of these progressing to AKD. Of those progressing to AKD, 5059 (27%) had still not recovered at day 90 post AKI diagnosis. Risk factors for AKD included: increasing AKI severity, pre-existing cancer or chronic heart failure and recent use of loop diuretics. Compared with early AKI recovery, progression to AKD was associated with increased hazard of 1-year mortality and de novo CKD (HR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.26 and HR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 2.57 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of early AKI recognition and management to avoid progression to AKD and long-term adverse outcomes.