Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study.

Aim: This simulation study is to assess the utility of physician's prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable for moderate and smaller sample sizes. Materials & methods: We designed a simulation study to imitate a comparative effectiveness research under different sample sizes. We compare the performance of instrumental variable (IV) and non-IV approaches using two-stage least squares (2SLS) and ordinary least squares (OLS) methods, respectively. Further, we test the performance of different forms of proxies for PPP as an IV. Results: The percent bias of 2SLS is around approximately 20%, while the percent bias of OLS is close to 60%. The sample size is not associated with the level of bias for the PPP IV approach. Conclusion: Irrespective of sample size, the PPP IV approach leads to less biased estimates of treatment effectiveness than OLS adjusting for known confounding only. Particularly for smaller sample sizes, we recommend constructing PPP from long prescribing histories to improve statistical power.

An observational analysis of frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation and their association with socioeconomic deprivation, hospitalisation and mortality among UK Biobank participants.

Frailty, social isolation, and loneliness have individually been associated with adverse health outcomes. This study examines how frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation is associated with socioeconomic deprivation and with all-cause mortality and hospitalisation rate in a middle-aged and older population. Baseline data from 461,047 UK Biobank participants (aged 37-73) were used to assess frailty (frailty phenotype), social isolation, and loneliness. Weibull models assessed the association between frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation and all-cause mortality adjusted for age/sex/smoking/alcohol/socioeconomic-status and number of long-term conditions. Negative binomial regression models assessed hospitalisation rate. Frailty prevalence was 3.38%, loneliness 4.75% and social isolation 9.04%. Frailty was present across all ages and increased with age. Loneliness and social isolation were more common in younger participants compared to older. Co-occurrence of frailty and loneliness or social isolation was most common in participants with high socioeconomic deprivation. Frailty was associated with increased mortality and hospitalisation regardless of social isolation/loneliness. Hazard ratios for mortality were 2.47 (2.27-2.69) with social isolation and 2.17 (2.05-2.29) without social isolation, 2.14 (1.92-2.38) with loneliness and 2.16 (2.05-2.27) without loneliness. Loneliness and social isolation were associated with mortality and hospitalisation in robust participants, but this was attenuated in the context of frailty. Frailty and loneliness/social isolation affect individuals across a wide age spectrum and disproportionately co-occur in areas of high deprivation. All were associated with adverse outcomes, but the association between loneliness and social isolation and adverse outcomes was attenuated in the context of frailty. Future interventions should target people living with frailty or loneliness/social isolation, regardless of age.

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.

Correlations between comorbidities in trials and the community: An individual-level participant data meta-analysis.

Background: People with comorbidities are under-represented in randomised controlled trials, and it is unknown whether patterns of comorbidity are similar in trials and the community. Methods: Individual-level participant data were obtained for 83 clinical trials (54,688 participants) for 16 index conditions from two trial repositories: Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) and the Centre for Global Clinical Research Data (Vivli). Community data (860,177 individuals) were extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank for the same index conditions. Comorbidities were defined using concomitant medications. For each index condition, we estimated correlations between comorbidities separately in trials and community data. For the six commonest comorbidities we estimated all pairwise correlations using Bayesian multivariate probit models, conditioning on age and sex. Correlation estimates from trials with the same index condition were combined into a single estimate. We then compared the trial and community estimates for each index condition. Results: Despite a higher prevalence of comorbidities in the community than in trials, the correlations between comorbidities were mostly similar in both settings. On comparing correlations between the community and trials, 21% of correlations were stronger in the community, 10% were stronger in the trials and 68% were similar in both. In the community, 5% of correlations were negative, 21% were null, 56% were weakly positive and 18% were strongly positive. Equivalent results for the trials were 11%, 33%, 45% and 10% respectively. Conclusions: Comorbidity correlations are generally similar in both the trials and community, providing some evidence for the reporting of comorbidity-specific findings from clinical trials.

Validating the SMART2 Score in a Racially Diverse High-Risk Nationwide Cohort of Patients Receiving Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Background We tested the potential of the Secondary Manifestations of Arterial Disease (SMART2) risk score for use in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods and Results We conducted an external validation of the SMART2 score in a racially diverse high-risk national cohort (2010-2019) that underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. We calculated the preoperative SMART2 score and modeled the 5-year major adverse cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality+myocardial infarction+stroke) incidence. We evaluated SMART2 score discrimination at 5 years using c-statistic and calibration with observed/expected ratio and calibration plots. We analyzed the potential clinical benefit using decision curves. We repeated these analyses in clinical subgroups, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and polyvascular disease, and separately in White and Black patients. In 27 443 (mean age, 65 years; 10% Black individuals) US veterans undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (2010-2019) nationwide, the 5-year major adverse cardiovascular event rate was 25%; 27% patients were in high predicted risk (>30% 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events). SMART2 score discrimination (c-statistic: 64) was comparable to the original study (c-statistic: 67) and was best in patients with chronic kidney disease (c-statistic: 66). However, it underpredicted major adverse cardiovascular event rates in the whole cohort (observed/expected ratio, 1.45) as well as in all studied subgroups. The SMART2 score performed better in White than Black patients. On decision curve analysis, the SMART2 score provides a net benefit over a wide range of risk thresholds. Conclusions The SMART2 model performs well in a racially diverse coronary artery bypass grafting cohort, with better predictive capabilities at the upper range of baseline risk, and can therefore be used to guide secondary preventive pharmacotherapy.

Transportability of two heart failure trials to a disease registry using individual patient data.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials are the gold-standard for determining therapeutic efficacy, but are often unrepresentative of real-world settings. Statistical transportation methods (hereafter transportation) can partially account for these differences, improving trial applicability without breaking randomization. We transported treatment effects from two heart failure (HF) trials to a HF registry. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individual-patient-level data from two trials (Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET), comparing carvedilol and metoprolol, and digitalis investigation group trial (DIG), comparing digoxin and placebo) and a Scottish HF registry were obtained. The primary end point for both trials was all-cause mortality; composite outcomes were all-cause mortality or hospitalization for COMET and HF-related death or hospitalization for DIG. We performed transportation using regression-based and inverse odds of sampling weights (IOSW) approaches. RESULTS: Registry patients were older, had poorer renal function and received higher-doses of loop-diuretics than trial participants. For each trial, point estimates were similar for the original and IOSW (e.g., DIG composite outcome: OR 0.75 (0.69, 0.82) vs. 0.73 (0.64, 0.83)). Treatment effect estimates were also similar when examining high-risk (0.64 (0.46, 0.89)) and low-risk registry patients (0.73 (0.61, 0.86)). Similar results were obtained using regression-based transportation. CONCLUSION: Regression-based or IOSW approaches can be used to transport trial effect estimates to patients administrative/registry data, with only moderate reductions in precision.

Bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents, and insulin for type 2 diabetes and obesity: Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents (SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i), and insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to April 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bariatric surgery, SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, insulin, and/or placebo/usual care among patients with T2DM and obesity in the achievement of HbA1c < 7.0 per cent within one year, and 12-month changes in HbA1c and body weight. RESULTS: A total of 376 eligible RCTs (149 824 patients) were analysed. Bariatric surgery had significantly higher rates of achieving HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than SGLT2i (RR = 2.46, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.28, 4.92), DPP4i (RR = 2.59, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.36, 5.13), insulin (RR = 2.27, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.18, 4.58) and placebo/usual care (RR = 4.02, 95 per cent c.i. = 2.13, 7.93), but had no statistically significant difference from GLP1RA (RR = 1.73, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.91, 3.44), regardless of oral (RR = 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.66, 2.79) or injectable (RR = 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.92, 3.45) administration. Significantly more GLP1RA patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than other non-surgical treatments. Bariatric surgery had the greatest reductions in HbA1c (∼1 per cent more) and body weight (∼15 kg more) at 12 months. Among novel glucose-lowering medications, GLP1RA was associated with greater reductions in HbA1c than SGLT2i (-0.39 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.55, -0.22) and DPP4i (-0.51 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.64, -0.39) at 12 months, while GLP1RA (-1.74 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -2.48, -1.01) and SGLT2i (-2.23 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -3.07, -1.39) showed greater reductions in body weight than DPP4i at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery showed superiority in glycaemic control and weight management compared to non-surgical approaches. GLP1RA administered by oral or injectable form demonstrated reduced HbA1c and body weight at 12 months, and was preferable over other non-surgical treatments among patients with T2DM and obesity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42020201507.

Frailty in randomised controlled trials for dementia or mild cognitive impairment measured via the frailty index: prevalence and prediction of serious adverse events and attrition.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and dementia have a bidirectional relationship. However, frailty is rarely reported in clinical trials for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) which limits assessment of trial applicability. This study aimed to use a frailty index (FI)-a cumulative deficit model of frailty-to measure frailty using individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials for MCI and dementia. Moreover, the study aimed to quantify the prevalence of frailty and its association with serious adverse events (SAEs) and trial attrition. METHODS: We analysed IPD from dementia (n = 1) and MCI (n = 2) trials. An FI comprising physical deficits was created for each trial using baseline IPD. Poisson and logistic regression were used to examine associations with SAEs and attrition, respectively. Estimates were pooled in random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were repeated using an FI incorporating cognitive as well as physical deficits, and results compared. RESULTS: Frailty could be estimated in all trial participants. The mean physical FI was 0.14 (SD 0.06) and 0.14 (SD 0.06) in the MCI trials and 0.24 (SD 0.08) in the dementia trial. Frailty prevalence (FI > 0.24) was 6.9%/7.6% in MCI trials and 48.6% in the dementia trial. After including cognitive deficits, the prevalence was similar in MCI (6.1% and 6.7%) but higher in dementia (75.4%). The 99th percentile of FI (0.31 and 0.30 in MCI, 0.44 in dementia) was lower than in most general population studies. Frailty was associated with SAEs: physical FI IRR = 1.60 [1.40, 1.82]; physical/cognitive FI IRR = 1.64 [1.42, 1.88]. In a meta-analysis of all three trials, the estimated association between frailty and trial attrition included the null (physical FI OR = 1.17 [0.92, 1.48]; physical/cognitive FI OR = 1.16 [0.92, 1.46]), although higher frailty index values were associated with attrition in the dementia trial. CONCLUSION: Measuring frailty from baseline IPD in dementia and MCI trials is feasible. Those living with more severe frailty may be under-represented. Frailty is associated with SAEs. Including only physical deficits may underestimate frailty in dementia. Frailty can and should be measured in future and existing trials for dementia and MCI, and efforts should be made to facilitate inclusion of people living with frailty.

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.

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.

Sex Differences in Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients Hospitalized With Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

Background Important disparities in the treatment and outcomes of women and men with atrial fibrillation (AF) are well recognized. Whether introduction of direct oral anticoagulants has reduced disparities in treatment is uncertain. Methods and Results All patients who had an incident hospitalization from 2010 to 2019 with nonvalvular AF in Scotland were included in the present cohort study. Community drug dispensing data were used to determine prescribed oral anticoagulation therapy and comorbidity status. Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate patient factors associated with treatment with vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants. A total of 172 989 patients (48% women [82 833 of 172 989]) had an incident hospitalization with nonvalvular AF in Scotland between 2010 and 2019. By 2019, factor Xa inhibitors accounted for 83.6% of all oral anticoagulants prescribed, while treatment with vitamin K antagonists and direct thrombin inhibitors declined to 15.9% and 0.6%, respectively. Women were less likely to be prescribed any oral anticoagulation therapy compared with men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.67-0.70]). This disparity was mainly attributed to vitamin K antagonists (aOR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.66-0.70]), while there was less disparity in the use of factor Xa inhibitors between women and men (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.95]). Conclusions Women with nonvalvular AF were significantly less likely to be prescribed vitamin K antagonists compared with men. Most patients admitted to the hospital in Scotland with incident nonvalvular AF are now treated with factor Xa inhibitors and this is associated with fewer treatment disparities between women and men.

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).

Relation of Incident Type 1 Diabetes to Recent COVID-19 Infection: Cohort Study Using e-Health Record Linkage in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: Studies using claims databases reported that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection >30 days earlier was associated with an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes. Using exact dates of diabetes diagnosis from the national register in Scotland linked to virology laboratory data, we sought to replicate this finding. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cohort of 1,849,411 individuals aged <35 years without diabetes, including all those in Scotland who subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, was followed from 1 March 2020 to 22 November 2021. Incident type 1 diabetes was ascertained from the national registry. Using Cox regression, we tested the association of time-updated infection with incident diabetes. Trends in incidence of type 1 diabetes in the population from 2015 through 2021 were also estimated in a generalized additive model. RESULTS: There were 365,080 individuals who had at least one detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up and 1,074 who developed type 1 diabetes. The rate ratio for incident type 1 diabetes associated with first positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (reference category: no previous infection) was 0.86 (95% CI 0.62, 1.21) for infection >30 days earlier and 2.62 (95% CI 1.81, 3.78) for infection in the previous 30 days. However, negative and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were more frequent in the days surrounding diabetes presentation. In those aged 0-14 years, incidence of type 1 diabetes during 2020-2021 was 20% higher than the 7-year average. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 diabetes incidence in children increased during the pandemic. However, the cohort analysis suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection itself was not the cause of this increase.

Novel multimorbidity clusters in people with eczema and asthma: a population-based cluster analysis.

Eczema and asthma are allergic diseases and two of the commonest chronic conditions in high-income countries. Their co-existence with other allergic conditions is common, but little research exists on wider multimorbidity with these conditions. We set out to identify and compare clusters of multimorbidity in people with eczema or asthma and people without. Using routinely-collected primary care data from the U.K. Clinical Research Practice Datalink GOLD, we identified adults ever having eczema (or asthma), and comparison groups never having eczema (or asthma). We derived clusters of multimorbidity from hierarchical cluster analysis of Jaccard distances between pairs of diagnostic categories estimated from mixed-effects logistic regressions. We analysed 434,422 individuals with eczema (58% female, median age 47 years) and 1,333,281 individuals without (55% female, 47 years), and 517,712 individuals with asthma (53% female, 44 years) and 1,601,210 individuals without (53% female, 45 years). Age at first morbidity, sex and having eczema/asthma affected the scope of multimorbidity, with women, older age and eczema/asthma being associated with larger morbidity clusters. Injuries, digestive, nervous system and mental health disorders were more commonly seen in eczema and asthma than control clusters. People with eczema and asthma of all ages and both sexes may experience greater multimorbidity than people without eczema and asthma, including conditions not previously recognised as contributing to their disease burden. This work highlights areas where there is a critical need for research addressing the burden and drivers of multimorbidity in order to inform strategies to reduce poor health outcomes.

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.

Trends in Prescriptions of Cardioprotective Diabetic Agents After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Among U.S. Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are at risk for cardiovascular events. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 receptor inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are effective cardioprotective agents; however, their prescription among CABG patients is uncertain. The aims of this study were 1) to evaluate the overall use of SGLT2i/GLP-1RA after CABG and explore longitudinal trends and 2) to examine patient-related factors associated with the use of SGLT2i or GLP-1RA. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) database (2016-2019) to report trends and factors associated with SGLT2i or GLP-1RA prescription after CABG. RESULTS: Among 5,109 patients operated on at 40 different VA medical centers, 525 of 5,109 (10.4%), 352 of 5,109 (6.8%), and 91 of 5,109 (1.8%) were prescribed SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, and both, respectively. A substantial increase in the quarterly SGLT2i prescription rates (1.6% [first quarter of 2016 (2016Q1)], 33% [2019Q4]) was present but was lower for GLP-1RA (0.8% [2016Q1], 11.2% [2019Q4]). SGLT2i use was less likely with preexisting vascular disease (odd ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.75, 0.94) or kidney disease (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58, 0.88), while GLP-1RA use was associated with obesity (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.50, 2.46). CONCLUSIONS: The overall utilization of SGLT2i or GLP-1RA drugs in U.S. veterans with type 2 diabetes undergoing CABG is low, with SGLT2i preferred over GLP-1RA.

Frailty in COPD: an analysis of prevalence and clinical impact using UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Frailty, a state of reduced physiological reserve, is common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Frailty can occur at any age; however, the implications in younger people (eg, aged <65 years) with COPD are unclear. We assessed the prevalence of frailty in UK Biobank participants with COPD; explored relationships between frailty and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and quantified the association between frailty and adverse outcomes. METHODS: UK Biobank participants (n=3132, recruited 2006-2010) with COPD aged 40-70 years were analysed comparing two frailty measures (frailty phenotype and frailty index) at baseline. Relationship with FEV1 was assessed for each measure. Outcomes were mortality, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), all-cause hospitalisation, hospitalisation with COPD exacerbation and community COPD exacerbation over 8 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Frailty was common by both definitions (17% frail using frailty phenotype, 28% moderate and 4% severely frail using frailty index). The frailty phenotype, but not the frailty index, was associated with lower FEV1. Frailty phenotype (frail vs robust) was associated with mortality (HR 2.33; 95% CI 1.84 to 2.96), MACE (2.73; 1.66 to 4.49), hospitalisation (incidence rate ratio 3.39; 2.77 to 4.14) hospitalised exacerbation (5.19; 3.80 to 7.09) and community exacerbation (2.15; 1.81 to 2.54), as was frailty index (severe vs robust) (mortality (2.65; 95% CI 1.75 to 4.02), MACE (6.76; 2.68 to 17.04), hospitalisation (3.69; 2.52 to 5.42), hospitalised exacerbation (4.26; 2.37 to 7.68) and community exacerbation (2.39; 1.74 to 3.28)). These relationships were similar before and after adjustment for FEV1. CONCLUSION: Frailty, regardless of age or measure, identifies people with COPD at risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Frailty assessment may aid risk stratification and guide-targeted intervention in COPD and should not be limited to people aged >65 years.