Comparison of Interventions for Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Pain Outcome.

PURPOSE: There is controversy regarding the optimal treatment for lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET), and not all available treatment options have been compared directly with placebo/control. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of different LET treatments directly and indirectly against control/placebo based on a validated outcome, the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) pain score. METHODS: Randomized, controlled trials comparing different treatment methods for LET were included, provided they reported outcome data using the PRTEE pain score. A network meta-analysis with random effect was used to combine direct and indirect evidence between treatments compared with placebo in the short term (up to six weeks) and midterm (more than six weeks and up to six months) after intervention. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 12 comparators including control/placebo were eligible. The results indicated no significant improvement in PRTEE pain score in the short term across all treatments compared with control/placebo. In the midterm, physiotherapy/exercise showed benefit against placebo (mean difference: -4.32, 95% confidence interval: -7.58 and -1.07). Although steroid injections, dry needling, and autologous blood also exhibited potential treatment effects, it is crucial for the clinician to consider certain pitfalls when considering these treatments. The limited number of small studies and paucity of data call for caution in interpreting the results and need for further evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should be informed that there is currently no strong evidence that any treatment produces more rapid improvement in pain symptoms when compared with control/placebo in the short and medium terms. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Acceptability of virtual psychiatric consultations for routine follow-ups post COVID-19 pandemic for people with intellectual disabilities: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: After the rapid implementation of digital health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, a paucity of research exists about the suitability of remote consulting in people with intellectual disabilities and their carers, particularly for neuropsychiatric reviews. AIM: This study examines when remote neuropsychiatric routine consulting is suitable for this population. METHOD: A survey was conducted of people with intellectual disabilities and their carers, examining their preference between face-to-face and video consultations for ongoing neuropsychiatric reviews within a rural countywide intellectual disability service in Cornwall, England (population: 538 000). The survey was sent to all adults with intellectual disabilities open to the service on 30 July 2022, closing on 30 September 2022. Participants were asked to provide responses on 11 items predesigned and co-produced between clinicians and experts by experience. The entire service caseload of people had White ethnicity, reflecting the ethnic demographics of Cornwall. Responses received without consent were excluded from the study dataset. RESULTS: Of 271 eligible participants, 119 responses were received, 104 of whom consented to having their anonymised data used for research analysis. There were no significant differences between preferences and age and gender variables. There was no statistically significant difference regarding preference for the reintroduction of face-to-face appointments (52.0%) compared with video consultations (48.0%). Travel distance (>10 miles) to the clinical setting was important but did not outweigh benefits for those preferring a face-to-face appointment. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers insights into the factors that influence preferences about what type of neuropsychiatric appointment is most suitable for people with intellectual disabilities.

Impact of vaccination on the association of COVID-19 with cardiovascular diseases: An OpenSAFELY cohort study.

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombotic events, but the implications of vaccination for this increased risk are uncertain. With the approval of NHS England, we quantified associations between COVID-19 diagnosis and cardiovascular diseases in different vaccination and variant eras using linked electronic health records for ~40% of the English population. We defined a 'pre-vaccination' cohort (18,210,937 people) in the wild-type/Alpha variant eras (January 2020-June 2021), and 'vaccinated' and 'unvaccinated' cohorts (13,572,399 and 3,161,485 people respectively) in the Delta variant era (June-December 2021). We showed that the incidence of each arterial thrombotic, venous thrombotic and other cardiovascular outcomes was substantially elevated during weeks 1-4 after COVID-19, compared with before or without COVID-19, but less markedly elevated in time periods beyond week 4. Hazard ratios were higher after hospitalised than non-hospitalised COVID-19 and higher in the pre-vaccination and unvaccinated cohorts than the vaccinated cohort. COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of cardiovascular events after COVID-19 infection. People who had COVID-19 before or without being vaccinated are at higher risk of cardiovascular events for at least two years.

Association between ethnicity and migration status with the prevalence of single and multiple long-term conditions in UK healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers' (HCW) well-being has a direct effect on patient care. However, little is known about the prevalence and patterns of long-term medical conditions in HCWs, especially those from ethnic minorities. This study evaluated the burden of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), i.e. the presence of two or more single long-term conditions (LTCs), among HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) and variation by ethnicity and migration status. METHODS: We used baseline data from the UK-REACH cohort study collected December 2020-March 2021. We used multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographic, occupational and lifestyle factors to examine the relationship between self-reported LTCs/MLTCs and ethnicity, migration status and time since migration to the UK. RESULTS: Of 12,100 included HCWs, with a median age of 45 years (IQR: 34-54), 27% were overseas-born, and 30% were from non-White ethnic groups (19% Asian, 4% Black, 4% Mixed, 2% Other). The most common self-reported LTCs were anxiety (14.9%), asthma (12.2%), depression (10.7%), hypertension (8.7%) and diabetes (4.0%). Mental health conditions were more prevalent among UK-born than overseas-born HCWs for all ethnic groups (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) using White UK-born as the reference group each time: White overseas-born 0.77, 95%CI 0.66-0.95 for anxiety). Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Asian (e.g. Asian overseas, diabetes aOR 2.97, 95%CI 2.30-3.83) and Black (e.g. Black UK-born, hypertension aOR 1.77, 95%CI 1.05-2.99) groups than White UK-born. After adjustment for age, sex and deprivation, the odds of reporting MLTCs were lower in most ethnic minority groups and lowest for those born overseas, compared to White UK-born (e.g. White overseas-born, aOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.55-0.83; Asian overseas-born aOR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.90; Black overseas-born aOR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36-0.74). The odds of MLTCs in overseas-born HCWs were equivalent to the UK-born population in those who had settled in the UK for ≥ 20 years (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 0.94-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: Among UK HCWs, the prevalence of common LTCs and odds of reporting MLTCs varied by ethnicity and migrant status. The lower odds of MLTCs in migrant HCWs reverted to the odds of MLTCs in UK-born HCWs over time. Further research on this population should include longitudinal studies with linkage to healthcare records. Interventions should be co-developed with HCWs from different ethnic and migrant groups focussed upon patterns of conditions prevalent in specific HCW subgroups to reduce the overall burden of LTCs/MLTCs.

Incorporation of patient and public involvement in statistical methodology research: a survey assessing current practices and attitudes of researchers.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is designed and conducted in a manner that is most beneficial to the individuals whom it will impact. It has an undisputed place in applied research and is required by many funding bodies. However, PPI in statistical methodology research is more challenging and work is needed to identify where and how patients and the public can meaningfully input in this area. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted using an online questionnaire, which asked statistical methodologists about themselves and their experience conducting PPI, either to inform a grant application or during a funded statistical methodology project. The survey included both closed-text responses, which were reported using summary statistics, and open-ended questions for which common themes were identified. RESULTS: 119 complete responses were recorded. Individuals who completed the survey displayed an even range of ages, career lengths and positions, with the majority working in academia. 40.3% of participants reported undertaking PPI to inform a grant application and the majority reported that the inclusion of PPI was received positively by the funder. Only 21.0% of participants reported undertaking PPI during a methodological project. 31.0% of individuals thought that PPI was "very" or "extremely" relevant to statistical methodology research, with 45.5% responding "somewhat" and 24.4% answering "not at all" or "not very". Arguments for including PPI were that it can provide the motivation for research and shape the research question. Negative opinions included that it is too technical for the public to understand, so they cannot have a meaningful impact. CONCLUSIONS: This survey found that the views of statistical methodologists on the inclusion of PPI in their research are varied, with some individuals having particularly strong opinions, both positive and negative. Whilst this is clearly a divisive topic, one commonly identified theme was that many researchers are willing to try and incorporate meaningful PPI into their research but would feel more confident if they had access to resources such as specialised training, guidelines, and case studies.

Patient and public involvement (or PPI) means researchers working in partnership with patients and the public in any part of research. It can include helping decide what the research question is, how to pass on results to the public, and telling researchers what areas are most important to patients and the public. Statistical methods are the tools we use to analyse data. Statistical methodology research involves making sure these tools use our healthcare data in the best way. PPI is essential in health research and is becoming more common in statistical methodology research. But it can be hard to know how to include patients and the public in statistical methodology research. It may seem complex and not directly related to patients. This paper describes the results from a survey we did about the experiences of researchers who have carried out PPI for statistical methodology research. We asked them what they think about it, and how it affects their research. We also asked if they feel confident including PPI in their research, and whether they are given enough help. Researchers had different views about PPI for statistical methodology research. Some people thought PPI was very important in their research, but others weren't sure. Many people said that they would like more help such as training and guidelines to help them do better PPI in the future.

Using the kidney failure risk equation to predict end-stage kidney disease in CKD patients of South Asian ethnicity: an external validation study.

BACKGROUND: The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) predicts the 2- and 5-year risk of needing kidney replacement therapy (KRT) using four risk factors - age, sex, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) and creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Although the KFRE has been recalibrated in a UK cohort, this did not consider minority ethnic groups. Further validation of the KFRE in different ethnicities is a research priority. The KFRE also does not consider the competing risk of death, which may lead to overestimation of KRT risk. This study externally validates the KFRE for patients of South Asian ethnicity and compares methods for accounting for ethnicity and the competing event of death. METHODS: Data were gathered from an established UK cohort containing 35,539 individuals diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. The KFRE was externally validated and updated in several ways taking into account ethnicity, using recognised methods for time-to-event data, including the competing risk of death. A clinical impact assessment compared the updated models through consideration of referrals made to secondary care. RESULTS: The external validation showed the risk of KRT differed by ethnicity. Model validation performance improved when incorporating ethnicity and its interactions with ACR and eGFR as additional risk factors. Furthermore, accounting for the competing risk of death improved prediction. Using criteria of 5 years ≥ 5% predicted KRT risk, the competing risks model resulted in an extra 3 unnecessary referrals (0.59% increase) but identified an extra 1 KRT case (1.92% decrease) compared to the previous best model. Hybrid criteria of predicted risk using the competing risks model and ACR ≥ 70 mg/mmol should be used in referrals to secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of KFRE prediction improves when updated to consider South Asian ethnicity and to account for the competing risk of death. This may reduce unnecessary referrals whilst identifying risks of KRT and could further individualise the KFRE and improve its clinical utility. Further research should consider other ethnicities.

Impact of Patient Body Mass Index on Post-Operative Recovery from Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy.

A longitudinal, descriptive, prospective, and prolective study of individuals with endometrial or cervical cancer/pre-cancer diagnoses and high BMI (over 35 kg/m2) undergoing RH was conducted. Of the 53 participants recruited, 3 (6%) were converted to open surgery. The 50 RH participants had median BMI 42 kg/m2 (range 35 to 60): the range 35-39.9 kg/m2 had 17 cases; the range 40-44.9 kg/m2 had 15 cases; 45-49.9 kg/m2 8 cases; and those ≥50 kg/m2 comprised 10 cases. The mean RH operating time was 128.1 min (SD 25.3) and the median length of hospital stay was 2 days (range 1-14 days). Increased BMI was associated with small, but statistically significant, increases in operating time and anaesthetic time, 65 additional seconds and 37 seconds, respectively, for each unit increase in BMI. The median self-reported time for individuals who underwent RH to return to their pre-operative activity levels was 4 weeks (range 2 to >12 weeks). There was a significant improvement in pain and physical independence scores over time (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively) and no significant difference in scores for overall QOL, pain, or physical independence scores was found between the BMI groups. Patient-reported recovery and quality of life following RH is high in individuals with high BMI (over 35 kg/m2) and does not appear to be impacted by the severity of obesity.

Investigating the impact of financial concerns on symptoms of depression in UK healthcare workers: data from the UK-REACH nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Exploration of the association between financial concerns and depression in UK healthcare workers (HCWs) is paramount given the current 'cost of living crisis', ongoing strike action and recruitment/retention problems in the National Health Service. AIMS: To assess the impact of financial concerns on the risk of depression in HCWs, how these concerns have changed over time and what factors might predict financial concerns. METHOD: We used longitudinal survey data from a UK-wide cohort of HCWs to determine whether financial concerns at baseline (December 2020 to March 2021) were associated with depression (measured with the Public Health Questionnaire-2) at follow-up (June to October 2022). We used logistic regression to examine the association between financial concerns and depression, and ordinal logistic regression to establish predictors of developing financial concerns. RESULTS: A total of 3521 HCWs were included. Those concerned about their financial situation at baseline had higher odds of developing depressive symptoms at follow-up. Financial concerns increased in 43.8% of HCWs and decreased in 9%. Those in nursing, midwifery and other nursing roles had over twice the odds of developing financial concerns compared with those in medical roles. CONCLUSIONS: Financial concerns are increasing in prevalence and predict the later development of depressive symptoms in UK HCWs. Those in nursing, midwifery and other allied nursing roles may have been disproportionately affected. Our results are concerning given the potential effects on sickness absence and staff retention. Policy makers should act to alleviate financial concerns to reduce the impact this may have on a discontent workforce plagued by understaffing.

Impact of a Prior Cancer Diagnosis on Quality of Care and Survival Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study in England.

BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of patients with cancer experience acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We investigated differences in quality of AMI care and survival between patients with and without previous cancer diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using Virtual Cardio-Oncology Research Initiative data. Patients aged 40+ years hospitalized in England with AMI between January 2010 and March 2018 were assessed, ascertaining previous cancers diagnosed within 15 years. Multivariable regression was used to assess effects of cancer diagnosis, time, stage, and site on international quality indicators and mortality. RESULTS: Of 512 388 patients with AMI (mean age, 69.3 years; 33.5% women), 42 187 (8.2%) had previous cancers. Patients with cancer had significantly lower use of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (mean percentage point decrease [mppd], 2.6% [95% CI, 1.8-3.4]) and lower overall composite care (mppd, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.9-1.6]). Poorer quality indicator attainment was observed in patients with cancer diagnosed in the last year (mppd, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.8-1.0]), with later stage disease (mppd, 2.5% [95% CI, 3.3-1.4]), and with lung cancer (mppd, 2.2% [95% CI, 3.0-1.3]). Twelve-month all-cause survival was 90.5% in noncancer controls and 86.3% in adjusted counterfactual controls. Differences in post-AMI survival were driven by cancer-related deaths. Modeling improving quality indicator attainment to noncancer patient levels showed modest 12-month survival benefits (lung cancer, 0.6%; other cancers, 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of quality of AMI care are poorer in patients with cancer, with lower use of secondary prevention medications. Findings are primarily driven by differences in age and comorbidities between cancer and noncancer populations and attenuated after adjustment. The largest impact was observed in recent cancer diagnoses (<1 year) and lung cancer. Further investigation will determine whether differences reflect appropriate management according to cancer prognosis or whether opportunities to improve AMI outcomes in patients with cancer exist.

Ethnic differences in cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Few studies have compared SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity by ethnic group. We sought to establish whether cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ according to ethnicity in UK Healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used baseline data from two immunological cohort studies conducted in HCWs in Leicester, UK. Blood samples were collected between March 3, and September 16, 2021. We excluded HCW who had not received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of sampling and those who had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific total antibody titre, neutralising antibody titre and ELISpot count. We compared our outcome measures by ethnic group using univariable (t tests and rank-sum tests depending on distribution) and multivariable (linear regression for antibody titres and negative binomial regression for ELISpot counts) tests. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, vaccine type, length of interval between vaccine doses and time between vaccine administration and sample collection and expressed as adjusted geometric mean ratios (aGMRs) or adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). To assess differences in the early immune response to vaccination we also conducted analyses in a subcohort who provided samples between 14 and 50 days after their second dose of vaccine. Findings: The total number of HCWs in each analysis were 401 for anti-spike antibody titres, 345 for neutralising antibody titres and 191 for ELISpot. Overall, 25.4% (19.7% South Asian and 5.7% Black/Mixed/Other) were from ethnic minority groups. In analyses including the whole cohort, neutralising antibody titres were higher in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs (aGMR 1.47, 95% CI [1.06-2.06], P = 0.02) as were T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 peptides (aIRR 1.75, 95% CI [1.05-2.89], P = 0.03). In a subcohort sampled between 14 and 50 days after second vaccine dose, SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody and neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) was higher in South Asian HCWs compared to White HCWs (9616 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, 95% CI [7178-12,852] vs 5888 BAU/ml [5023-6902], P = 0.008 and 2851 95% CI [1811-4487] vs 1199 [984-1462], P < 0.001 respectively), increments which persisted after adjustment (aGMR 1.26, 95% CI [1.01-1.58], P = 0.04 and aGMR 2.01, 95% CI [1.34-3.01], P = 0.001). SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot responses to S1 and whole spike peptides (S1 + S2 response) were higher in HCWs from South Asian ethnic groups than those from White groups (S1: aIRR 2.33, 95% CI [1.09-4.94], P = 0.03; spike: aIRR, 2.04, 95% CI [1.02-4.08]). Interpretation: This study provides evidence that, in an infection naïve cohort, humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are stronger in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs. These differences are most clearly seen in the early period following vaccination. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms, whether differences persist with further exposure to vaccine or virus, and the potential impact on vaccine effectiveness. Funding: DIRECT and BELIEVE have received funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the COVID-19 National Core Studies Immunity (NCSi) programme (MC_PC_20060).

Acute heart failure presentation, management, and outcomes in cancer patients: a national longitudinal study.

AIMS: Currently, little evidence exists on survival and quality of care in cancer patients presenting with acute heart failure (HF). The aim of the study is to investigate the presentation and outcomes of hospital admission with acute HF in a national cohort of patients with prior cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study identified 221 953 patients admitted to a hospital in England for HF during 2012-2018 (12 867 with a breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer diagnosis in the previous 10 years). We examined the impact of cancer on (i) HF presentation and in-hospital mortality, (ii) place of care, (iii) HF medication prescribing, and (iv) post-discharge survival, using propensity score weighting and model-based adjustment. Heart failure presentation was similar between cancer and non-cancer patients. A lower percentage of patients with prior cancer were cared for in a cardiology ward [-2.4% age point difference (ppd) (95% CI -3.3, -1.6)] or were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists (ACEi/ARB) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [-2.1 ppd (-3.3, -0.9)] than non-cancer patients. Survival after HF discharge was poor with median survival of 1.6 years in prior cancer and 2.6 years in non-cancer patients. Mortality in prior cancer patients was driven primarily by non-cancer causes (68% of post-discharge deaths). CONCLUSION: Survival in prior cancer patients presenting with acute HF was poor, with a significant proportion due to non-cancer causes of death. Despite this, cardiologists were less likely to manage cancer patients with HF. Cancer patients who develop HF were less likely to be prescribed guideline-based HF medications compared with non-cancer patients. This was particularly driven by patients with a poorer cancer prognosis.

Risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multiethnic cohort of United Kingdom healthcare workers (UK-REACH): A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the baseline questionnaire of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study, administered between December 2020 and March 2021. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household, and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. The primary exposure of interest was self-reported ethnicity. Among 10,772 HCWs who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020, the median age was 45 (interquartile range [IQR] 35 to 54), 75.1% were female and 29.6% were from ethnic minority groups. A total of 2,496 (23.2%) reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fully adjusted model contained the following dependent variables: demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, deprivation, religiosity), household factors (living with key workers, shared spaces in accommodation, number of people in household), health factors (presence/absence of diabetes or immunosuppression, smoking history, shielding status, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), the extent of social mixing outside of the household, and occupational factors (job role, the area in which a participant worked, use of public transport to work, exposure to confirmed suspected COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment [PPE] access, aerosol generating procedure exposure, night shift pattern, and the UK region of workplace). After adjustment, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers, and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.18 for ≥21 patients per week versus none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to PPE (1.29, 1.17 to 1.43), and working in an ambulance (2.00, 1.56 to 2.58) or hospital inpatient setting (1.55, 1.38 to 1.75). Those who worked in intensive care units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.64 to 0.92) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known risk factors. This study is limited by self-selection bias and the cross sectional nature of the study means we cannot infer the direction of causality. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ISRCTN (reference number: ISRCTN11811602).

Impact of chronic kidney disease on case ascertainment for hospitalised acute myocardial infarction: an English cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) case ascertainment improves for the UK general population using linked health data sets. Because care pathways for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) change based on disease severity, AMI case ascertainment for these people may differ compared with the general population. We aimed to determine the association between CKD severity and AMI case ascertainment in two secondary care data sets, and the agreement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the same data sets. METHODS: We used a cohort study design. Primary care records for people with CKD or risk factors for CKD, identified using the National CKD Audit (2015-2017), were linked to the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP, 2007-2017) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES, 2007-2017) secondary care registries. People with an AMI recorded in either MINAP, HES or both were included in the study cohort. CKD status was defined using eGFR, derived from the most recent serum creatinine value recorded in primary care. Moderate-severe CKD was defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and mild CKD or at risk of CKD was defined as eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or eGFR missing. CKD stages were grouped as (1) At risk of CKD and Stages 1-2 (eGFR missing or ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2), (2) Stage 3a (eGFR 45-59 mL/min/1.73 m2), (3) Stage 3b (eGFR 30-44 mL/min/1.73 m2) and (4) Stages 4-5 (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2). RESULTS: We identified 6748 AMIs: 23% were recorded in both MINAP and HES, 66% in HES only and 11% in MINAP only. Compared with people at risk of CKD or with mild CKD, AMIs in people with moderate-severe CKD were more likely to be recorded in both MINAP and HES (42% vs 11%, respectively), or MINAP only (22% vs 5%), and less likely to be recorded in HES only (36% vs 84%). People with AMIs recorded in HES only or MINAP only had increased odds of death during hospitalisation compared with those recorded in both (adjusted OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.96 and OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.04, respectively). Agreement between eGFR at AMI admission (MINAP) and in primary care was poor (kappa (K) 0.42, SE 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: AMI case ascertainment is incomplete in both MINAP and HES, and is associated with CKD severity.

Case-ascertainment of acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations in cancer patients: a cohort study using English linked electronic health data.

AIMS: To assess the recording and accuracy of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospital admissions between two electronic health record databases within an English cancer population over time and understand the factors that affect case-ascertainment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 112 502 hospital admissions for AMI in England 2010-2017 from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) disease registry and hospital episode statistics (HES) for 95 509 patients with a previous cancer diagnosis up to 15 years prior to admission. Cancer diagnoses were identified from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD). We calculated the percentage of AMI admissions captured by each source and examined patient characteristics associated with source of ascertainment. Survival analysis assessed whether differences in survival between case-ascertainment sources could be explained by patient characteristics. A total of 57 265 (50.9%) AMI admissions in patients with a prior diagnosis of cancer were captured in both MINAP and HES. Patients captured in both sources were younger, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and had better prognosis, with lower mortality rates up to 9 years after AMI admission compared with patients captured in only one source. The percentage of admissions captured in both data sources improved over time. Cancer characteristics (site, stage, and grade) had little effect on how AMI was captured. CONCLUSION: MINAP and HES define different populations of patients with AMI. However, cancer characteristics do not substantially impact on case-ascertainment. These findings support a strategy of using multiple linked data sources for observational cardio-oncological research into AMI.

Lessons learnt when accounting for competing events in the external validation of time-to-event prognostic models.

BACKGROUND: External validation of prognostic models is necessary to assess the accuracy and generalizability of the model to new patients. If models are validated in a setting in which competing events occur, these competing risks should be accounted for when comparing predicted risks to observed outcomes. METHODS: We discuss existing measures of calibration and discrimination that incorporate competing events for time-to-event models. These methods are illustrated using a clinical-data example concerning the prediction of kidney failure in a population with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), using the guideline-recommended Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE). The KFRE was developed using Cox regression in a diverse population of CKD patients and has been proposed for use in patients with advanced CKD in whom death is a frequent competing event. RESULTS: When validating the 5-year KFRE with methods that account for competing events, it becomes apparent that the 5-year KFRE considerably overestimates the real-world risk of kidney failure. The absolute overestimation was 10%age points on average and 29%age points in older high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: It is crucial that competing events are accounted for during external validation to provide a more reliable assessment the performance of a model in clinical settings in which competing risks occur.

United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): a retrospective cohort study using linked routinely collected data, study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has spread rapidly worldwide, causing significant morbidity and mortality. People from ethnic minorities, particularly those working in healthcare settings, have been disproportionately affected. Current evidence of the association between ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in people working in healthcare settings is insufficient to inform plans to address health inequalities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study combines anonymised human resource databases with professional registration and National Health Service data sets to assess associations between ethnicity and COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation and death in healthcare workers in the UK. Adverse COVID-19 outcomes will be assessed between 1 February 2020 (date following first confirmed COVID-19 case in UK) and study end date (31 January 2021), allowing 1-year of follow-up. Planned analyses include multivariable Poisson, logistic and flexible parametric time-to-event regression within each country, adjusting for core predictors, followed by meta-analysis of country-specific results to produce combined effect estimates for the UK. Mediation analysis methods will be explored to examine the direct, indirect and mediated interactive effects between ethnicity, occupational group and COVID-19 outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the UK-REACH programme has been obtained via the expedited HRA COVID-19 processes (REC ref: 20/HRA/4718, IRAS ID: 288316). Research information will be anonymised via the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank before release to researchers. Study results will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed journal and made available on our dedicated website (https://uk-reach.org/). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11811602.