Search

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), compared in the ONTARGET trial, each prevent CVD. However, trial populations may not be representative of the general population.MethodsUsing trial replication methods within routine-care data, we explored replicability of the ONTARGET trial. For people prescribed an ACEi and/or an ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink CPRD GOLD from 1/1/2001-31/7/2019, we applied trial criteria and propensity-score methods to create an ONTARGET trial-eligible cohort. Comparing ARB to ACEi, using Cox-proportional hazards models, we estimated hazard ratios for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure), as well as secondary outcomes. As the pre-specified criteria were met confirming trial replicability, we then explored treatment effect heterogeneity of ACEi and ARB among three trial-underrepresented subgroups: females, those aged ≥75 years and those with chronic kidney disease.FindingsIn the trial-eligible population (n=137,155), results for the primary outcome met pre-specified criteria for similarity to the ONTARGET trial and demonstrated similar effects of ARB and ACEi, (HR 0.97 [95% CI: 0.93, 1.01]). When extending to trial-underrepresented groups, similar treatment effects of ARB and ACEi were observed by sex (P=0.09), age (P=0.70) and chronic kidney disease status (P=0.10).InterpretationWe were able to replicate the results of the ONTARGET trial using routinely-collected healthcare data. Results suggest that trial findings were generalisable to population subgroups underrepresented in the trial.FundingGlaxoSmithKlineResearch in ContextEvidence before this studyTrial replication is an important methodology increasingly used to validate findings from observational studies against target trials. Unlike many naïve observational comparisons, a previous study demonstrated replicability of the ONTARGET trial using United States insurance claims data. However, it is unknown whether trial replicability can be extended to UK routinely-collected healthcare data. In addition, little work has been done to extend findings of comparative effectiveness among trial-underrepresented subgroups such as women, the elderly and those with chronic kidney disease despite high rates of prescribing of ACE Inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among these groups in routine-care.Added value of this studyWith access to the individual patient data from the ONTARGET study and using propensity-score methods to address confounding, we demonstrated trial replicability using routinely-collected primary care data, representative of a large proportion of the UK population. We were then able to leverage the large sample size of the trial-eligible cohort to extend findings to trial-underrepresented groups and demonstrated similar comparative effectiveness for subgroups of patients treated with ARB and ACEi among women, those aged ≥75 years and those with chronic kidney disease.Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings support similar effectiveness for cardiovascular and renal outcomes for patients receiving an ARB compared to an ACEi in a trial-eligible cohort and subgroups for which there is currently a lack of evidence of treatment effectiveness. Trial-replication methodology can be used to provide evidence for populations underrepresented in clinical trials.

Background Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of age-based generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in Wave 1 (1 February 2020–31 August 2020) and 2 731 427 in Wave 2 (1 September 2020–31 January 2021). Results Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves [e.g. Wave 2, 67+ living with three other generations vs 67+-year-olds only: White hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 95% CI 1.38–1.87, South Asian HR 1.76 95% CI 1.48–2.10], with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in Wave 2. There was also an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in Wave 1 associated with living alone for White (HR 1.35 95% CI 1.30–1.41), South Asian (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.18–1.84) and Other (HR 1.72 95% CI 0.99–2.97) ethnicities, an effect that persisted for White older people in Wave 2. Conclusions Both multigenerational living and living alone were associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings, whereas a substantial proportion of White older people live alone. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics.

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, “high-cost drugs” (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed; drug name; and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

BackgroundEarly evidence has shown that anticoagulant reduces the risk of thrombotic events in those infected with COVID-19. However, evidence of the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes is limited.AimTo investigate the association between OACs and COVID-19 outcomes in those with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2.Design and settingOn behalf of NHS England, a population-based cohort study was conducted.MethodThe study used primary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19 outcomes comparing people with current OAC use versus non-use, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications, deprivation, and general practice.ResultsOf 71 103 people with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, there were 52 832 current OAC users and 18 271 non-users. No difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with current use (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.04) versus non-use. A lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and a marginally lower risk of COVID-19-related death (aHR, 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04) were associated with current use versus non-use.ConclusionAmong those at low baseline stroke risk, people receiving OACs had a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or unmeasured confounding, including more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk.

IntroductionCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally, responsible for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide in 2017. Medications to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events are prescribed based upon evidence from clinical trials which explore treatment effects in an indicated sample of the general population. However, these results may not be fully generalisable because of trial eligibility criteria that generally restrict to younger patients with fewer comorbidities. Therefore, evidence of effectiveness of medications for groups underrepresented in clinical trials such as those over 75 years, from ethnic minority backgrounds or with low kidney function may be limited.The ONTARGET trial studied the effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) separately and in combination on cardiovascular event reduction. Using individual anonymised data from this study, in collaboration with the original trial investigators, we aim to investigate clinical trial replicability within routinely-collected patient data. If the original trial results are replicable, we will assess treatment effects and risk in groups underrepresented and excluded from the original clinical trial.Methods and analysisWe will develop a cohort analogous to the ONTARGET trial within CPRD between 1 January 2001 to 31 July 2019 using the trial eligibility criteria and propensity score matching. The primary outcome, as in the trial, is a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and hospitalisation for congestive heart-failure, examined in a time-to-event analysis. If results from the cohort study fall within pre-specified limits, we will expand the cohort to include those with advanced kidney dysfunction and increase the proportion of elderly participants and those from ethnicity minority backgrounds.We will then compare the risk of adverse events and association with long-term outcomes in the clinical trial, with that seen in a directly comparable sample of those attending NHS primary care.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONSStrengthsLarge cohort study giving power to look at effects within subgroups underrepresented in the clinical trialAccess to individual patient level data from a landmark trial to support creation of a trial-analogous cohortNovelty of studying treatment effects of dual therapy in real-world settingsLimitationsThere may be differences between the trial population and the observational cohort due to the level of detail on inclusion/exclusion criteria provided by the trialDrug-specific effects are unlikely to be able to be investigated due to small numbers in the dual-therapy arm: class-specific effects will be studied insteadMisclassification by primary care coding may lead to inaccurate replication of trial inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs) with alendronate use in real-world hip fracture patients is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the risk of CVE with and without use of alendronate in patients with hip fracture. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a population-wide database managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Patients newly diagnosed with hip fracture from 2005 through 2013 were followed until November 6, 2016. Alendronate and other antiosteoporosis medications use during the study period were examined. We matched treated and nontreated patients based on time-dependent propensity score. The risks of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke between treatment groups were evaluated using conditional Cox regression stratified by match pairs. To examine the associations over time, outcomes were assessed at 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years. Among 34,991 patients with newly diagnosed hip fracture, 4602 (13.2%) received antiosteoporosis treatment during follow-up. Physical functioning or survival prospect was not significantly different between treated and nontreated patients. A total of 4594 treated patients were matched with 13,568 nontreated patients. Results of Cox regression analysis revealed that alendronate was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.65) and incident myocardial infarction (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.89), whereas marginally significant reduction in risk of stroke was observed at 5 years and 10 years (HR at 5 years: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.00; p = 0.049; HR at 10 years: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.01; p = 0.065). The strength of the association declined over time but remained significant. Similar results were observed when all nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (N-BPs) were analyzed together. These findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. Additional studies in other population samples and randomized clinical trials may be warranted to further understand the relationship between use of various antiosteoporosis medication and risk of CVE in patients with hip fracture. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.