Search

Confounding by indication is a key challenge for pharmacoepidemiologists. Although self-controlled study designs address time-invariant confounding, indications sometimes vary over time. For example, infection might act as a time-varying confounder in a study of antibiotics and uveitis, because it is time-limited and a direct cause both of receiving antibiotics and uveitis. Methods for incorporating active comparators in self-controlled studies to address such time-varying confounding by indication have only recently been developed. In this paper we formalize these methods, and provide a detailed description for how the active comparator rate ratio can be derived in a self-controlled case series (SCCS): either by explicitly comparing the regression coefficients for a drug of interest and an active comparator under certain circumstances using a simple ratio approach, or through the use of a nested regression model. The approaches are compared in two case studies, one examining the association between thiazolidinediones and fractures, and one examining the association between fluoroquinolones and uveitis using the UK Clinical Practice Research DataLink. Finally, we provide recommendations for the use of these methods, which we hope will support the design, execution and interpretation of SCCS using active comparators and thereby increase the robustness of pharmacoepidemiological studies., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

The Statistics Expert Group was convened at the request of the Infected Blood Inquiry to provide estimates of the number of infections and deaths from blood-borne infections including hepatitis B virus, human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, as a direct result of contaminated blood and blood products administered in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). In the absence of databases of HCV infections and related deaths for all nations of the UK, a statistical model was required to estimate the number of infections and subsequent deaths from HCV acquired from blood transfusions from January 1970 to August 1991. We present this statistical model in detail alongside the results of its application to each of the four nations in the UK. We estimated that 26 800 people (95% uncertainty interval 21 300-38 800) throughout the UK were chronically infected with HCV because of contaminated blood transfusions between January 1970 and August 1991. The number of deaths up to the end of 2019 that occurred as a result of this chronic infection is estimated to be 1820 (95% uncertainty interval 650-3320)., Competing Interests: S.H., R.M., D.S. and S.B. received funding from the Infected Blood Inquiry to support this work., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: COVID-19 has been shown to differently affect various demographic and clinical population subgroups. We aimed to describe trends in absolute and relative COVID-19-related mortality risks across clinical and demographic population subgroups during successive SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves., Methods: We did a retrospective cohort study in England using the OpenSAFELY platform with the approval of National Health Service England, covering the first five SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves (wave one [wild-type] from March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave two [alpha (B.1.1.7)] from Sept 7, 2020, to April 24, 2021; wave three [delta (B.1.617.2)] from May 28 to Dec 14, 2021; wave four [omicron (B.1.1.529)] from Dec 15, 2021, to April 29, 2022; and wave five [omicron] from June 24 to Aug 3, 2022). In each wave, we included people aged 18-110 years who were registered with a general practice on the first day of the wave and who had at least 3 months of continuous general practice registration up to this date. We estimated crude and sex-standardised and age-standardised wave-specific COVID-19-related death rates and relative risks of COVID-19-related death in population subgroups., Findings: 18 895 870 adults were included in wave one, 19 014 720 in wave two, 18 932 050 in wave three, 19 097 970 in wave four, and 19 226 475 in wave five. Crude COVID-19-related death rates per 1000 person-years decreased from 4·48 deaths (95% CI 4·41-4·55) in wave one to 2·69 (2·66-2·72) in wave two, 0·64 (0·63-0·66) in wave three, 1·01 (0·99-1·03) in wave four, and 0·67 (0·64-0·71) in wave five. In wave one, the standardised COVID-19-related death rates were highest in people aged 80 years or older, people with chronic kidney disease stage 5 or 4, people receiving dialysis, people with dementia or learning disability, and people who had received a kidney transplant (ranging from 19·85 deaths per 1000 person-years to 44·41 deaths per 1000 person-years, compared with from 0·05 deaths per 1000 person-years to 15·93 deaths per 1000 person-years in other subgroups). In wave two compared with wave one, in a largely unvaccinated population, the decrease in COVID-19-related mortality was evenly distributed across population subgroups. In wave three compared with wave one, larger decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were seen in groups prioritised for primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, including people aged 80 years or older and people with neurological disease, learning disability, or severe mental illness (90-91% decrease). Conversely, smaller decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were observed in younger age groups, people who had received organ transplants, and people with chronic kidney disease, haematological malignancies, or immunosuppressive conditions (0-25% decrease). In wave four compared with wave one, the decrease in COVID-19-related death rates was smaller in groups with lower vaccination coverage (including younger age groups) and conditions associated with impaired vaccine response, including people who had received organ transplants and people with immunosuppressive conditions (26-61% decrease)., Interpretation: There was a substantial decrease in absolute COVID-19-related death rates over time in the overall population, but demographic and clinical relative risk profiles persisted and worsened for people with lower vaccination coverage or impaired immune response. Our findings provide an evidence base to inform UK public health policy for protecting these vulnerable population subgroups., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BG has received personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science and has been a non-executive director of NHS Digital. EJW has received payment for providing training for AstraZeneca (unrelated to the submitted work). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M21-4269.

Objective: To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England., Design: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England., Setting: Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database., Participants: Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes., Interventions: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units., Results: 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%)., Conclusions: Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Wellcome Trust, MRC, NIHR, and Health Data Research UK for the submitted work. BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NHS NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UK Research and Innovation, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation, and Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). JT is employed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) on a fellowship sponsored by an unrestricted GSK grant. NJD received research funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Data analysis is used to identify signals suggestive of variation in treatment choice or clinical outcome. Analyses to date have generally focused on a hypothesis-driven approach., Objective: This study aimed to develop a hypothesis-free approach to identify unusual prescribing behavior in primary care data. We aimed to apply this methodology to a national data set in a cross-sectional study to identify chemicals with significant variation in use across Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) for further clinical review, thereby demonstrating proof of concept for prioritization approaches., Methods: Here we report a new data-driven approach to identify unusual prescribing behaviour in primary care data. This approach first applies a set of filtering steps to identify chemicals with prescribing rate distributions likely to contain outliers, then applies two ranking approaches to identify the most extreme outliers amongst those candidates. This methodology has been applied to three months of national prescribing data (June-August 2017)., Results: Our methodology provides rankings for all chemicals by administrative region. We provide illustrative results for 2 antipsychotic drugs of particular clinical interest: promazine hydrochloride and pericyazine, which rank highly by outlier metrics. Specifically, our method identifies that, while promazine hydrochloride and pericyazine are barely used by most clinicians (with national prescribing rates of 11.1 and 6.2 per 1000 antipsychotic prescriptions, respectively), they make up a substantial proportion of antipsychotic prescribing in 2 small geographic regions in England during the study period (with maximum regional prescribing rates of 298.7 and 241.1 per 1000 antipsychotic prescriptions, respectively)., Conclusions: Our hypothesis-free approach is able to identify candidates for audit and review in clinical practice. To illustrate this, we provide 2 examples of 2 very unusual antipsychotics used disproportionately in 2 small geographic areas of England., (©Brian MacKenna, Helen J Curtis, Lisa E M Hopcroft, Alex J Walker, Richard Croker, Orla Macdonald, Stephen J W Evans, Peter Inglesby, David Evans, Jessica Morley, Sebastian C J Bacon, Ben Goldacre. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 20.12.2022.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) with molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe outcomes of covid-19 in adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community and at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19., Design: Observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform., Setting: With the approval of NHS England, a real world cohort study was conducted with the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (a secure, transparent, open source software platform for analysis of NHS electronic health records), and patient level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatments, hospital admission, and death, over a period when both drug treatments were frequently prescribed in community settings., Participants: Adult patients with covid-19 in the community at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir from 16 December 2021., Interventions: Sotrovimab or molnupiravir given in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units., Main Outcome Measures: Admission to hospital with covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the primary diagnosis) or death from covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the underlying or contributing cause of death) within 28 days of the start of treatment., Results: Between 16 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively, with no substantial differences in baseline characteristics. Mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (standard deviation 16) years; 59% were women, 89% were white, and 88% had received three or more covid-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days of the start of treatment, 87 (1.4%) patients were admitted to hospital or died of infection from SARS-CoV-2 (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographic information, high risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index, and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). Consistent results were found from propensity score weighted Cox models (0.50, 0.31 to 0.81, P=0.005) and when restricted to people who were fully vaccinated (0.53, 0.31 to 0.90, P=0.02). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction >0.10). The findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between 16 February and 1 May 2022 when omicron BA.2 was the predominant variant in England., Conclusions: In routine care of adult patients in England with covid-19 in the community, at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe outcomes of covid-19 than those treated with molnupiravir., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Asthma UK-British Lung Foundation (BLF) for the submitted work; BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, NHS NIHR, NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, Wellcome Trust, Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, Health Foundation, World Health Organization, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, British Lung Foundation, and Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; BG is a non-executive director at NHS Digital; BG also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science; IJD has received unrestricted research grants and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); LAT has received funding from Medical Research Council (MRC), Wellcome, NIHR, consulted for Bayer in relation to an observational study of chronic kidney disease (unpaid), and is a member of four non-industry funded (NIHR/MRC) trial advisory committees (unpaid) and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) expert advisory group (Women’s Health); NJD has received funding for covid meta-research from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany); JT is funded at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) through an unrestricted grant from GSK; AM was a former employee and interim chief medical officer of NHS Digital and is a member of Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group; AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK; VM has received funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR301535); RME has received funding from HDR UK (MR/S003975/1); no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) alpha variant (B.1.1.7) is associated with higher transmissibility than wild-type virus, becoming the dominant variant in England by January 2021. We aimed to describe the severity of the alpha variant in terms of the pathway of disease from testing positive to hospital admission and death., Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we linked individual-level data from primary care with SARS-CoV-2 community testing, hospital admission, and Office for National Statistics all-cause death data. We used testing data with S-gene target failure as a proxy for distinguishing alpha and wild-type cases, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the relative severity of alpha cases with wild-type diagnosed from 16 November 2020 to 11 January 2021., Results: Using data from 185 234 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the community (alpha = 93 153; wild-type = 92 081), in fully adjusted analysis accounting for individual-level demographics and comorbidities as well as regional variation in infection incidence, we found alpha associated with 73% higher hazards of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-2.13; P < .0001) and 62% higher hazards of hospital admission (1.62; 1.48-1.78; P < .0001) compared with wild-type virus. Among patients already admitted to the intensive care unit, the association between alpha and increased all-cause mortality was smaller and the CI included the null (aHR: 1.20; 95% CI: .74-1.95; P = .45)., Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant is associated with an increased risk of both hospitalization and mortality than wild-type virus., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) covid-19 vaccines against infection and covid-19 disease in health and social care workers., Design: Cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial, on behalf of NHS England., Setting: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was dominant., Participants: 317 341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a general practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable., Interventions: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national covid-19 vaccine roll-out., Main Outcome Measures: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or covid-19 related attendance at an accident and emergency (A&E) department or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of receipt of the first vaccine dose., Results: Over the duration of 118 771 person-years of follow-up there were 6962 positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, 282 covid-19 related A&E attendances, and 166 covid-19 related hospital admissions. The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks after vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 20 weeks after first-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 was 21.7 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 20.9 to 22.4) and with ChAdOx1 was 23.7 (21.8 to 25.6), representing a difference of 2.04 per 1000 people (0.04 to 4.04). The difference in the cumulative incidence per 1000 people of covid-19 related A&E attendance at 20 weeks was 0.06 per 1000 people (95% CI -0.31 to 0.43). For covid-19 related hospital admission, this difference was 0.11 per 1000 people (-0.22 to 0.44)., Conclusions: In this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or covid-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply at 3-4 weeks after vaccination, and there were few covid-19 related hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine induced immunity and suggests strong protection against Alpha variant covid-19 disease for both vaccines in this relatively young and healthy population of healthcare workers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare the following: BG has received research funding from Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and on immune-modifying drugs might not be fully mediated by comorbidities and might vary by factors such as ethnicity. We aimed to assess the risk of severe COVID-19 in adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and in those on immune-modifying therapies., Methods: We did a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY (an analytics platform for electronic health records) and TPP (a software provider for general practitioners), analysing routinely collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death, and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We included people aged 18 years or older on March 1, 2020, who were registered with TPP practices with at least 12 months of primary care records before March, 2020. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders and mediators) to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) comparing the risk of COVID-19-related death, critical care admission or death, and hospital admission (from March 1 to Sept 30, 2020) in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with the general population, and in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on targeted immune-modifying drugs (eg, biologics) compared with those on standard systemic treatment (eg, methotrexate)., Findings: We identified 17 672 065 adults; 1 163 438 adults (640 164 [55·0%] women and 523 274 [45·0%] men, and 827 457 [71·1%] of White ethnicity) had immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and 16 508 627 people (8 215 020 [49·8%] women and 8 293 607 [50·2%] men, and 10 614 096 [64·3%] of White ethnicity) were included as the general population. Of 1 163 438 adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, 19 119 (1·6%) received targeted immune-modifying therapy and 181 694 (15·6%) received standard systemic therapy. Compared with the general population, adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, and smoking status; HR 1·23, 95% CI 1·20-1·27) and further adjusting for mediators (body-mass index [BMI], cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and current glucocorticoid use; 1·15, 1·11-1·18). Adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases also had an increased risk of COVID-19-related critical care admission or death (confounder-adjusted HR 1·24, 95% CI 1·21-1·28; mediator-adjusted 1·16, 1·12-1·19) and hospital admission (confounder-adjusted 1·32, 1·29-1·35; mediator-adjusted 1·20, 1·17-1·23). In post-hoc analyses, the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases was higher in non-White ethnic groups than in White ethnic groups (as it was in the general population). We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults on targeted, compared with those on standard systemic, therapy after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, BMI, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [bowel, joint, and skin], cardiovascular disease, cancer [excluding non-melanoma skin cancer], stroke, and diabetes (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80-1·33), and after additionally adjusting for current glucocorticoid use (1·01, 0·78-1·30). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults prescribed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-12/IL‑23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, or Janus kinase inhibitors compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19-related death (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·11-2·56), with some attenuation after excluding people with haematological malignancies or organ transplants (1· 54, 0 · 95 - 2 · 49 )., Interpretation: COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions were higher in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune-modifying drugs for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with those on standard systemic therapy., Funding: UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, and Wellcome Trust., Competing Interests: BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), the Health Foundation, WHO, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science and is a non-executive director of NHS Digital. CHS received departmental research funding from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo, Pfizer, Novartis, Regeneron, SwedishOrphan Biovitrum, and Roche, and is an investigator within consortia that have industry partners. JG has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, and UCB, and has research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Medicago, Novovax, and Pfizer. MY has received honoraria from AbbVie and UCB. CWL has received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Fresnius Kabi, Dr Falk, Vifor Pharma, Pfizer, Takeda, and Trellus Health. CHS and SML have received grants from the Horizon 2020 European Commission-funded consortium, which has industry partners involved in manufacture of treatments for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (see the Biomap website for complete listing). EW has received payment from AstraZeneca for providing a training session, unrelated to the current manuscript. KEM has received consulting fees from Amgen. RM has received consulting fees from Amgen. LAT has received consulting fees from Bayer (payed to the institution), support for attending Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency meetings and is a member of two non-industry-funded trial advisory committees (unpaid). SN has received grants from Pfizer and honoraria for delivering educational presentations from Pfizer and Janssen. JB is funded by a studentship from GlaxoSmithKline. HIM was an occasional invited expert to the COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Surveillance Methodologies Expert Working Group, which has now come to a close. NAK has received departmental research funding from AbbVie, Biogen, Celgene, Celtrion, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Napp, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Roche, and Takeda; consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr Falk, Janssen, Mylan, Pharmacosmos, Galapagos, Takeda, and Tillotts; honoraria from Allergan, Celltrion, Dr Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Pharmacosmos, Takeda, Tilllotts, and Galapagos; and support for meetings or travel from AbbVie, Dr Falk, and Janssen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Purpose: The high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) is a semi-automated procedure for confounder identification, prioritisation and adjustment in large healthcare databases that requires investigators to specify data dimensions, prioritisation strategy and tuning parameters. In practice, reporting of these decisions is inconsistent and this can undermine the transparency, and reproducibility of results obtained. We illustrate reporting tools, graphical displays and sensitivity analyses to increase transparency and facilitate evaluation of the robustness of analyses involving HDPS., Methods: Using a study from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink that implemented HDPS we demonstrate the application of the proposed recommendations., Results: We identify seven considerations surrounding the implementation of HDPS, such as the identification of data dimensions, method for code prioritisation and number of variables selected. Graphical diagnostic tools include assessing the balance of key confounders before and after adjusting for empirically selected HDPS covariates and the identification of potentially influential covariates. Sensitivity analyses include varying the number of covariates selected and assessing the impact of covariates behaving empirically as instrumental variables. In our example, results were robust to both the number of covariates selected and the inclusion of potentially influential covariates. Furthermore, our HDPS models achieved good balance in key confounders., Conclusions: The data-adaptive approach of HDPS and the resulting benefits have led to its popularity as a method for confounder adjustment in pharmacoepidemiological studies. Reporting of HDPS analyses in practice may be improved by the considerations and tools proposed here to increase the transparency and reproducibility of study results., (© 2022 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Obtaining accurate estimates of the risk of COVID-19-related death in the general population is challenging in the context of changing levels of circulating infection., Methods: We propose a modelling approach to predict 28-day COVID-19-related death which explicitly accounts for COVID-19 infection prevalence using a series of sub-studies from new landmark times incorporating time-updating proxy measures of COVID-19 infection prevalence. This was compared with an approach ignoring infection prevalence. The target population was adults registered at a general practice in England in March 2020. The outcome was 28-day COVID-19-related death. Predictors included demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Three proxies of local infection prevalence were used: model-based estimates, rate of COVID-19-related attendances in emergency care, and rate of suspected COVID-19 cases in primary care. We used data within the TPP SystmOne electronic health record system linked to Office for National Statistics mortality data, using the OpenSAFELY platform, working on behalf of NHS England. Prediction models were developed in case-cohort samples with a 100-day follow-up. Validation was undertaken in 28-day cohorts from the target population. We considered predictive performance (discrimination and calibration) in geographical and temporal subsets of data not used in developing the risk prediction models. Simple models were contrasted to models including a full range of predictors., Results: Prediction models were developed on 11,972,947 individuals, of whom 7999 experienced COVID-19-related death. All models discriminated well between individuals who did and did not experience the outcome, including simple models adjusting only for basic demographics and number of comorbidities: C-statistics 0.92-0.94. However, absolute risk estimates were substantially miscalibrated when infection prevalence was not explicitly modelled., Conclusions: Our proposed models allow absolute risk estimation in the context of changing infection prevalence but predictive performance is sensitive to the proxy for infection prevalence. Simple models can provide excellent discrimination and may simplify implementation of risk prediction tools., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Thromboembolism has been reported as a consequence of severe COVID-19. Although warfarin is a commonly used anticoagulant, it acts by antagonising vitamin K, which is low in patients with severe COVID-19. To date, the clinical evidence on the impact of regular use of warfarin on COVID-19-related thromboembolism is lacking., Methods: On behalf of NHS England, we conducted a population-based cohort study investigating the association between warfarin and COVID-19 outcomes compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse primary care data and pseudonymously linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions and death records from England. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19-related outcomes comparing warfarin with DOACs in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. We also conducted negative control outcome analyses (being tested for SARS-CoV-2 and non-COVID-19 death) to assess the potential impact of confounding., Results: A total of 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users were included. We observed a lower risk of all outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs [testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.68-0.79); COVID-19-related hospital admission, HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.68-0.83); COVID-19-related deaths, HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.83)]. A lower risk of negative control outcomes associated with warfarin versus DOACs was also observed [being tested for SARS-CoV-2, HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.79-0.81); non-COVID-19 deaths, HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.83)]., Conclusions: Overall, this study shows no evidence of harmful effects of warfarin on severe COVID-19 disease., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England., Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region., Findings: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories., Interpretation: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination., Funding: Medical Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BG has received research funding from Health Data Research UK, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Health Foundation, and WHO; and receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. IJD has received unrestricted research grants from and holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline. KK is the director for the University of Leicester Centre for BME Health, Trustee of the South Asian Health Foundation, the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration lead for Ethnicity and Diversity, and a member of the Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and chair for the SAGE Ethnicity Subgroup. RM, BG, and RME are members of the SAGE Ethnicity Subgroup. RM reports personal fees from AMGEN. AS is employed by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) on a fellowship sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Doug Altman was a visionary leader and one of the most influential medical statisticians of the last 40 years. Based on a presentation in the "Invited session in memory of Doug Altman" at the 40th Annual Conference of the International Society for Clinical Biostatistics (ISCB) in Leuven, Belgium and our long-standing collaborations with Doug, we discuss his contributions to regression modeling, reporting, prognosis research, as well as some more general issues while acknowledging that we cannot cover the whole spectrum of Doug's considerable methodological output. His statement "To maximize the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" should be a driver for all researchers. To improve current and future research, we aim to summarize Doug's messages for these three topics., (© 2020 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.)

Background: Whether HIV infection is associated with risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear. We aimed to investigate this association in a large-scale population-based study in England., Methods: We did a retrospective cohort study. Working on behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse routinely collected electronic primary care data linked to national death registrations. We included all adults (aged ≥18 years) alive and in follow-up on Feb 1, 2020, and with at least 1 year of continuous registration with a general practitioner before this date. People with a primary care record for HIV infection were compared with people without HIV. The outcome was COVID-19 death, defined as the presence of International Classification of Diseases 10 codes U07.1 or U07.2 anywhere on the death certificate. Cox regression models were used to estimate the association between HIV infection and COVID-19 death; they were initially adjusted for age and sex, then we added adjustment for index of multiple deprivation and ethnicity, and then for a broad range of comorbidities. Interaction terms were added to assess effect modification by age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities, and calendar time., Results: 17 282 905 adults were included, of whom 27 480 (0·16%) had HIV recorded. People living with HIV were more likely to be male, of Black ethnicity, and from a more deprived geographical area than the general population. 14 882 COVID-19 deaths occurred during the study period, with 25 among people with HIV. People living with HIV had higher risk of COVID-19 death than those without HIV after adjusting for age and sex: hazard ratio (HR) 2·90 (95% CI 1·96-4·30; p<0·0001). The association was attenuated, but risk remained high, after adjustment for deprivation, ethnicity, smoking and obesity: adjusted HR 2·59 (95% CI 1·74-3·84; p<0·0001). There was some evidence that the association was larger among people of Black ethnicity: HR 4·31 (95% CI 2·42-7·65) versus 1·84 (1·03-3·26) in non-Black individuals (p-interaction=0·044)., Interpretation: People with HIV in the UK seem to be at increased risk of COVID-19 mortality. Targeted policies should be considered to address this raised risk as the pandemic response evolves., Funding: Wellcome, Royal Society, National Institute for Health Research, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into epithelial cells in vitro, but clinical studies found no evidence of reduced mortality when treating patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality, as opposed to treatment for the disease., Methods: We did a prespecified observational, population-based cohort study using national primary care data and linked death registrations in the OpenSAFELY platform, which covers approximately 40% of the general population in England, UK. We included all adults aged 18 years and older registered with a general practice for 1 year or more on March 1, 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use before the COVID-19 outbreak in England (considered as March 1, 2020) compared with non-users of hydroxychloroquine and risk of COVID-19 mortality among people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus. Model adjustment was informed by a directed acyclic graph., Findings: Between Sept 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020, of 194 637 people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, 30 569 (15·7%) received two or more prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine. Between March 1 and July 13, 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0·23% (95% CI 0·18 to 0·29) among users and 0·22% (0·20 to 0·25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0·008% (-0·051 to 0·066). After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunosuppressive drugs, and geographical region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80 to 1·33). We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressive drugs. Quantitative bias analyses indicated that our observed associations were robust to missing information for additional biologic treatments for rheumatological disease. We observed similar associations with the negative control outcome of non-COVID-19 mortality., Interpretation: We found no evidence of a difference in COVID-19 mortality among people who received hydroxychloroquine for treatment of rheumatological disease before the COVID-19 outbreak in England. Therefore, completion of randomised trials investigating pre-exposure prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe outcomes from COVID-19 are warranted., Funding: Medical Research Council., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Purpose: Recent evidence from US claims data suggests use of high-dimensional propensity score (hd-PS) methods improve adjustment for confounding in non-randomised studies of interventions. However, it is unclear how best to apply hd-PS principles outside their original setting, given important differences between claims data and electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to implement the hd-PS in the setting of United Kingdom (UK) EHRs., Methods: We studied the interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Whilst previous observational studies suggested an interaction (with reduced effect of clopidogrel), case-only, genetic and randomised trial approaches showed no interaction, strongly suggesting the original observational findings were subject to confounding. We derived a cohort of clopidogrel users from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. Analyses estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for myocardial infarction (MI) comparing PPI users with non-users using a Cox model adjusting for confounders. To reflect unique characteristics of UK EHRs, we varied the application of hd-PS principles including the level of grouping within coding systems and adapting the assessment of code recurrence. Results were compared with traditional analyses., Results: Twenty-four thousand four hundred and seventy-one patients took clopidogrel, of whom 9111 were prescribed a PPI. Traditional PS approaches obtained a HR for the association between PPI use and MI of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00-1.35). Applying hd-PS modifications resulted in estimates closer to the expected null (HR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.78-1.28)., Conclusions: hd-PS provided improved adjustment for confounding compared with other approaches, suggesting hd-PS can be usefully applied in UK EHRs., (© 2020 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Early descriptions of patients admitted to hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic showed a lower prevalence of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than would be expected for an acute respiratory disease like COVID-19, leading to speculation that inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) might protect against infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or the development of serious sequelae. We assessed the association between ICS and COVID-19-related death among people with COPD or asthma using linked electronic health records (EHRs) in England, UK., Methods: In this observational study, we analysed patient-level data for people with COPD or asthma from primary care EHRs linked with death data from the Office of National Statistics using the OpenSAFELY platform. The index date (start of follow-up) for both cohorts was March 1, 2020; follow-up lasted until May 6, 2020. For the COPD cohort, individuals were eligible if they were aged 35 years or older, had COPD, were a current or former smoker, and were prescribed an ICS or long-acting β agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA-LAMA) as combination therapy within the 4 months before the index date. For the asthma cohort, individuals were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had been diagnosed with asthma within 3 years of the index date, and were prescribed an ICS or short-acting β agonist (SABA) only within the 4 months before the index date. We compared the outcome of COVID-19-related death between people prescribed an ICS and those prescribed alternative respiratory medications: ICSs versus LABA-LAMA for the COPD cohort, and low-dose or medium-dose and high-dose ICSs versus SABAs only in the asthma cohort. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between exposure categories and the outcome in each population, adjusted for age, sex, and all other prespecified covariates. We calculated e-values to quantify the effect of unmeasured confounding on our results., Findings: We identified 148 557 people with COPD and 818 490 people with asthma who were given relevant respiratory medications in the 4 months before the index date. People with COPD who were prescribed ICSs were at increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared with those prescribed LABA-LAMA combinations (adjusted HR 1·39 [95% CI 1·10-1·76]). Compared with those prescribed SABAs only, people with asthma who were prescribed high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death (1·55 [1·10-2·18]), whereas those given a low or medium dose were not (1·14 [0·85-1·54]). Sensitivity analyses showed that the apparent harmful association we observed could be explained by relatively small health differences between people prescribed ICS and those not prescribed ICS that were not recorded in the database (e value lower 95% CI 1·43)., Interpretation: Our results do not support a major role for regular ICS use in protecting against COVID-19-related death among people with asthma or COPD. Observed increased risks of COVID-19-related death can be plausibly explained by unmeasured confounding due to disease severity., Funding: UK Medical Research Council., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources., Design: A systematic review of published studies., Data Sources: Pubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening., Study Selection: Observational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases., Results: 6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies., Conclusions: Comparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly affected mortality worldwide 1 . There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, and this requires new approaches for the timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England, we created OpenSAFELY-a secure health analytics platform that covers 40% of all patients in England and holds patient data within the existing data centre of a major vendor of primary care electronic health records. Here we used OpenSAFELY to examine factors associated with COVID-19-related death. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19-related deaths. COVID-19-related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio (HR) 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.53-1.65)); greater age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared with people of white ethnicity, Black and South Asian people were at higher risk, even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48 (1.29-1.69) and 1.45 (1.32-1.58), respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical factors associated with COVID-19-related death in one of the largest cohort studies on this topic so far. More patient records are rapidly being added to OpenSAFELY, we will update and extend our results regularly.

Background : In Singapore, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) reviews an average of 20,000 spontaneous adverse event (AE) reports yearly. Potential safety signals are identified manually and discussed on a weekly basis. In this study, we compared the use of four quantitative data mining (QDM) methods with weekly manual review to determine if signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) can improve the efficiency of manual reviews and thereby enhance drug safety signal detection. Methods : We formulated a QDM triage strategy to reduce the number of SDRs for weekly review and compared the results against those derived from manual reviews alone for the same 6-month period. We then incorporated QDM triage into the manual review workflow for the subsequent two 6-month periods and made further comparisons against QDM triage alone. Results : The incorporation of QDM triage into routine manual reviews resulted in a reduction of 20% to 30% in the number of drug-AE pairs identified for further evaluation. Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT) detected more signals that mirror human manual signal detection than the other three methods. Conclusions : The adoption of QDM triage into our manual reviews is a more efficient way forward in signal detection, avoiding missing important drug safety signals.

Background: Data on the safety of inadvertent rubella vaccination in pregnancy is important for rubella vaccination programs aimed at preventing congenital rubella syndrome., Methods: The association between monovalent rubella or combination vaccinations in or shortly before pregnancy and potential harm to the foetus was examined by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis using fixed effect methods and simulation., Results: Four cohort studies of inadvertently vaccinated and unvaccinated women were found, 15 cohorts of pregnant women who were rubella susceptible at time of inadvertent vaccination and 9 cohort studies with no information on susceptibility and case series. No case of vaccine associated congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) was identified. Cohort studies with an unvaccinated comparison group were limited in number and size, and based on these only a theoretical additional risk of 6 or more cases of CRS per 1000 vaccinated women (0% observed, upper 95% CI 0.6%) could be excluded. Based on cohorts of vaccinated rubella susceptible pregnant women a maximum theoretical risk of 1 CRS case in 1008 vaccinated women (0% observed, upper 95% CI 0.099%) was estimated. Asymptomatic rubella vaccine virus infection of the neonate was also noted (fixed effects estimate of risk overall 1.74%, 95% CI 1.21, 2.28)., Conclusion: There is no evidence that CRS is caused by rubella-containing vaccines but transplacental vaccine virus infection can occur. CRS is effectively prevented by vaccination, thus the risk/benefit balance is unequivocally in favour of vaccination. The data confirm previous recommendations that inadvertent vaccination during pregnancy is not an indication for termination of pregnancy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The ability to detect safety concerns from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports in a timely and efficient manner remains important in public health., Objective: This paper explores the behaviour of the Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT) and ability to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) in the Singapore context., Methods: We used SPRT with a combination of two hypothesised relative risks (hRRs) of 2 and 4.1 to detect signals of both common and rare adverse events in our small database. We compared SPRT with other methods in terms of number of signals detected and whether labelled adverse drug reactions were detected or the reaction terms were considered serious. The other methods used were reporting odds ratio (ROR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN) and Gamma Poisson Shrinker (GPS)., Results: The SPRT produced 2187 signals in common with all methods, 268 unique signals, and 70 signals in common with at least one other method, and did not produce signals in 178 cases where two other methods detected them, and there were 403 signals unique to one of the other methods. In terms of sensitivity, ROR performed better than other methods, but the SPRT method found more new signals. The performances of the methods were similar for negative predictive value and specificity., Conclusions: Using a combination of hRRs for SPRT could be a useful screening tool for regulatory agencies, and more detailed investigation of the medical utility of the system is merited.

Background: Dementia and obesity are increasingly important public health issues. Obesity in middle age has been proposed to lead to dementia in old age. We investigated the association between BMI and risk of dementia., Methods: For this retrospective cohort study, we used a cohort of 1,958,191 individuals derived from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) which included people aged 40 years or older in whom BMI was recorded between 1992 and 2007. Follow-up was until the practice's final data collection date, patient death or transfer out of practice, or first record of dementia (whichever occurred first). People with a previous record of dementia were excluded. We used Poisson regression to calculate incidence rates of dementia for each BMI category., Findings: Our cohort of 1,958,191 people from UK general practices had a median age at baseline of 55 years (IQR 45-66) and a median follow-up of 9·1 years (IQR 6·3-12·6). Dementia occurred in 45,507 people, at a rate of 2·4 cases per 1000 person-years. Compared with people of a healthy weight, underweight people (BMI <20 kg/m(2)) had a 34% higher (95% CI 29-38) risk of dementia. Furthermore, the incidence of dementia continued to fall for every increasing BMI category, with very obese people (BMI >40 kg/m(2)) having a 29% lower (95% CI 22-36) dementia risk than people of a healthy weight. These patterns persisted throughout two decades of follow-up, after adjustment for potential confounders and allowance for the J-shape association of BMI with mortality., Interpretation: Being underweight in middle age and old age carries an increased risk of dementia over two decades. Our results contradict the hypothesis that obesity in middle age could increase the risk of dementia in old age. The reasons for and public health consequences of these findings need further investigation., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)