Search

Abstract Background The global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant changes in the delivery of health care services such as attendance of scheduled outpatient hospital appointments. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointment in the Sultanate of Oman. Methods A retrospective single-centre analysis was conducted to determine the effect of COVID-19 on missed hospital appointments at various clinics at The Royal Hospital (tertiary referral hospital) in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. The study population included scheduled face-to-face and virtual appointments between January 2019 and March 2021. Logistic regression models were used with interaction terms (post COVID-19) to assess changes in the predictors of missed appointments. Results A total of 34, 3149 scheduled appointments was analysed (320,049 face-to-face and 23,100 virtual). The rate of missed face-to-face hospital appointments increased from 16.9% pre to 23.8% post start of COVID-19, particularly in early pandemic (40.5%). Missed hospital appointments were more frequent (32.2%) in virtual clinics (post COVID-19). Increases in missed face-to-face appointments varied by clinic (Paediatrics from 19.3% pre to 28.2% post; Surgery from 12.5% to 25.5%; Obstetrics & Gynaecology from 8.4% to 8.5%). A surge in the frequency of missed appointments was seen during national lockdowns for face-to-face and virtual appointments. Most predictors of missed appointments did not demonstrate any appreciable changes in effect (i.e., interaction term not statistically significant). Distance of patient residence to the hospital revealed no discernible changes in the relative effect pre and post COVID-19 for both face-to-face and virtual clinic appointments. Conclusion The rate of missed visits in most clinics was directly impacted by COVID-19. The case mix of patients who missed their appointments did not change. Virtual appointments, introduced after start of the pandemic, also had substantial rates of missed appointments and cannot be viewed as the single approach that can overcome the problem of missing hospital appointments.

Background: There is limited evidence in humans as to whether antibiotics impact the effectiveness of cancer treatments. Rodent studies have shown that disruption in gut microbiota due to antibiotics decreases cancer therapy effectiveness. We evaluated the associations between the antibiotic treatment of different time periods before cancer diagnoses and long-term mortality. Methods: Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, linked to the Cancer Registry’s and the Office for National Statistics’ mortality records, we delineated a study cohort that involved cancer patients who were prescribed antibiotics 0–3 months; 3–24 months; or more than 24 months before cancer diagnosis. Patients’ exposure to antibiotics was compared according to the recency of prescriptions and time-to-event (all-cause mortality) by applying Cox models. Results: 111,260 cancer patients from England were included in the analysis. Compared with antibiotic prescriptions that were issued in the past, patients who had been prescribed antibiotics shortly before cancer diagnosis presented an increased hazard ratio (HR) for mortality. For leukaemia, the HR in the Cancer Registry was 1.32 (95% CI 1.16–1.51), for lymphoma it was 1.22 (1.08–1.36), for melanoma it was 1.28 (1.10–1.49), and for myeloma it was 1.19 (1.04–1.36). Increased HRs were observed for cancer of the uterus, bladder, and breast and ovarian and colorectal cancer. Conclusions: Antibiotics that had been issued within the three months prior to cancer diagnosis may reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Judicious antibiotic prescribing is needed among cancer patients.

Abstract Background There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic altered the management of common infections in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate infection-coded consultation rates and antibiotic use during the pandemic and how any change may have affected clinical outcomes. Methods With the approval of NHS England, a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform analysed routinely collected electronic health data from GP practices in England between January 2019 and December 2021. Infection coded consultations and antibiotic prescriptions were used estimate multiple measures over calendar months, including age-sex adjusted prescribing rates, prescribing by infection and antibiotic type, infection consultation rates, coding quality and rate of same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infections. Interrupted time series (ITS) estimated the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on infection-coded consultation rates. The impact of the pandemic on non- COVID-19 infection-related hospitalisations was also estimated. Results Records from 24 million patients were included. The rate of infection-related consultations fell for all infections (mean reduction of 39% in 2020 compared to 2019 mean rate), except for UTI which remained stable. Modelling infection-related consultation rates highlighted this with an incidence rate ratio of 0.44 (95% CI 0.36–0.53) for incident consultations and 0.43 (95% CI 0.33–0.54) for prevalent consultations. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) saw the largest reduction of 0.11 (95% CI 0.07–0.17). Antibiotic prescribing rates fell with a mean reduction of 118.4 items per 1000 patients in 2020, returning to pre-pandemic rates by summer 2021. Prescribing for LRTI decreased 20% and URTI increased 15.9%. Over 60% of antibiotics were issued without an associated same-day infection code, which increased during the pandemic. Infection-related hospitalisations reduced (by 62%), with the largest reduction observed for pneumonia infections (72.9%). Same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infection increased from 1 to 10.5% between the second and third national lockdowns and rose again during 2022. Conclusions Changes to consultations and hospital admissions may be driven by reduced transmission of non-COVID-19 infections due to reduced social mixing and lockdowns. Inconsistencies in coding practice emphasises the need for improvement to inform new antibiotic stewardship policies and prevent resistance to novel infections.

Previous studies have demonstrated the association between antibiotic use and severe COVID-19 outcomes. This study aimed to explore detailed antibiotic exposure characteristics among COVID-19 patients. Using the OpenSAFELY platform, which integrates extensive health data and covers 40% of the population in England, the study analysed 3.16 million COVID-19 patients with at least two prior antibiotic prescriptions. These patients were compared to up to six matched controls without hospitalisation records. A machine learning model categorised patients into ten groups based on their antibiotic exposure history over the three years before their COVID-19 diagnosis. The study found that for COVID-19 patients, the total number of prior antibiotic prescriptions, diversity of antibiotic types, broad-spectrum antibiotic prescriptions, time between first and last antibiotics, and recent antibiotic use were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Patients in the highest decile of antibiotic exposure had an adjusted odds ratio of 4.8 for severe outcomes compared to those in the lowest decile. These findings suggest a potential link between extensive antibiotic use and the risk of severe COVID-19. This highlights the need for more judicious antibiotic prescribing in primary care, primarily for patients with higher risks of infection-related complications, which may better offset the potential adverse effects of repeated antibiotic use.

IntroductionStructured medication reviews (SMRs), introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2020, aim to enhance shared decision-making in medication optimisation, particularly for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Despite its potential, there is limited empirical evidence on the implementation of SMRs, and the challenges faced in the process. This study is part of a larger DynAIRx (Artificial Intelligence for dynamic prescribing optimisation and care integration in multimorbidity) project which aims to introduce Artificial Intelligence (AI) to SMRs and develop machine learning models and visualisation tools for patients with multimorbidity. Here, we explore how SMRs are currently undertaken and what barriers are experienced by those involved in them.MethodsQualitative focus groups and semi-structured interviews took place between 2022-2023. Six focus groups were conducted with doctors, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists (n = 21), and three patient focus groups with patients with multimorbidity (n = 13). Five semi-structured interviews were held with 2 pharmacists, 1 trainee doctor, 1 policy-maker and 1 psychiatrist. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsTwo key themes limiting the effectiveness of SMRs in clinical practice were identified: 'Medication Reviews in Practice' and 'Medication-related Challenges'. Participants noted limitations to the efficient and effectiveness of SMRs in practice including the scarcity of digital tools for identifying and prioritising patients for SMRs; organisational and patient-related challenges in inviting patients for SMRs and ensuring they attend; the time-intensive nature of SMRs, the need for multiple appointments and shared decision-making; the impact of the healthcare context on SMR delivery; poor communication and data sharing issues between primary and secondary care; difficulties in managing mental health medications and specific challenges associated with anticholinergic medication.ConclusionSMRs are complex, time consuming and medication optimisation may require multiple follow-up appointments to enable a comprehensive review. There is a need for a prescribing support system to identify, prioritise and reduce the time needed to understand the patient journey when dealing with large volumes of disparate clinical information in electronic health records. However, monitoring the effects of medication optimisation changes with a feedback loop can be challenging to establish and maintain using current electronic health record systems.

Diagnostics are widely considered crucial in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is expected to kill 10 million people annually by 2030. Nevertheless, there remains a substantial gap between the need for AMR diagnostics versus their development and implementation. To help address this problem, target product profiles (TPP) have been developed to focus developers’ attention on the key aspects of AMR diagnostic tests. However, during discussion between a multisectoral working group of 51 international experts from industry, academia and healthcare, it was noted that specific AMR-related TPPs could be extended by incorporating the interdependencies between the key characteristics associated with the development of such TPPs. Subsequently, the working group identified 46 characteristics associated with six main categories (ie, Intended Use, Diagnostic Question, Test Description, Assay Protocol, Performance and Commercial). The interdependencies of these characteristics were then identified and mapped against each other to generate new insights for use by stakeholders. Specifically, it may not be possible for diagnostics developers to achieve all of the recommendations in every category of a TPP and this publication indicates how prioritising specific TPP characteristics during diagnostics development may influence (or not) a range of other TPP characteristics associated with the diagnostic. The use of such guidance, in conjunction with specific TPPs, could lead to more efficient AMR diagnostics development.

Background: The range and scope of electronic health record (EHR) data assets in the UK has recently increased, which has been mainly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarising and comparing the large primary care resources will help researchers to choose the data resources most suited to their needs. Aim: To describe the current landscape of UK EHR databases and considerations of access and use of these resources relevant to researchers. Design & setting: Narrative review of EHR databases in the UK. Method: Information was collected from the Health Data Research Innovation Gateway, publicly available websites and other published data, and from key informants. The eligibility criteria were population-based open-access databases sampling EHRs across the whole population of one or more countries in the UK. Published database characteristics were extracted and summarised, and these were corroborated with resource providers. Results were synthesised narratively. Results: Nine large national primary care EHR data resources were identified and summarised. These resources are enhanced by linkage to other administrative data to a varying extent. Resources are mainly intended to support observational research, although some can support experimental studies. There is considerable overlap of populations covered. While all resources are accessible to bona fide researchers, access mechanisms, costs, timescales, and other considerations vary across databases. Conclusion: Researchers are currently able to access primary care EHR data from several sources. Choice of data resource is likely to be driven by project needs and access considerations. The landscape of data resources based on primary care EHRs in the UK continues to evolve.

Introduction This project applies a Learning Healthcare System (LHS) approach to antibiotic prescribing for common infections in primary care. The approach involves iterations of data analysis, feedback to clinicians and implementation of quality improvement activities by the clinicians. The main research question is, can a knowledge support system (KSS) intervention within an LHS implementation improve antibiotic prescribing without increasing the risk of complications?Methods and analysis A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, with randomisation of at least 112 general practices in North-West England. General practices participating in the trial will be randomised to the following interventions: periodic practice-level and individual prescriber feedback using dashboards; or the same dashboards plus a KSS. Data from large databases of healthcare records are used to characterise heterogeneity in antibiotic uses, and to calculate risk scores for clinical outcomes and for the effectiveness of different treatment strategies. The results provide the baseline content for the dashboards and KSS. The KSS comprises a display within the electronic health record used during the consultation; the prescriber (general practitioner or allied health professional) will answer standard questions about the patient’s presentation and will then be presented with information (eg, patient’s risk of complications from the infection) to guide decision making. The KSS can generate information sheets for patients, conveyed by the clinicians during consultations. The primary outcome is the practice-level rate of antibiotic prescribing (per 1000 patients) with secondary safety outcomes. The data from practices participating in the trial and the dashboard infrastructure will be held within regional shared care record systems of the National Health Service in the UK.Ethics and dissemination Approved by National Health Service Ethics Committee IRAS 290050. The research results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and also disseminated to participating clinical staff and policy and guideline developers.Trial registration number ISRCTN16230629.

Abstract Background A downwards secular trend in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in England was identified through previous work and the literature. Risk prediction models for primary prevention of CVD do not model this secular trend, this could result in over prediction of risk for individuals in the present day. We evaluate the effects of modelling this secular trend, and also assess whether it is driven by an increase in statin use during follow up. Methods We derived a cohort of patients (1998–2015) eligible for cardiovascular risk prediction from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with linked hospitalisation and mortality records (N = 3,855,660). Patients were split into development and validation cohort based on their cohort entry date (before/after 2010). The calibration of a CVD risk prediction model developed in the development cohort was tested in the validation cohort. The calibration was also assessed after modelling the secular trend. Finally, the presence of the secular trend was evaluated under a marginal structural model framework, where the effect of statin treatment during follow up is adjusted for. Results Substantial over prediction of risks in the validation cohort was found when not modelling the secular trend. This miscalibration could be minimised if one was to explicitly model the secular trend. The reduction in risk in the validation cohort when introducing the secular trend was 35.68 and 33.24% in the female and male cohorts respectively. Under the marginal structural model framework, the reductions were 33.31 and 32.67% respectively, indicating increasing statin use during follow up is not the only the cause of the secular trend. Conclusions Inclusion of the secular trend into the model substantially changed the CVD risk predictions. Models that are being used in clinical practice in the UK do not model secular trend and may thus overestimate the risks, possibly leading to patients being treated unnecessarily. Wider discussion around the modelling of secular trends in a risk prediction framework is needed.

Abstract Background Stability of risk estimates from prediction models may be highly dependent on the sample size of the dataset available for model derivation. In this paper, we evaluate the stability of cardiovascular disease risk scores for individual patients when using different sample sizes for model derivation; such sample sizes include those similar to models recommended in the national guidelines, and those based on recently published sample size formula for prediction models. Methods We mimicked the process of sampling N patients from a population to develop a risk prediction model by sampling patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A cardiovascular disease risk prediction model was developed on this sample and used to generate risk scores for an independent cohort of patients. This process was repeated 1000 times, giving a distribution of risks for each patient. N = 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, N min (derived from sample size formula) and N epv10 (meets 10 events per predictor rule) were considered. The 5–95th percentile range of risks across these models was used to evaluate instability. Patients were grouped by a risk derived from a model developed on the entire population (population-derived risk) to summarise results. Results For a sample size of 100,000, the median 5–95th percentile range of risks for patients across the 1000 models was 0.77%, 1.60%, 2.42% and 3.22% for patients with population-derived risks of 4–5%, 9–10%, 14–15% and 19–20% respectively; for N = 10,000, it was 2.49%, 5.23%, 7.92% and 10.59%, and for N using the formula-derived sample size, it was 6.79%, 14.41%, 21.89% and 29.21%. Restricting this analysis to models with high discrimination, good calibration or small mean absolute prediction error reduced the percentile range, but high levels of instability remained. Conclusions Widely used cardiovascular disease risk prediction models suffer from high levels of instability induced by sampling variation. Many models will also suffer from overfitting (a closely linked concept), but at acceptable levels of overfitting, there may still be high levels of instability in individual risk. Stability of risk estimates should be a criterion when determining the minimum sample size to develop models.

Abstract Background In principle, risk-stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) should produce a better balance of benefits and harms. The main benefit is the offer of NICE-approved more frequent screening and/ or chemoprevention for women who are at increased risk, but are unaware of this. We have developed BC-Predict, to be offered to women when invited to NHSBSP which collects information on risk factors (self-reported information on family history and hormone-related factors via questionnaire; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). BC-Predict produces risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5 to

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance is driven by the overuse of antibiotics. This study aimed to develop and validate clinical prediction models for the risk of infection-related hospital admission with upper respiratory infection (URTI), lower respiratory infection (LRTI) and urinary tract infection (UTI). These models were used to investigate whether there is an association between the risk of an infection-related complication and the probability of receiving an antibiotic prescription. Methods The study used electronic health record data from general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) and Welsh Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL), both linked to hospital records. Patients who visited their general practitioner with an incidental URTI, LRTI or UTI were included and followed for 30 days for hospitalisation due to infection-related complications. Predictors included age, gender, clinical and medication risk factors, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used with predicted risks independently validated in SAIL. Results The derivation and validation cohorts included 8.1 and 2.7 million patients in CPRD and SAIL, respectively. A total of 7125 (0.09%) hospital admissions occurred in CPRD and 7685 (0.28%) in SAIL. Important predictors included age and measures of comorbidity. Initial attempts at validating in SAIL (i.e. transporting the models with no adjustment) indicated the need to recalibrate the models for age and underlying incidence of infections; internal bootstrap validation of these updated models yielded C-statistics of 0.63 (LRTI), 0.69 (URTI) and 0.73 (UTI) indicating good calibration. For all three infection types, the rate of antibiotic prescribing was not associated with patients’ risk of infection-related hospital admissions. Conclusion The risk for infection-related hospital admissions varied substantially between patients, but prescribing of antibiotics in primary care was not associated with risk of hospitalisation due to infection-related complications. Our findings highlight the potential role of clinical prediction models to help inform decisions of prescribing of antibiotics in primary care.

Summary: Background: For five decades, blood pressure lowering treatment has been recommended for patients with hypertension (currently defined as blood pressure of ≥140/90 mm Hg). In the past 20 years, guidelines for treatment began incorporating predicted absolute cardiovascular disease risk (predicted risk) and reducing blood pressure thresholds. The blood pressure threshold at which to start treatment has become a secondary consideration in some countries. We aimed to provide descriptive data to assess the relative importance of blood pressure thresholds versus predicted risk on the subsequent rate of cardiovascular disease to inform treatment decisions. Methods: In this English population-based cohort study, we used linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, and the Office for National Statistics mortality data, and area-based deprivation indices (Townsend scores). Eligible patients were aged 30–79 years on Jan 1, 2011 (cohort entry date) and could be linked to hospital, mortality, and deprivation data. Patients were followed up until death, end of CPRD follow-up, or Nov 31, 2018. We examined three outcomes: cardiovascular disease, markers of potential target organ damage, and incident dementia without a known cause. The rate of each outcome was estimated and stratified by systolic blood pressure and predicted 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (QRISK2 algorithm). Findings: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Nov 31, 2018, 1 098 991 patients were included in the cohort and followed up for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 2·6–6·0; total follow-up of 4·6 million person-years). Median age at entry was 52 years (IQR 42–62) and 629 711 (57·3%) patients were female. There were 51 996 cardiovascular disease events and the overall rate of cardiovascular disease was 11·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 11·1–11·3). Median QRISK2 10-year predicted risk was 4·6% (IQR 1·4–12·0) and mean systolic blood pressure before cohort entry was 129·1 mm Hg (SD 15·7). Within strata of predicted risk, the effect of increasing systolic blood pressure on outcomes was small. For example, in the group with 10·0–19·9% predicted risk, rates of all cardiovascular disease rose from 20·1 to 23·6 per 1000 person-years between systolic blood pressures less than 110 mm Hg and 180 and higher mm Hg. But among patients with systolic blood pressure 140·0–149·9 mm Hg, rates rose from 6·9 to 52·3 per 1000 person-years between those with less than 10·0% risk and those with 30·0% or higher predicted risk. Interpretation: For a wide range of blood pressures, the rate of cardiovascular disease and effectiveness of blood pressure drug treatment was mainly determined by predicted risk, with blood pressure thresholds 140/90 mm Hg or 160/100 mm Hg—ubiquitous in most countries—adding little useful information. When medium-term predicted risk is low, there is no urgency to initiate drug treatment, allowing time to attempt non-pharmacological blood pressure reduction. Funding: National Institute for Health Research.

Abstract Introduction Missed appointments are a major health issue in the healthcare systems globally. They directly impact on the use of hospital resources, patient's health, and can lead to patient's dissatisfaction. This study was conducted to assess the reasons for missing a hospital appointment. Methods A survey was conducted with a randomly selected sample of patients who missed their outpatient appointment in Royal hospital, Sultanate of Oman, from March to April 2021 in six clinics. Patients were interviewed via telephone to answer a structured survey. In addition, a self‐administered survey was distributed to medical staff to explore their perspectives. Results Two hundred eighty patients and 52 medical staff participated in the study. Frequent patient‐reported reasons for missed appointment were transportation difficulties (11.4%), no longer needing (7.5%), or forgetting the appointment (6.8%); staff‐reported reasons were transportation (23.8%), no SMS received (16.9%), and forgetting the appointment (15.4%). Frequencies of reasons varied substantially between clinics. Family obligations were the main theme in obstetrics (odds ratio [OR] 9.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66‐33.78) and in diabetes clinic (OR 10.55; 95% CI 2.68‐38.58), where transportation issue was the main theme in Oncology clinic (OR 4.83; 95% CI 1.11‐21.02). The recommendations for improvement were mainly around improving the reminder system, the use of telephone reminders, and developing a flexible appointment scheduling system. Conclusion Knowing the reasons for missed appointment from patients and health professionals can help to develop effective interventions. The heterogeneity between clinics in reasons for missed appointment indicates for interventions tailored to clinic and frequent reasons.

Objectives Missed hospital appointments pose a major challenge for healthcare systems. There is a lack of information about drivers of missed hospital appointments in non-Western countries and extent of variability between different types of clinics. The aim was to evaluate the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointments and variability in drivers between multiple outpatient clinics.Setting Outpatient clinics in the Royal hospital (tertiary referral hospital in Oman) between 2014 and 2018.Participants All patients with a scheduled outpatient clinic appointment (N=7 69 118).Study design Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.Primary and secondary outcome measures A missed appointment was defined as a patient who did not show up for the scheduled hospital appointment without notifying or asking for the appointment to be cancelled or rescheduled. The outcomes were the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointments overall and variations by clinic. Conditional logistic regression compared patients who attended and those who missed their appointment.Results The overall rate of missed hospital appointments was 22.3%, which varied between clinics (14.0% for Oncology and 30.3% for Urology). Important predictors were age, sex, service costs, patient’s residence distance from hospital, waiting time and appointment day and season. Substantive variability between clinics in ORs for a missed appointment was present for predictors such as service costs and waiting time. Patients aged 81–90 in the Diabetes and Endocrine clinic had an adjusted OR of 0.53 for missed appointments (95% CI 0.37 to 0.74) while those in Obstetrics and Gynaecology had OR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.59). Adjusted ORs for longer waiting times (>120 days) were 2.22 (95% CI 2.10 to 2.34) in Urology but 1.26 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.36) in Oncology.Conclusion Predictors of a missed appointment varied between clinics in their effects. Interventions to reduce the rate of missed appointments should consider these factors and be tailored to clinic.

Abstract Background Risk prediction models are commonly used in practice to inform decisions on patients’ treatment. Uncertainty around risk scores beyond the confidence interval is rarely explored. We conducted an uncertainty analysis of the QRISK prediction tool to evaluate the robustness of individual risk predictions with varying modelling decisions. Methods We derived a cohort of patients eligible for cardiovascular risk prediction from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) with linked hospitalisation and mortality records (N = 3,855,660). Risk prediction models were developed using the methods reported for QRISK2 and 3, before adjusting for additional risk factors, a secular trend, geographical variation in risk and the method for imputing missing data when generating a risk score (model A–model F). Ten-year risk scores were compared across the different models alongside model performance metrics. Results We found substantial variation in risk on the individual level across the models. The 95 percentile range of risks in model F for patients with risks between 9 and 10% according to model A was 4.4–16.3% and 4.6–15.8% for females and males respectively. Despite this, the models were difficult to distinguish using common performance metrics (Harrell’s C ranged from 0.86 to 0.87). The largest contributing factor to variation in risk was adjusting for a secular trend (HR per calendar year, 0.96 [0.95–0.96] and 0.96 [0.96–0.96]). When extrapolating to the UK population, we found that 3.8 million patients may be reclassified as eligible for statin prescription depending on the model used. A key limitation of this study was that we could not assess the variation in risk that may be caused by risk factors missing from the database (such as diet or physical activity). Conclusions Risk prediction models that use routinely collected data provide estimates strongly dependent on modelling decisions. Despite this large variability in patient risk, the models appear to perform similarly according to standard performance metrics. Decision-making should be supplemented with clinical judgement and evidence of additional risk factors. The largest source of variability, a secular trend in CVD incidence, can be accounted for and should be explored in more detail.

Background: Uncertainty persists about whether or not statins cause symptomatic muscle adverse effects (e.g. pain, stiffness and weakness) in the absence of severe myositis. Objectives: To establish the effect of statins on all muscle symptoms, and the effect of statins on muscle symptoms that are perceived to be statin related. Design: A series of 200 double-blinded N-of-1 trials. Setting: Participants were recruited from 50 general practices in England and Wales. Participants: Patients who were considering discontinuing statin use and those who had discontinued statin use in the last 3 years because of perceived muscle symptoms. Interventions: Participants were randomised to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they received 20 mg of atorvastatin daily or a matched placebo. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was self-reported muscle symptoms rated using a visual analogue scale on the last week of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes included the participant’s belief about the cause of their muscle symptoms, the site of muscle symptoms, how the muscle symptoms affected the participant, any other symptoms they experienced, adherence to medication, the participant’s decision about statin treatment following the trial, and whether or not they found their own trial result helpful. Results: A total of 151 out of 200 (75.5%) randomised participants provided one or more visual analogue scale measurements in a placebo period and one or more measurements in a statin period, and were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a difference in muscle symptom scores between statin and placebo periods (mean difference statin minus placebo –0.11, 95% confidence interval –0.36 to 0.14; p = 0.398). Withdrawals, adherence and missing data were similar during the statin periods and the placebo periods. Conclusions: Among people who previously reported severe muscle symptoms while taking statins, this series of randomised N-of-1 trials found no overall effect of statins on muscle symptoms compared with the placebo. The slight difference in withdrawals due to muscle symptoms suggests that statins may contribute to symptoms in a small number of patients. The results are generalisable to patients who are considering discontinuing or have already discontinued statins because of muscle symptoms, and who are willing to re-challenge or participate in their own N-of-1 trial. Future work: We recommend that additional statins and doses are explored using N-of-1 trials. More broadly, N-of-1 trials present a useful tool for exploring transient symptoms with other medications. Limitations: This study used 20-mg doses of atorvastatin only. Furthermore, a dropout rate of 43% was observed, but this was accounted for in the power calculations. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30952488 and EudraCT 2016-000141-31. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cardiovascular disease has been the leading cause of death for decades. Risk prediction models are used to identify high risk patients; the most common model used in the UK is ClinRisk’s QRISK3. In this paper we describe the implementation of the QRISK3 algorithm into an R package. The package was successfully validated by the open sourced QRISK3 algorithm and QRISK3 SAS program. We provide detailed examples of the use of the package, including assigning QRISK3 scores for a large cohort of patients. This R package could help the research community to improve future risk prediction models based on a currently used risk prediction model. The package is available from CRAN: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/QRISK3/index.html.

Cardiovascular disease has been the leading cause of death for decades. Risk prediction models are used to identify high risk patients; the most common model used in the UK is ClinRisk’s QRISK3. In this paper we describe the implementation of the QRISK3 algorithm into an R package. The package was successfully validated by the open sourced QRISK3 algorithm and QRISK3 SAS program. We provide detailed examples of the use of the package, including assigning QRISK3 scores for a large cohort of patients. This R package could help the research community to better understand risk prediction scores and improve future risk prediction models. The package is available from CRAN: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/QRISK3/index.html.

Cardiovascular disease has been the leading cause of death for decades. Risk prediction models are used to identify high risk patients; the most common model used in the UK is ClinRisk’s QRISK3. In this paper we describe the implementation of the QRISK3 algorithm into an R package. The package was successfully validated by the open sourced QRISK3 algorithm and QRISK3 SAS program. We provide detailed examples of the use of the package, including assigning QRISK3 scores for a large cohort of patients. This R package could help the research community to better understand risk prediction scores and improve future risk prediction models. The package is available from CRAN: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/QRISK3/index.html.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize the descriptive epidemiology of insomnia in midlife and explore the relative importance of different occupational risk factors for insomnia among older workers. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all adults aged 50–64 years registered with 24 English general practices. Insomnia was defined as having at least one of four problems with sleep severely in the past three months. Subjects were also asked about employment conditions, feelings concerning work, and their health. Associations were assessed by logistic regression and population attributable fractions (PAF) calculated. RESULTS: Analysis was based on 8067 respondents (5470 in paid work), 18.8% of whom reported insomnia. It was more common among women, smokers, obese individuals, those living alone, and those in financial hardship, and less prevalent among the educated, those in South-East England, and those with friendships and leisure-time pursuits. Occupational risk factors included unemployment, shift working, lack of control and support at work, job insecurity, job dissatisfaction and several of its determinants (lacking a sense of achievement, feeling unappreciated, having difficult work colleagues, feeling unfairly criticized). Population burden of insomnia was associated more strongly with difficulties in coping with work demands, job insecurity, difficult colleagues, and lack of friendships at work [population attributable fraction (PAF) 15–33%] than shift work and lack of autonomy or support (PAF 5–7%). It was strongly associated with seven measures of poorer self-assessed health. CONCLUSIONS: Employment policies aimed at tackling insomnia among older workers may benefit from focusing particularly on job–person fit, job security and relationships in the workplace.

Abstract Background The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design provides an opportunity to incorporate the benefits of randomisation within clinical practice; thus reducing costs, integrating electronic healthcare records, and improving external validity. This study aims to address a key concern of the cmRCT design: refusal to treatment is only present in the intervention arm, and this may lead to bias and reduce statistical power. Methods We used simulation studies to assess the effect of this refusal, both random and related to event risk, on bias of the effect estimator and statistical power. A series of simulations were undertaken that represent a cmRCT trial with time-to-event endpoint. Intention-to-treat (ITT), per protocol (PP), and instrumental variable (IV) analysis methods, two stage predictor substitution and two stage residual inclusion, were compared for various refusal scenarios. Results We found the IV methods provide a less biased estimator for the causal effect when refusal is present in the intervention arm, with the two stage residual inclusion method performing best with regards to minimum bias and sufficient power. We demonstrate that sample sizes should be adapted based on expected and actual refusal rates in order to be sufficiently powered for IV analysis. Conclusion We recommend running both an IV and ITT analyses in an individually randomised cmRCT as it is expected that the effect size of interest, or the effect we would observe in clinical practice, would lie somewhere between that estimated with ITT and IV analyses. The optimum (in terms of bias and power) instrumental variable method was the two stage residual inclusion method. We recommend using adaptive power calculations, updating them as refusal rates are collected in the trial recruitment phase in order to be sufficiently powered for IV analysis.

IntroductionThe ‘learning healthcare system’ (LHS) has been proposed to deliver better outcomes for patients and communities by analysing routinely captured health information and feeding back results to clinical staff. This approach is being piloted in the Connected Health Cities (CHC) programme in four regions in the north of England. This article describes the protocol of the evaluation of this programme.Methods and analysisIn designing this evaluation, we had to take a pragmatic approach to ensure the feasibility of completing the work within 1 year. Furthermore, we have designed the evaluation in such a way as to be able to capture differences in how each of the CHC regions uses a variety of methods to create their own LHS. A mixed methods approach has been adopted for this evaluation due the scale and complexities of the pilot study. A documentary review will identify how CHC pilot study deliverables were operationalised. To gain a broad understanding of CHC staff experiences, an online survey will be offered to all staff to complete. Semi-structured interviews with key programme staff will be used to gain a deeper understanding of key achievements, as well as how challenges have been overcome or managed. Our data analysis will triangulate the documentary review, survey and interview data. A thematic analysis using our logic model as a framework will also be used to assess progress against the CHC programme deliverables and to identify recommendations to support future programme decision-making.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by The University of Manchester Ethics Committee on 24 May 2018. The results will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, social media, the internet and various stakeholder/patient and public engagement activities.

ObjectiveClinical code sets are vital to research using routinely-collected electronic healthcare data. Existing code set engineering methods pose significant limitations when considering reproducible research. To improve the transparency and reusability of research, these code sets must abide by FAIR principles; this is not currently happening. We propose 'term sets', an equivalent alternative to code sets that are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.Materials and methodsWe describe a new code set representation, consisting of natural language inclusion and exclusion terms (term sets), and explain its relationship to code sets. We formally prove that any code set has a corresponding term set. We demonstrate utility by searching for recently published code sets, representing them as term sets, and reporting on the number of inclusion and exclusion terms compared with the size of the code set.ResultsThirty-one code sets from 20 papers covering diverse disease domains were converted into term sets. The term sets were on average 74% the size of their equivalent original code set. Four term sets were larger due to deficiencies in the original code sets.DiscussionTerm sets can concisely represent any code set. This may reduce barriers for examining and reusing code sets, which may accelerate research using healthcare databases. We have developed open-source software that supports researchers using term sets.ConclusionTerm sets are independent of clinical code terminologies and therefore: enable reproducible research; are resistant to terminology changes; and are less error-prone as they are shorter than the equivalent code set.

AimsStatin-related myopathy (SRM), which includes rhabdomyolysis, is an uncommon but important adverse drug reaction because the number of people prescribed statins world-wide is large. Previous association studies of common genetic variants have had limited success in identifying a genetic basis for this adverse drug reaction. We conducted a multi-site whole-exome sequencing study to investigate whether rare coding variants confer an increased risk of SRM.Methods and resultsSRM 3-5 cases (N = 505) and statin treatment-tolerant controls (N = 2047) were recruited from multiple sites in North America and Europe. SRM 3-5 was defined as symptoms consistent with muscle injury and an elevated creatine phosphokinase level >4 times upper limit of normal without another likely cause of muscle injury. Whole-exome sequencing and variant calling was coordinated from two analysis centres, and results of single-variant and gene-based burden tests were meta-analysed. No genome-wide significant associations were identified. Given the large number of cases, we had 80% power to identify a variant with minor allele frequency of 0.01 that increases the risk of SRM 6-fold at genome-wide significance.ConclusionsIn this large whole-exome sequencing study of severe statin-related muscle injury conducted to date, we did not find evidence that rare coding variants are responsible for this adverse drug reaction. Larger sample sizes would be required to identify rare variants with small effects, but it is unclear whether such findings would be clinically actionable.

It is often difficult to determine the cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and antibiotics are frequently prescribed. This study conducted an observational cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD based on routinely collected data from patient electronic health records. A cohort of 45 375 patients aged 40 years or more who attended their general practice for a COPD exacerbation during 2000–2013 was identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Two groups were formed (“immediate antibiotics” or “no antibiotics”) based on whether antibiotics were prescribed during the index general practice (GP) consultation, with data analysed according to subsequent healthcare resource use. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, using a time horizon of 4 weeks in the base case. The use of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations resulted in cost savings and an improvement in all outcomes analysed; i.e. GP visits, hospitalisations, community respiratory team referrals, all referrals, infections and subsequent antibiotics prescriptions were lower for the antibiotics group. Hence, the use of antibiotics was dominant over no antibiotics. The economic analysis suggests that use of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations is a cost-effective alternative to not prescribing antibiotics for patients who present to their GP, and remains cost-effective when longer time horizons of 3 months and 12 months are considered. It would be useful for a definitive trial to be undertaken in this area to determine the cost-effectiveness of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations.

ABSTRACT Objective Electronic health records are increasingly used to investigate associations between antidiabetic therapy and cancer. Misclassification can impact results, especially if differential between comparators. The objective of this study was to estimate cancer misclassification when using primary care or hospital data alone. Approach Adults aged ≥40 years with an insulin or oral antidiabetic prescription in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care data at least a year after start of data collection, and no record of type 1 diabetes, were included. Patients were matched by year of birth (stepwise within 5 years), sex and GP practice to up to 1 non-diabetic patient. The cohort was restricted to those eligible for Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) linkage with follow-up during the study period (01/04/97-31/12/06). Follow-up started at the maximum of the registration date with the practice, practice up-to-standard date (a CPRD quality metric), and start of study period. Follow-up ended at the minimum of when the patient left the practice, the date CPRD last collected data from the practice, and end of study period. Cancer was identified in CPRD via Read codes and in HES via ICD10 codes. For each cancer case in CPRD, analysis evaluated whether there was a corresponding record in HES coded with same, different or unspecified site. Analysis was repeated for cancers identified in HES. Results 53,585 diabetic patients were matched to 47,435 non-diabetic patients. 83% of cancer cases in CPRD had a corresponding record in HES (78% with the same type). Misclassification varied by cancer site, ranging from 3% (stomach cancer) to 57% (nonmelanoma skin cancer). 83% of cancer cases in HES had a corresponding record in CPRD, with all misclassification rates

The original article [1] contained an error in the abstract. The mentioned cohort size now correctly states ‘N = 3,855,660’.