Search

Objectives: To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on deprivation-related inequalities in hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) conditions in Denmark and England between March 2018 and December 2021., Design: Time-series studies in England and Denmark., Setting: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used English primary care electronic health records, linked to secondary care and death registry data through the OpenSAFELY platform and nationwide Danish health registry data., Participants: We included adults aged 18 and over without missing age, sex or deprivation information. On 1 March 2020, 16 234 700 people in England and 4 491 336 people in Denmark met the inclusion criteria., Primary Outcome Measures: Hospital admissions with the primary reason for myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, heart failure and venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Results: We saw deprivation gradients in monthly CVD hospitalisations in both countries, with differences more pronounced in Denmark. Based on pre-pandemic trends, in England, there were an estimated 2608 fewer admissions than expected for heart failure in the most deprived quintile during the pandemic compared with an estimated 979 fewer admissions in the least deprived quintile. For all other outcomes, there was little variation by deprivation quintile. In Denmark, there were an estimated 1013 fewer admissions than expected over the pandemic for MI in the most deprived quintile compared with 619 in the least deprived quintile. Similar trends were seen for stroke and VTE, though absolute numbers were smaller. Heart failure admissions were similar to pre-pandemic levels with little variation by deprivation quintile., Conclusions: Overall, we did not find that the pandemic substantially worsened pre-existing deprivation-related differences in CVD hospitalisations, though there were exceptions in both countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: REC has personal shares in AstraZeneca (AZ) unrelated to this work. BM is also employed by National Health Service ( NHS) England (all declarations are openly available at: https://www.whopaysthisdoctor.org/doctor/491/active ). JH has grant funding from UKRI and the Wellcome Trust, has a patent with Juli Health unrelated to this work and has received consultancy fees from Juli Health and the Wellcome Trust unrelated to this work. RM is supported by Barts Charity (MGU0504), receives salary contributions from Genes & Health and has received consultancy fees from Amgen. JKQ has grants from MRC, HDR UK, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), BI, Asthma + Lung UK and AZ and has received fees from GSK, Evidera, AZ and Insmed. SL was co-founder and co-chair of the RECORD steering committee and has a leadership role at Health Data Research UK. KM has received consultancy fees from Amgen. LAT has grant funding from MRC, the Wellcome Trust, has consulted for Bayer and is on the MHRA expert advisory group (Women’s health) and is a member of four non-industry funded trial advisory committees (unpaid). AYSW is funded by British Heart Foundation (FS/19/19/34175) and AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission. AM has received consultancy fees from induction health and is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, receives funding for other studies from companies in the form of research grants to (and administered by) Aarhus University. None of these studies have any relation to the present study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: The evidence of the neuropsychiatric effects associated with fluoroquinolones is mainly supported by case reports. Population-based evidence remains largely limited. We aimed to investigate the association between the use of fluoroquinolones and hospitalization or Accident & Emergency department visits for acute neuropsychiatric events using a self-controlled case series (SCCS) and active comparator to reduce confounding., Methods: We conducted a SCCS with a recently described active comparator design using all public outpatient clinics, hospitalization, and Accident and Emergency department records from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System, Hong Kong from 2001 to 2013. Among 166 325 people with an oral fluoroquinolone prescription, 4287 people who had an incident neuropsychiatric event were included. We then estimated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of acute neuropsychiatric events during periods before and after fluoroquinolone prescription, versus baseline. We repeated the analysis for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid users as an active comparator. We then estimated the comparator-adjusted estimates by dividing the IRR for fluoroquinolone by the IRR for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. The primary outcome was neuropsychiatric events. Secondary outcomes were psychotic events and cognitive impairment., Results: An increased risk of neuropsychiatric events was observed in the current use of fluoroquinolone [IRR: 2.11 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.58-2.83)] and 1-7 days after the end of fluoroquinolone prescription [IRR: 1.90 (95% CI: 1.30-2.75)] versus baseline. No increased risk was observed in other risk periods versus baseline. Similar patterns were observed in the current use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid [IRR: 1.92 (95% CI: 1.19-3.11)] and 1-7 days after the end of fluoroquinolone prescription [IRR: 1.81 (95% CI: 1.11-2.97)] versus baseline. Similar results were found for secondary outcomes. Using the active comparator design, comparator-adjusted estimates were 1.10 (95% CI: 0.63-1.93) in current use of fluoroquinolones and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.57-1.95) in 1-7 days postexposure to fluoroquinolones versus baseline., Conclusions: Although our study showed a higher incidence of neuropsychiatric events in the current use of fluoroquinolones and 7 days after the end of fluoroquinolones prescriptions compared with baseline, a similar temporal pattern was also found for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid users. Using amoxicillin/clavulanic acid as the active comparator, we found no difference in the risk of neuropsychiatric events associated with fluoroquinolone compared with baseline. Therefore, the risk of neuropsychiatric events may not need to influence the decision to prescribe either fluoroquinolones or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid based on the evidence in this study., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) rather than an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) for the treatment of hypertension for people of African and Caribbean descent, due to an increased risk of angioedema associated with ACEi use observed in US trials. However, the effectiveness and risk of these drugs in Black populations in UK routine care is unknown., Methods and Findings: We applied a reference trial emulation approach to UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum data (linked with data from Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics) to study the comparative effectiveness of ARB and ACEi in ethnic minority groups in England, after benchmarking results against the ONTARGET trial. Approximately 17,593 Black, 30,805 South Asian, and 524,623 White patients receiving a prescription for ARB/ACEi between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2019 were included with a median follow-up of 5.2 years. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular-related death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure with individual components studied as secondary outcomes. Angioedema was a safety endpoint. We assessed outcomes using an inverse-probability-weighted Cox proportional hazards model for ARB versus ACEi with heterogeneity by ethnicity assessed on the relative and absolute scale. For the primary outcome, 27,327 (18.0%) events were recorded in the ARB group (event rate: 25% per 5.5 person-years) and 80,624 (19.1%) events (event rate: 26% per 5.5 person-years) in the ACEi group. We benchmarked results against ONTARGET and observed hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for the primary outcome, with an absolute incidence rate difference (IRD)% of -1.01 (95% CI: -1.42, -0.60) per 5.5 person-years. We found no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity by ethnicity for the primary outcome on the multiplicative (Pint = 0.422) or additive scale (Pint = 0.287). Results were consistent for most secondary outcomes. However, for cardiovascular-related death, which occurred in 37,554 (6.6%) people, there was strong evidence of heterogeneity on the multiplicative (Pint = 0.002) and additive scale (Pint < 0.001). Compared to ACEi, ARB were associated with more events in Black individuals (HR 1.20 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.40); IRD% 1.07 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.04); number-needed-to-harm (NNH): 93) and associated with fewer events in White individuals (HR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.93); IRD% -0.87 (95% CI: -1.10, -0.63); number-needed-to-treat (NNT): 115), and no differences in South Asian individuals (HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.09); IRD% -0.17 (95% CI: -0.87, 0.53)). For angioedema, HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.67) with no heterogeneity for ARB versus ACEi on the multiplicative scale (Pint = 0.306). However, there was heterogeneity on the additive scale (Pint = 0.023). Absolute risks were higher in Black individuals (IRD% -0.49 (95% CI: -0.79, -0.18); NNT: 204) compared with White individuals (IRD% -0.06 (95% CI: -0.09, -0.03); NNT: 1667) and no difference among South Asian individuals (IRD% -0.05 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.05) for ARB versus ACEi., Conclusions: These results demonstrate variation in drug effects of ACEi and ARB for some outcomes by ethnicity and suggest the potential for adverse consequences from current UK guideline recommendations for ARB in preference to ACEi for Black individuals., Competing Interests: PB was funded by a GSK PhD studentship at the time of analysis. AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. EP was an employee of Compass Pathways at the time of the review. CC has received consultation, advisory board membership or research funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health, Sanofi, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Astellas, Janssen, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Baxter. In 2018 CC co-chaired a KDIGO potassium controversies conference sponsored at arm’s length by Fresenius Medical Care, AstraZeneca, Vifor Fresenius Medical Care, Relypsa, Bayer HealthCare and Boehringer Ingelheim. JFEM reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Novo Nordisk, UpToDate Inc., Idorisia, Labchem, Parexel, Roche, Sanofi. MC was an employee of GSK at the time of the study. All other authors have no conflicts., (Copyright: © 2024 Baptiste et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Stroke prevention guidance for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) uses evidence generated from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, applicability to patient groups excluded from trials remains unknown. Real-world patient data provide an opportunity to evaluate outcomes in a trial analogous population of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) users and in patients otherwise excluded from RCTs; however, there remains uncertainty on the validity of methods and suitability of the data. Successful reference trial emulation can support the generation of evidence around treatment effects in groups excluded or underrepresented in trials. We used linked United Kingdom primary care data to investigate whether we could emulate the pivotal ARISTOTLE trial (apixaban versus warfarin) and extend the analysis to investigate the impact of warfarin time in therapeutic range (TTR) on results., Methods and Findings: Patients with AF in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Aurum) prescribed apixaban or warfarin from 1 January 2013 to 31 July 2019 were selected. ARISTOTLE eligibility criteria were applied to this population and matched to the RCT apixaban arm on baseline characteristics creating a trial-analogous apixaban cohort; this was propensity-score matched to warfarin users in the CPRD Aurum. ARISTOTLE outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by prior warfarin exposure status during 2.5 years of patient follow-up and results benchmarked against the trial results before treatment effectiveness was further evaluated based on (warfarin) TTR. The dataset comprised 8,734 apixaban users and propensity-score matched 8,734 warfarin users. Results [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval)] confirmed apixaban noninferiority for stroke or systemic embolism (SE) [CPRD 0.98 (0.82,1.19) versus trial 0.79 (0.66,0.95)] and death from any cause [CPRD 1.03 (0.93,1.14) versus trial 0.89 (0.80,0.998)] but did not indicate apixaban superiority. Absolute event rates for stroke/SE were similar for apixaban in CPRD Aurum and ARISTOTLE (1.27%/year), whereas a lower event rate was observed for warfarin (CPRD Aurum 1.29%/year, ARISTOTLE 1.60%/year). Analysis by TTR suggested similar effectiveness of apixaban compared with poorly controlled warfarin (TTR < 0.75) for stroke/SE [0.91 (0.73, 1.14)], all-cause death [0.94 (0.84, 1.06)], and superiority for major bleeding [0.74 (0.63, 0.86)]. However, when compared with well-controlled warfarin (TTR ≥ 0.75), apixaban was associated with an increased hazard for all-cause death [1.20 (1.04, 1.37)], and there was no significant benefit for major bleeding [1.08 (0.90, 1.30)]. The main limitation of the study's methodology are the risk of residual confounding, channelling bias and attrition bias in the warfarin arm, and selection bias and misclassification in the analysis by TTR., Conclusions: Analysis of noninterventional data generated results demonstrating noninferiority of apixaban versus warfarin consistent with prespecified benchmarking criteria. Unlike in ARISTOTLE, superiority of apixaban versus warfarin was not seen, possible due to the lower proportion of Asian patients and higher proportion of patients with well-controlled warfarin compared to ARISTOTLE. This methodological template can be used to investigate treatment effects of oral anticoagulants in patient groups excluded from or underrepresented in trials and provides a framework that can be adapted to investigate treatment effects for other conditions., Competing Interests: EMP was funded by a Medical Research Council studentship for this work, and is an employee of and holds stock in Compass Pathways outside the submitted work. UG is an employee of and holds stock in GSK. JT reports no conflict of interest and is supported by an unrestricted grant from GSK. LS reports grants from Wellcome, MRC, NIHR, BHF, Diabetes UK, ESRC, EU and GSK, personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca, and is a trustee of the British Heart Foundation, outside the submitted work. PJB is supported by Barts Charity (MGU0504) and was supported by a GSK studentship at the time of writing. TBH reports no conflict of interest. AW reports no conflict of interest and is supported by a fellowship from British Heart Foundation (FS/19/19/34175). IJD reports grants, and holds stocks in GSK, outside the submitted work. KW has nothing to disclose., (Copyright: © 2024 Powell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Importance: Fluoroquinolone use has been associated with increased risk of uveitis and retinal detachment in noninterventional studies, but the findings have been conflicting and causality is unclear., Objective: To estimate the association of systemic fluoroquinolone use with acute uveitis or retinal detachment, using multiple analyses and multiple databases to increase the robustness of results., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and GOLD UK primary care records databases, which were linked to hospital admissions data. Adults prescribed a fluoroquinolone or a comparator antibiotic, cephalosporin, between April 1997 and December 2019 were included. Adults with uveitis or retinal detachment were analyzed in a separate self-controlled case series. Data analysis was performed from May 2022 to May 2023., Exposures: Systemic fluoroquinolone or comparator antibiotic., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a diagnosis of acute uveitis or retinal detachment. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated in the cohort study for the association of fluoroquinolone prescription with either uveitis or retinal detachment, using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated in the self-controlled case series, using conditional Poisson regression. Estimates were pooled across databases using fixed-effects meta-analysis., Results: In total, 3 001 256 individuals in Aurum (1 893 561 women [63.1%]; median [IQR] age, 51 [35-68] years) and 434 754 in GOLD (276 259 women [63.5%]; median [IQR] age, 53 [37-70] years) were included in the cohort study. For uveitis, the pooled adjusted HRs (aHRs) for use of fluoroquinolone vs cephalosporin were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72-1.14) at first treatment episode and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92-1.25) over all treatment episodes. For retinal detachment, the pooled aHRs were 1.37 (95% CI, 0.80-2.36) at first treatment episode and 1.18 (95% CI, 0.84-1.65) over all treatment episodes. In the self-controlled case series, for uveitis, the pooled adjusted RRs (aRRs) for fluoroquinolone use vs nonuse were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.97-1.31) for 1 to 29 days of exposure, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34) for 30 to 59 days, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.74-1.31) for 60 days for longer. For retinal detachment, pooled aRRs for fluoroquinolone use vs nonuse were 1.15 (95% CI, 0.86-1.54) for 1 to 29 days of exposure, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.69-1.30) for 30 to 59 days, and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.59-1.78) for 60 days or longer., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings do not support an association of systemic fluoroquinolone use with substantively increased risk of uveitis or retinal detachment. Although an association cannot be completely ruled out, these findings indicate that any absolute increase in risk would be small and, hence, of limited clinical importance.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are commonly co-prescribed with amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil, but whether there is a drug interaction between these drugs is unclear., Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of clinical outcomes associated with concomitant use of DOACs and amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil., Methods: We identified DOAC users in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019. We used a cohort design to estimate hazard ratios for ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, other bleeding, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality, comparing DOACs + amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil users and DOACs + beta-blocker users. A case-crossover design comparing odds of exposure to different drug initiation patterns for all outcomes in hazard window vs referent window within an individual also was conducted., Results: Of 397,459 DOAC users, we included 9075 co-prescribed amiodarone, 9612 co-prescribed diltiazem, and 2907 co-prescribed verapamil. There was no difference in risk of any outcomes between DOACs + amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil users vs DOACs + beta-blocker users in the cohort design. However, in the case-crossover design, we observed an odds ratio (OR) of 2.09 (99% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.18) for all-cause mortality associated with initiation of a DOAC while taking amiodarone, which was greater than that observed for DOAC monotherapy (OR 1.30; 99% CI 1.25-1.35). Similar findings were observed for cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality respectively with diltiazem., Conclusion: Our study showed no evidence of higher bleeding or cardiovascular risk associated with co-prescribed DOACs and amiodarone, diltiazem, or verapamil. Elevated risks of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality were only observed during DOAC initiation when diltiazem/amiodarone were being taken., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Douglas has received research grants GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca; and holds shares in GSK. Dr Warren-Gash participated in a Data Safety Monitoring Board for an investigator-led trial of the effect of influenza vaccination after heart attack on future cardiovascular prognosis (NCT02831608) from January 2019 to April 2020. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), compared in the ONTARGET trial, each prevent CVD. However, trial results may not be generalisable and their effectiveness in underrepresented groups is unclear. Using trial emulation methods within routine-care data to validate findings, we explored generalisability of ONTARGET results. For people prescribed an ACEi/ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD from 1/1/2001-31/7/2019, we applied trial criteria and propensity-score methods to create an ONTARGET trial-eligible cohort. Comparing ARB to ACEi, we estimated hazard ratios for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure), and secondary outcomes. As the pre-specified criteria were met confirming trial emulation, we then explored treatment heterogeneity among three trial-underrepresented subgroups: females, those aged ≥75 years and those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the trial-eligible population (n=137,155), results for the primary outcome demonstrated similar effects of ARB and ACEi, (HR 0.97 [95% CI: 0.93, 1.01]), meeting the pre-specified validation criteria. When extending this outcome to trial-underrepresented groups, similar treatment effects were observed by sex, age and CKD. This suggests that ONTARGET trial findings are generalisable to trial-underrepresented subgroups., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

Background: Recommendations around the use of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) seldom focus on potential benefits of vaccine on comorbidities. We aimed to investigate whether sequential vaccination with PCV13 and PPSV23 among older adults would provide protection against cardiovascular diseases (CVD) compared with using a single pneumococcal vaccine., Methods: We conducted a Hong Kong-wide retrospective cohort study between 2012 and 2020. Adults aged ≥65 years were identified as receiving either a single or sequential dual vaccination and followed up until the earliest CVD occurrence, death or study end. To minimize confounding, we matched each person receiving a single vaccination to a person receiving sequential vaccination according to their propensity scores. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of CVD risk using Cox regression and applied structural equation modelling to test whether the effect of sequential dual vaccination on CVD was mediated via the reduction in pneumonia., Results: After matching, 69 390 people remained in each group and the median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 1.89 (1.55) years. Compared with those receiving a single vaccine, those receiving sequential dual vaccination had a lower risk of CVD [HR (95% CI): 0.75 (0.71, 0.80), P < 0.001]. Post-hoc mediation analysis showed strong evidence that the decreased CVD risk was mediated by the reduction in all-cause pneumonia., Conclusions: Sequential dual pneumococcal vaccination was associated with lower risk of CVD compared with single-dose PCV13 or PPSV23 in older adults. Such additional CVD benefits should be considered when making decisions about pneumococcal vaccination., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

Importance: Fluoroquinolone use has been associated with increased hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection in noninterventional studies, but the reason for this observed association is unclear., Objective: To determine the association between fluoroquinolone use and aortic aneurysm or dissection using multiple study designs and multiple databases to increase the robustness of findings., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort and case-crossover studies were conducted separately in 2 databases of UK primary care records. Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and GOLD primary care records were linked to hospital admissions data. Adults with a systemic fluoroquinolone or cephalosporin prescription between April 1997 and December 2019 were included in the cohort study. Adults hospitalized with aortic aneurysm or dissection within the eligibility period were included in the case-crossover study. Individuals meeting inclusion criteria in the case-crossover study were matched 1:3 to control individuals on age, sex, index date, and clinical practice to adjust for calendar trends in prescribing. Data were analyzed from January to July 2022., Exposures: Systemic fluoroquinolone or comparator antibiotic., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated in the cohort study for the association between prescription of fluoroquinolones and hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection using stabilized inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox regression. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated in the case-crossover study for the association between systemic fluoroquinolone use and hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection using a conditional logistic regression model. Estimates were pooled across databases using fixed-effects meta-analysis., Results: In the cohort study, we identified 3 134 121 adults in Aurum (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [20.3] years; 1 969 257 [62.8%] female) and 452 086 in GOLD (mean [SD] age, 53.9 [20.2] years; 286 502 [63.4%] female) who were prescribed fluoroquinolones or cephalosporins. In crude analyses, fluoroquinolone relative to cephalosporin use was associated with increased hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection (pooled HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.44; P < .001) but after adjustment for potential confounders, this association disappeared (pooled adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.91-1.17; P = .65). In the case-crossover study, we identified 84 841 individuals hospitalized with aortic aneurysm or dissection in Aurum (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [10.9]; 23 551 [27.8%] female) and 10 357 in GOLD (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [10.5]; 2809 [27.1%] female). Relative to nonuse, fluoroquinolone use was associated with an increase in hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection, but no association was found relative to other antibiotics (vs cephalosporin pooled OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; vs trimethoprim, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.06; vs co-amoxiclav, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.18)., Conclusions and Relevance: The results in this study suggest that estimates of association of fluoroquinolones with aortic aneurysm or dissection may be affected by confounding. When such confounding is accounted for, no association was evident, providing reassurance on the safety of fluoroquinolones with respect to aortic aneurysm or dissection.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England., Methods: In this population-based, observational cohort study we used primary care electronic health record data with linkage to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data within OpenSAFELY, a data analytics platform created, with approval of NHS England, to address urgent COVID-19 research questions. We included adults aged 18 years and over registered with a TPP practice between March 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. We excluded those with missing age, sex, geographic region, or Index of Multiple Deprivation. We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, Asian, Black, Other, and Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (blood pressure and Hba1c measurements, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma annual reviews) before and after March 23, 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after March 23, 2020., Findings: Of 33,510,937 registered with a GP as of 1st January 2020, 19,064,019 were adults, alive and registered for at least 3 months, 3,010,751 met the exclusion criteria and 1,122,912 were missing ethnicity. This resulted in 14,930,356 adults with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to the White ethnic group (Pre-pandemic hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41, 0.60, Pandemic HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in those of White ethnicity (heart failure risk difference: 5.4). Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian (Pre-pandemic HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.49, 1.64, Pandemic HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19, 1.29) and Black ethnicity (Pre-pandemic HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.53, Pandemic HR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09, 1.25) compared with White ethnicity. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences., Interpretation: Our study suggests that ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes., Funding: LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912)., Competing Interests: SVK was co-chair of the Scottish Government's Expert Reference Group on Ethnicity and COVID-19 and a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity. RM and RME were members of the SAGE subgroup on ethnicity. REC has personal shares in AstraZeneca (AZ) unrelated to this work. BMK is also employed by NHS England (all declarations are openly available at: https://www.whopaysthisdoctor.org/doctor/491/active). JFH has grant funding from UKRI and the Wellcome Trust, has a patent with Juli Health unrelated to this work and has received consultancy fees from Juli Health and the Wellcome Trust unrelated to this work. RM is supported by Barts Charity (MGU0504), receives salary contributions from Genes & Health and has received consultancy fees from AMGEN. JKQ has grants from MRC, HDR UK, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), BI, asthma + lung UK, and AZ and has received fees from GSK, Evidera, AZ and Insmed. SL was co-founder and co-chair of the RECORD steering committee and has a leadership role at Health Data Research UK. KM has received consultancy fees from AMGEN. LT has grant funding from MRC, the Wellcome Trust and is funded by an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR302405), has consulted for Bayer and is on the MHRA expert advisory group (Women's health) and a member of 4 non-industry funded trial advisory committees (unpaid). All other authors declare no competing interests. AM has received consultancy fees from induction health and is a member of RCGP health informatics group and the NHS Digital GP data Professional Advisory Group., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Previous studies investigating potential cardiovascular adverse events of acid-suppressing drugs are susceptible to protopathic bias and confounding. We aimed to investigate the association between short-term risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) using a self-controlled case series (SCCS) with an active comparator., Methods: We conducted a SCCS using a population-wide database from Hong Kong from 2003-2014. Adult with ≥1 outpatient oral PPI prescription or H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) and MI during the observation period were included. We used both simple ratio and effect modifier approaches to SCCS with active comparators to obtain comparator adjusted estimates., Results: A total of 2802 and 1889 people with MI who had exposure to PPIs and H2RA were included respectively. We observed a higher risk of MI during days 1-14 following the start of PPI prescription (Incidence rate ratio (IRR): 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.76-3.00) versus baseline. Similarly, we observed a higher risk of MI during days 1-14 following the start of H2RA prescription (IRR: 2.46, 95%CI: 1.92-3.16) versus baseline. In the novel SCCS analyses, comparator adjusted estimates were 0.93 (95%CI: 0.57-1.30) and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.58-1.20) during days 1-14 in simple ratio and effect modifier approach, respectively., Conclusions: We observed no difference in risk of MI associated with PPIs compared with baseline using H2RA as the active comparator. The elevated risk of MI associated with PPIs is likely due to protopathic bias. More studies are required to explore the feasibility of using active comparators in SCCS to address protopathic bias in addition to confounding., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

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.)

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.)

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death globally, responsible for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide in 2017. Medications to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events are prescribed based on evidence from clinical trials which explore treatment effects in an indicated sample of the general population. However, these results may not be fully generalisable because of trial eligibility criteria that generally restrict to younger patients with fewer comorbidities. Therefore, evidence of effectiveness of medications for groups underrepresented in clinical trials such as those aged ≥75 years, from ethnic minority backgrounds or with low kidney function may be limited.Using individual anonymised data from the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and the Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) trial, in collaboration with the original trial investigators, we aim to investigate clinical trial replicability within a real-world setting in the area of cardiovascular disease. If the original trial results are replicable, we will estimate treatment effects and risk in groups underrepresented and excluded from the original clinical trial., Methods and Analysis: We will develop a cohort analogous to the ONTARGET trial within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2019 using the trial eligibility criteria and propensity score matching. The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospitalisation for congestive heart failure. If results from the cohort study fall within pre-specified limits, we will expand the cohort to include under represented and excluded groups., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Ref: 22658). The study has been approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (protocol no. 20&#95;012). Access to the individual patient data from the ONTARGET trial was obtained by the trial investigators. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PJB is funded by a GSK PhD studentship. CC has received consultation, advisory board membership or research funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health, Sanofi, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Astellas, Janssen, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Baxter. In 2018 she co-chaired a KDIGO potassium controversies conference sponsored at arm’s length by Fresenius Medical Care, AstraZeneca, Vifor Fresenius Medical Care, relypsa, Bayer HealthCare and Boehringer Ingelheim. She co-chairs the cloth mask knowledge exchange, a stakeholder group that includes cloth mask manufacturers and fabric distributors. MC is an employee of, and own shares in, GSK., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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).)

Objectives: To investigate whether partner bereavement is associated with adverse cardiovascular and kidney-related events in people with reduced kidney function., Design: Two parallel matched cohort studies using linked routinely collected health data., Setting: England (general practices and hospitals using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics, and Office of National Statistics) and Denmark (hospitals and community pharmacies using the Danish National Patient, Prescription and Education Registries and the Civil Registration System)., Participants: Bereaved people with reduced kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60mL/min/1.73m2 (England) or hospital-coded chronic kidney disease (Denmark)) and non-bereaved people with reduced kidney function similarly defined, matched on age, sex, general practice (England), and county of residence (Denmark) and followed-up from the bereavement date of the exposed person., Main Outcome Measures: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) or acute kidney injury (AKI) hospitalization, or death., Results: In people with reduced kidney function, we identified 19,820 (England) and 5,408 (Denmark) bereaved individuals and matched them with 134,828 (England) and 35,741 (Denmark) non-bereaved individuals. Among the bereaved, the rates of hospitalizations (per 1000 person-years) with CVD were 31.7 (95%-CI: 30.5-32.9) in England and 78.8 (95%-CI: 74.9-82.9) in Denmark; the rates of hospitalizations with AKI were 13.2 (95%-CI: 12.5-14.0) in England and 11.2 (95%-CI: 9.9-12.7) in Denmark; and the rates of death were 70.2 (95%-CI: 68.5-72.0) in England and 126.4 (95%-CI: 121.8-131.1) in Denmark. After adjusting for confounders, we found increased rates of CVD (England, HR 1.06 [95%-CI: 1.01-1.12]; Denmark, HR 1.10 [95%-CI: 1.04-1.17]), of AKI (England, HR 1.20 [95%-CI: 1.10-1.31]; Denmark HR 1.36 [95%-CI: 1.17-1.58]), and of death (England, HR 1.10 [95%-CI: 1.05-1.14]; Denmark HR 1.20 [95%-CI: 1.15-1.25]) in bereaved compared with non-bereaved people., Conclusions: Partner bereavement is associated with an increased rate of CVD and AKI hospitalization, and death in people with reduced kidney function. Additional supportive care for this at-risk population may help prevent serious adverse events., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: All authors have completed an ICJME disclosure form. AH, PB, AK, AYSW, SAJS declare no competing interests, including relevant financial interests, activities, relationships or affiliations. SVV was supported by The Beckett Foundation by a grant administered by Aarhus University which supported this manuscript. DN is the UK Renal Association Director of Informatics Research, a member of the steering group for two GlaxoSmithKline funded studies of kidney function in Sub-Saharan Africa and receives funding from the Health Foundation and the Medical Research Council unrelated to the work in this paper. SVV, CFC, and AK are members of Aarhus University Department of Clinical Epidemiology and are involved in studies with funding from various companies as research grants to (and administered by) Aarhus University. SML is funded by a Wellcome Senior Clinical Fellowship in Science (205039/Z/16/Z) and was funded by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (PPRC-2016-019) for previous bereavement-related research. SL has received consulting fees from STAART-AKI Study Group (reviewing patient information sheets) and the NIHR (lay reviewer), has received payments for medical writing or editing from Kidney Care UK, ERA-EDTA for work unrelated to this manuscript. SL has also received support for travel at ERA-EDTA Congress 2018 and 2019 unrelated to this work. SL is also chair of the UK Renal Association Patients’ Council and the Guy’s & St Thomas’ Kidney Patients’ Association.

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.)

Background: Nine years after the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) in the United States, Hong Kong (HK) introduced the vaccine to its universal childhood immunisation programme in 2009. We aimed to assess the impact of childhood PCV immunisation on all-cause pneumonia (ACP) admissions among the overall population of HK., Methods: In this population-based interrupted time series analysis, we used territory-wide population-representative electronic health records in HK to evaluate the vaccine impact. We identified hospitalised patients with a diagnosis of pneumonia from any cause between 2004 and 2017. We applied segmented Poisson regression to assess the gradual change in the monthly incidence of ACP admissions between pre- and post-vaccination periods. Negative outcome control, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the main analysis., Findings: Over the 14-year study period, a total of 587,607 ACP episodes were identified among 357,950 patients. The monthly age-standardised incidence of ACP fluctuated between 33.42 and 87.44 per 100,000-persons. There was a marginal decreasing trend in pneumonia admissions after PCV introduction among overall population (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0·9965, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·9932-0·9998), and older adults (≥65 years, IRR: 0·9928, 95% CI: 0·9904-0·9953) but not in younger age groups., Interpretation: There was a marginally declining trend of overall ACP admissions in HK up to eight years after childhood PCV introduction. The significance disappeared when fitting sensitivity analyses. The results indicate the complexities of using non-specific endpoints for measuring vaccine effect and the necessity of enhancing serotype surveillance systems for replacement monitoring., Funding: Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau of the Government of Hong Kong (Reference number: 18171272)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. X Li reports research and educational grants from Janssen, Pfizer, internal grants from University of Hong Kong, consulting fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. EW Chan reports other from Hospital Authority, grants from Research Grants Council (RGC, Hong Kong), grants from Research Fund Secretariat of the Food and Health Bureau, grants from National Natural Science Fund of China, grants from Wellcome Trust, grants from Bayer, grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants from Pfizer, grants from Janssen, grants from Amgen, grants from Takeda, grants from Narcotics Division of the Security Bureau of HKSAR, outside the submitted work. Dr. IP has received research grants from Research Grants Council (RGC, Hong Kong) and Health and Medical Research Fund (HMRF), outside the submitted work. Professor BJ Cowling reports personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Professor ICK Wong reports grants from Amgen, grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants from Pfizer, grants from Janssen, grants from Bayer, grants from Bayer, grants from Novartis, grants from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council, grants from the Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, grants from National Institute for Health Research in England, grants from European Commission, grants from National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia, outside the submitted work; and also received speaker fee from Janssen and Medice in previous 3 years. The other authors declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atopic eczema affects up to 10% of adults and is becoming more common globally. Few studies have assessed whether atopic eczema increases the risk of death., Objective: We aimed to determine whether adults with atopic eczema were at increased risk of death overall and by specific causes and to assess whether the risk varied by atopic eczema severity and activity., Methods: The study was a population-based matched cohort study using UK primary care electronic health care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with linked hospitalization data from Hospital Episode Statistics and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics from 1998 to 2016., Results: A total of 526,736 patients with atopic eczema were matched to 2,567,872 individuals without atopic eczema. The median age at entry was 41.8 years, and the median follow-up time was 4.5 years. There was limited evidence of increased hazard for all-cause mortality in those with atopic eczema (hazard ratio = 1.04; 99% CI = 1.03-1.06), but there were somewhat stronger associations (8%-14% increased hazard) for deaths due to infectious, digestive, and genitourinary causes. Differences on the absolute scale were modest owing to low overall mortality rates. Mortality risk increased markedly with eczema severity and activity. For example, patients with severe atopic eczema had a 62% increased hazard (hazard ratio = 1.62; 99% CI = 1.54-1.71) for mortality compared with those without eczema, with the strongest associations for infectious, respiratory, and genitourinary causes., Conclusion: The increased hazards for all-cause and cause-specific mortality were largely restricted to those with the most severe or predominantly active atopic eczema. Understanding the reasons for these increased hazards for mortality is an urgent priority., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are concerns that the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK might have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We aimed to ascertain what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic., Methods: Using de-identified electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (covering 13% of the UK population), between 2017 and 2020, we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions: anxiety, depression, self-harm (fatal and non-fatal), severe mental illness, eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, acute alcohol-related events, asthma exacerbation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, acute cardiovascular events (cerebrovascular accident, heart failure, myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attacks, unstable angina, and venous thromboembolism), and diabetic emergency. Primary care contacts included remote and face-to-face consultations, diagnoses from hospital discharge letters, and secondary care referrals, and conditions were identified through primary care records for diagnoses, symptoms, and prescribing. Our overall study population included individuals aged 11 years or older who had at least 1 year of registration with practices contributing to CPRD Aurum in the specified period, but denominator populations varied depending on the condition being analysed. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions (defined as March 29, 2020) compared with the period before their introduction (defined as Jan 1, 2017 to March 7, 2020), with data excluded for an adjustment-to-restrictions period (March 8-28)., Findings: The overall population included 9 863 903 individuals on Jan 1, 2017, and increased to 10 226 939 by Jan 1, 2020. Primary care contacts for almost all conditions dropped considerably after the introduction of population-wide restrictions. The largest reductions were observed for contacts for diabetic emergencies (odds ratio 0·35 [95% CI 0·25-0·50]), depression (0·53 [0·52-0·53]), and self-harm (0·56 [0·54-0·58]). In the interrupted time-series analysis, with the exception of acute alcohol-related events (0·98 [0·89-1·10]), there was evidence of a reduction in contacts for all conditions (anxiety 0·67 [0·66-0·67], eating disorders 0·62 [0·59-0·66], obsessive-compulsive disorder [0·69 [0·64-0·74]], self-harm 0·56 [0·54-0·58], severe mental illness 0·80 [0·78-0·83], stroke 0·59 [0·56-0·62], transient ischaemic attack 0·63 [0·58-0·67], heart failure 0·62 [0·60-0·64], myocardial infarction 0·72 [0·68-0·77], unstable angina 0·72 [0·60-0·87], venous thromboembolism 0·94 [0·90-0·99], and asthma exacerbation 0·88 [0·86-0·90]). By July, 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels., Interpretation: There were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions following the introduction of restrictions, with limited recovery by July, 2020. Further research is needed to ascertain whether these reductions reflect changes in disease frequency or missed opportunities for care. Maintaining health-care access should be a key priority in future public health planning, including further restrictions. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people with the conditions as well as health-care provision., Funding: Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship, 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: Characterising the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID-19 is vital for effective policy and planning. Older age, and underlying health conditions, are associated with higher risk of death from COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom., Methods: We used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to estimate the point prevalence on 5 March 2019 of the at-risk population following national guidance. Prevalence for any risk condition and for each individual condition is given overall and stratified by age and region with binomial exact confidence intervals. We repeated the analysis on 5 March 2014 for full regional representation and to describe prevalence of underlying health conditions in pregnancy. We additionally described the population of cancer survivors, and assessed the value of linked secondary care records for ascertaining COVID-19 at-risk status., Results: On 5 March 2019, 24.4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition, including 8.3% of school-aged children, 19.6% of working-aged adults, and 66.2% of individuals aged 70 years or more. 7.1% of the population had multimorbidity. The size of the at-risk population was stable over time comparing 2014 to 2019, despite increases in chronic liver disease and diabetes and decreases in chronic kidney disease and current asthma. Separately, 1.6% of the population had a new diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 y., Conclusions: The population at risk of severe COVID-19 (defined as either aged ≥70 years, or younger with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals. Our national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates in other countries. We provide age- and region- stratified prevalence for each condition to support effective modelling of public health interventions and planning of vaccine resource allocation. The high prevalence of health conditions among older age groups suggests that age-targeted vaccination strategies may efficiently target individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

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.)

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.)

Background: Psychological stress is commonly cited as a risk factor for melanoma, but clinical evidence is limited., Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the association between partner bereavement and (i) first-time melanoma diagnosis and (ii) mortality in patients with melanoma., Methods: We conducted two cohort studies using data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (1997-2017) and Danish nationwide registries (1997-2016). In study 1, we compared the risk of first melanoma diagnosis in bereaved vs. matched nonbereaved people using stratified Cox regression. In study 2 we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for death from melanoma in bereaved compared with nonbereaved individuals with melanoma using Cox regression. We estimated HRs separately for the U.K. and for Denmark, and then pooled the data to perform a random-effects meta-analysis., Results: In study 1, the pooled adjusted HR for the association between partner bereavement and melanoma diagnosis was 0·88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·84-0·92] across the entire follow-up period. In study 2, we observed increased melanoma-specific mortality in people experiencing partner bereavement across the entire follow-up period (HR 1·17, 95% CI 1·06-1·30), with the peak occurring during the first year of follow-up (HR 1·31, 95% CI 1·07-1·60)., Conclusions: We found decreased risk of melanoma diagnosis, but increased mortality associated with partner bereavement. These findings may be partly explained by delayed detection resulting from the loss of a partner who could notice skin changes. Stress may play a role in melanoma progression. Our findings indicate the need for a low threshold for skin examination in individuals whose partners have died. What is already known about this topic? Psychological stress has been proposed as a risk factor for the development and progression of cancer, including melanoma, but evidence is conflicting. Clinical evidence is limited by small sample sizes, potential recall bias associated with self-report, and heterogeneous stress definitions. What does this study add? We found a decreased risk of melanoma diagnosis, but increased mortality associated with partner bereavement. While stress might play a role in the progression of melanoma, an alternative explanation is that bereaved people no longer have a close person to help notice skin changes, leading to delayed melanoma detection. Linked Comment: Talaganis et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:607-608., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Importance: Associations between atopic eczema and cancer are unclear, with competing theories that increased immune surveillance decreases cancer risk and that immune stimulation increases cancer risk. Establishing baseline cancer risk in people with atopic eczema is important before exploring the association between new biologic drugs for atopic eczema and cancer risk., Objective: To investigate whether atopic eczema is associated with cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: Matched cohort studies were conducted from January 2, 1998, to March 31, 2016, in England and from January 1, 1982, to June 30, 2016, in Denmark. We conducted our analyses between July 2018 and July 2019. The setting was English primary care and nationwide Danish data. Participants with atopic eczema (adults only in England and any age in Denmark) were matched on age, sex, and calendar period (as well as primary care practice in England only) to those without atopic eczema., Exposure: Atopic eczema., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall cancer risk and risk of specific cancers were compared in people with and without atopic eczema., Results: In England, matched cohorts included 471 970 individuals with atopic eczema (median [IQR] age, 41.1 [24.9-60.7] years; 276 510 [58.6%] female) and 2 239 775 individuals without atopic eczema (median [IQR] age, 39.8 [25.9-58.4] years; 1 301 074 [58.1%] female). In Denmark, matched cohorts included 44 945 individuals with atopic eczema (median [IQR] age, 13.7 [1.7-21.1] years; 22 826 [50.8%] female) and 445 673 individuals without atopic eczema (median [IQR] age, 13.5 [1.7-20.8] years; 226 323 [50.8%] female). Little evidence was found of associations between atopic eczema and overall cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 99% CI, 1.02-1.06 in England and 1.05; 99% CI, 0.95-1.16 in Denmark) or for most specific cancers. However, noncutaneous lymphoma risk was increased in people with atopic eczema in England (adjusted HR, 1.19; 99% CI, 1.07-1.34 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL] and 1.48; 99% CI, 1.07-2.04 for Hodgkin lymphoma). Lymphoma risk was increased in people with greater eczema severity vs those without atopic eczema (NHL adjusted HR, 1.06; 99% CI, 0.90-1.25 for mild eczema; 1.24; 99% CI, 1.04-1.48 for moderate eczema; and 2.08; 99% CI, 1.42-3.04 for severe eczema). Danish point estimates also showed increased lymphoma risk in people with moderate to severe eczema compared with those without atopic eczema (minimally adjusted HR, 1.31; 99% CI, 0.76-2.26 for NHL and 1.35; 99% CI, 0.65-2.82 for Hodgkin lymphoma), but the 99% CIs were wide., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings from 2 large population-based studies performed in different settings do not support associations between atopic eczema and most cancers. However, an association was observed between atopic eczema and lymphoma, particularly NHL, that increased with eczema severity. This finding warrants further study as new immunomodulatory systemic therapeutics are brought to market that may alter cancer risk.

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: Stress is commonly cited as a risk factor for psoriasis and atopic eczema, but such evidence is limited., Objectives: To investigate the association between partner bereavement (an extreme life stressor) and psoriasis or atopic eczema., Methods: We conducted cohort studies using data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (1997-2017) and Danish nationwide registries (1997-2016). The exposed cohort was partners who experienced partner bereavement. The comparison cohort was up to 10 nonbereaved partners, matched to each bereaved partner by age, sex, county of residence (Denmark) and general practice (U.K.). Outcomes were the first recorded diagnosis of psoriasis or atopic eczema. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model in both settings, which were then pooled in a meta-analysis., Results: The pooled adjusted HR for the association between bereavement and psoriasis was 1·01 (95% CI 0·98-1·04) across the entire follow-up. Similar results were found in other shorter follow-up periods. Pooled adjusted HRs for the association between bereavement and atopic eczema were 0·97 (95% CI 0·84-1·12) across the entire follow-up, 1·09 (95% CI 0·86-1·38) within 0-30 days, 1·18 (95% CI 1·04-1·35) within 0-90 days, 1·14 (95% CI 1·06-1·22) within 0-365 days and 1·07 (95% CI 1·02-1·12) within 0-1095 days., Conclusions: We found a modest increase in the risk of atopic eczema within 3 years following bereavement, which peaked in the first 3 months. Acute stress may play a role in triggering onset of new atopic eczema or relapse of atopic eczema previously in remission. We observed no evidence for increased long-term risk of psoriasis and atopic eczema following bereavement., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Mice receiving angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) drugs show increased susceptibility to infection by Staphylococcus aureus ( S. aureus ). We sought to investigate whether humans using ACEI were at increased risk of S. aureus infection, comparing them to users of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARB) with multiple control outcomes to assess the potential for residual confounding. Methods: Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics between 1997 and 2017, we identified adults starting ACEI or ARB (as an active comparator drug). We regarded prescription of ACEI or ARB as time-dependent exposure and used a Cox regression model to compare incidence of first hospitalisation with infection due to S. aureus in periods with ACEI to periods with ARB prescriptions. We repeated the analysis using control outcomes that we did not expect to be associated with use of ACEI versus ARB (Gram-negative sepsis, hip fracture and herpes zoster) and one that we did (dry cough). Results: We identified 445,341 new users of ACEI (mean age 64.0±14.0, male 51.7%) and 41,824 new users of ARB (mean age 64.1±14.0, male 45.5%). The fully adjusted hazard ratio for S. aureus infection (ACEI vs. ARB) was 1.18 (95% CI 1.10-1.27), consistent across sensitivity analyses. However, we also found associations with all control outcomes; rates of Gram-negative sepsis, hip fracture and dry cough were also increased during periods of time treated with ACEI compared to ARB while herpes zoster was more common during time treated with ARB. Conclusions: Our results suggest that although ARB users appear an ideal control for analyses of ACEI effects, there is residual confounding even after multivariable adjustment. This has implications for observational analyses comparing users of these drug classes, in particular the effect of these drugs in relation to COVID-19 infection., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2020 Bidulka P et al.)

Background: Individuals may still develop gastric cancer even after Helicobacter pylori eradication. We aimed to investigate statin effect on gastric cancer development in H. pylori -eradicated subjects., Methods: All adult subjects who were prescribed clarithromycin-based triple therapy between 2003 and 2012 were identified in this retrospective cohort study utilizing a territory-wide electronic healthcare database. Patients were observed from index date of H. pylori therapy, and censored at gastric cancer diagnosis, death, or December 2015 (study end date). Statin use was defined as ≥180-day use after index date. Exclusion criteria included gastric cancer diagnosed within the first year after index date, previous gastric cancer or gastrectomy, and H. pylori treatment failure. Subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of gastric cancer with statins was calculated by competing risk regression with propensity score (PS) analysis matching 19 variables (age, sex, comorbidities, and other drug usage, including proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and metformin)., Results: During a median follow-up of 7.6 years (interquartile range = 5.1-10.3), 169 (0.27%) of 63,605 patients developed gastric cancer at an incidence rate of 3.5 per 10,000 person-years. Among 22,870 PS-matched subjects, statins were associated with a lower gastric cancer risk (SHR = 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.61), in a duration- and dose-response manner ( P trend < 0.05)., Conclusions: Statins were associated with a lower gastric cancer risk in a duration- and dose-response manner among H. pylori -eradicated patients., Impact: This study provides evidence on the additional benefits of statins as chemopreventive agents against gastric cancer among H. pylori -eradicated patients., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Haloperidol remains a frequently prescribed first-generation antipsychotic. However, haloperidol-associated mortality risk by all causes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and pneumonia compared with other antipsychotics is unknown., Objective: This study investigated the mortality risk associated with long-term haloperidol treatment versus that with other antipsychotics., Methods: We identified incident antipsychotic users from 2004 to 2014 in the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System (CDARS), a population-based clinical database managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. We included patients who were aged ≥ 18 and received antipsychotics for any indication apart from terminal illnesses or management of acute behavioural disturbance. Patients on haloperidol and other antipsychotic agents (risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine, aripiprazole, sulpiride, amisulpride, or trifluoperazine) were matched by propensity score. Hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality and death due to CVD and pneumonia were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a Cox proportional hazards model., Results: In total, 136,593 users of antipsychotics were included. During a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, the incidence of all-cause mortality ranged from 186.8/1000 person-years for haloperidol to 10.4/1000 person-years for trifluoperazine. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with non-haloperidol antipsychotics than with haloperidol, with HRs ranging from 0.68 (95% CI 0.64-0.72 [chlorpromazine]) to 0.43 (95% CI 0.36-0.53 [trifluoperazine]). Risperidone, quetiapine, sulpiride, chlorpromazine, aripiprazole, and trifluoperazine were associated with a significantly lower risk of pneumonia-related mortality. A significantly lower risk of CVD mortality was observed for risperidone, sulpiride, chlorpromazine, and quetiapine., Conclusion: Haloperidol was associated with increased overall mortality when compared with other antipsychotics in long-term follow-up. Treatment with haloperidol should be carefully considered, especially in older patients and patients at risk of CVD or pneumonia, since the risk of death appears to be lower with non-haloperidol agents.

Background: Although prior studies showed metformin could reduce gastric cancer (GC) risk in patients with diabetes mellitus, they failed to adjust for Helicobacter pylori infection and glycemic control. We aimed to investigate whether metformin reduced GC risk in H. pylori-eradicated diabetic patients and its association with glycemic control., Methods: This was a territory-wide cohort study using hospital registry database, recruiting all diabetic patients who were prescribed clarithromycin-based triple therapy for H. pylori infection from 2003 to 2012. Subjects were observed from H. pylori therapy prescription until GC diagnosis, death, or end of study (December 2015). Exclusion criteria included GC diagnosed within first year of H. pylori therapy, prior history of GC or gastrectomy, and failure of H. pylori eradication. The hazard ratio (HR) of GC with metformin (defined as at least 180-day use) was estimated by Cox model with propensity score adjustment for covariates (age, sex, comorbidities, medications [including insulin], and time-weighted average hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]). All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: During a median follow-up of 7.1 years (IQR = 4.7-9.8), 37 (0.51%) of 7266 diabetic patients developed GC at a median age of 76.4 years (IQR = 64.8-81.5 years). Metformin use was associated with a reduced GC risk (adjusted HR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.98). There was a trend towards a lower GC risk with increasing duration (Ptrend = .01) and dose of metformin (Ptrend = .02). HbA1c level was not an independent risk factor for GC., Conclusions: Metformin use was associated with a lower GC risk among H. pylori-eradicated diabetic patients in a duration- and dose-response manner, which was independent of HbA1c level., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In the UK, an estimated one third of people with dementia have not received a diagnosis. Good evidence suggests that dementia risk is increased among widowed individuals; however, it is not clear if they are being diagnosed in routine primary care., Objective: This study aimed to investigate if bereavement influenced the probability of having received a dementia diagnosis., Methods: A population-based cohort study using UK electronic health records, between 1997 and 2017, among 247,586 opposite-sex partners. Those experiencing partner bereavement were matched (age, sex, and date of bereavement) to a non-bereaved person living in a partnership. Multivariate cox regression was performed., Results: Partner bereavement was associated with an increased risk of receiving a diagnosis of dementia in the first three months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.43, 95% CI 1.20-1.71) and first six months (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.09-1.41), while there was a small reduced risk of getting a dementia diagnosis over all follow-up (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98)., Conclusions: Partner bereavement appears to lead to a short-term increased risk of the surviving partner receiving a diagnosis of dementia, suggesting that bereavement unmasks existing undiagnosed dementia. Over the longer term, however, bereaved individuals are less likely to have a diagnosis of dementia in their health records than non-bereaved individuals.