COPD disease severity and the risk of venous thromboembolic events: a matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: It is generally accepted that people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of vascular disease, including venous thromboembolism (VTE). While it is plausible that the risk of arterial and venous thrombotic events is greater still in certain subgroups of patients with COPD, such as those with more severe airflow limitation or more frequent exacerbations, these associations, in particular those between venous events and COPD severity or exacerbation frequency, remain largely untested in large population cohorts. METHODS: A total of 3,594 patients with COPD with a first VTE event recorded during January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013, were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink dataset and matched on age, sex, and general practitioner practice (1:3) to patients with COPD with no history of VTE (n=10,782). COPD severity was staged by degree of airflow limitation (ie, GOLD stage) and by COPD medication history. Frequent exacerbators were defined as patients with COPD with ≥ 2 exacerbations in the 12-month period prior to their VTE event (for cases) or their selection as a control (for controls). Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association between disease severity or exacerbation frequency and VTE. RESULTS: After additional adjustment for nonmatching confounders, including body mass index, smoking, and heart-related comorbidities, there was evidence for an association between increased disease severity and VTE when severity was measured either in terms of lung function impairment (odds ratio [OR]moderate:mild =1.16; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] =1.03, 1.32) or medication usage (ORsevere:mild/moderate =1.17; 95% CIs =1.06, 1.26). However, there was no evidence to suggest that frequent exacerbators were at greater risk of VTE compared with infrequent exacerbators (OR =1.06; 95% CIs =0.97, 1.15). CONCLUSION: COPD severity defined by airflow limitation or medication usage, but not exacerbation frequency, appears to be associated with VTE events in people with COPD. This finding highlights the disconnect between disease activity and severity in COPD

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

Background: Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022–November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups. Findings: A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48–1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45–1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.94; P = 0.033). Interpretation: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK

Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review.

AIMS: To investigate the range of methods used to validate diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), to summarize findings and to assess the quality of these validations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase for publications using GPRD data published between 1987 and April 2008. Additional publications were identified from conference proceedings, back issues of relevant journals, bibliographies of retrieved publications and relevant websites. Publications that reported attempts to validate disease diagnoses recorded in the GPRD were included. RESULTS: We identified 212 publications, often validating more than one diagnosis. In total, 357 validations investigating 183 different diagnoses met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 303 (85%) utilized data from outside the GPRD to validate diagnoses. The remainder utilized only data recorded in the database. The median proportion of cases with a confirmed diagnosis was 89% (range 24-100%). Details of validation methods and results were often incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: A number of methods have been used to assess validity. Overall, estimates of validity were high. However, the quality of reporting of the validations was often inadequate to permit a clear interpretation. Not all methods provided a quantitative estimate of validity and most methods considered only the positive predictive value of a set of diagnostic codes in a highly selected group of cases. We make recommendations for methodology and reporting to strengthen further the use of the GPRD in research

Comparability of the age and sex distribution of the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the total Dutch population

PURPOSE: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is increasingly being used by Dutch researchers in epidemiology and pharmacoepidemiology. It is however unclear if the UK CPRD is representative of the Dutch population and whether study results would apply to the Dutch population. Therefore, as first step, our objective was to compare the age and sex distribution of the CPRD with the total Dutch population. METHODS: As a measure of representativeness, the age and sex distribution of the UK CPRD were visually and numerically compared with Dutch census data from the StatLine database of the Dutch National Bureau of Statistics in 2011. RESULTS: The age distribution of men and women in the CPRD population was comparable to the Dutch male and female population. Differences of more than 10% only occurred in older age categories (75+ in men and 80+ in women). CONCLUSIONS: Results from observational studies that have used CPRD data are applicable to the Dutch population, and a useful resource for decision making in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, differences in drug exposure likelihood between countries should be kept in mind, as these could still cause variations in the actual population studied, thereby decreasing its generalizability. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Comparability of the age and sex distribution of the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the total Dutch population

PURPOSE: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is increasingly being used by Dutch researchers in epidemiology and pharmacoepidemiology. It is however unclear if the UK CPRD is representative of the Dutch population and whether study results would apply to the Dutch population. Therefore, as first step, our objective was to compare the age and sex distribution of the CPRD with the total Dutch population. METHODS: As a measure of representativeness, the age and sex distribution of the UK CPRD were visually and numerically compared with Dutch census data from the StatLine database of the Dutch National Bureau of Statistics in 2011. RESULTS: The age distribution of men and women in the CPRD population was comparable to the Dutch male and female population. Differences of more than 10% only occurred in older age categories (75+ in men and 80+ in women). CONCLUSIONS: Results from observational studies that have used CPRD data are applicable to the Dutch population, and a useful resource for decision making in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, differences in drug exposure likelihood between countries should be kept in mind, as these could still cause variations in the actual population studied, thereby decreasing its generalizability. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd