Contemporary reproductive outcomes for patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a retrospective observational study

Context Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the commonest cause of anovulatory infertility and may be associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. However, it is difficult to establish how much of this risk is due to PCOS and how much to obesity. Objective To determine the impact of PCOS upon fertility, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Design and setting Data were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a longitudinal anonymized primary care research database in the UK. Patients with a diagnosis of PCOS were matched to controls (1:2) by age (+/-1 year), BMI (+/- 3 units) and CPRD practice. Standardised fertility ratios (SFR) before and after diagnosis (index date) were calculated. Rates of miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, premature delivery, delivery method and neonatal outcomes were compared. Results 9,068 women with PCOS matched study criteria. Prior to index date the SFR for patients with PCOS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.83); following index date it was 1.16 (1.12-1.20). The adjusted odds ratios (OR) for miscarriage (1.70; 1.56-1.84), pre-eclampsia (1.32; 1.16-1.49), gestational diabetes (1.41; 1.2-1.66) and premature delivery (1.25; 1.1-1.43) were all increased compared to controls. Of PCOS births, 27.7% were by Caesarean section compared with 23.7% of controls (1.13; 1.05-1.21). Infants born to mothers with PCOS had an increased risk of neonatal jaundice (1.20; 1.03-1.39) and respiratory complications (1.20; 1.06-1.37). Conclusions PCOS is associated with subfertility but fertility rates are restored to those of the background population following diagnosis. Pregnancy complications and adverse neonatal outcomes are more prevalent for women with PCOS independently of obesity

Association between insulin monotherapy versus insulin plus metformin and the risk of all-cause mortality and other serious outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

Aims To determine if concomitant metformin reduced the risk of death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and cancer in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin. Methods For this retrospective cohort study, people with type 2 diabetes who progressed to insulin with or without metformin from 2000 onwards were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (≈7% sample of the UK population). The risks of all-cause mortality, MACE and incident cancer were evaluated using multivariable Cox models comparing insulin monotherapy with insulin plus metformin. We accounted for insulin dose. Results 12,020 subjects treated with insulin were identified, including 6,484 treated with monotherapy. There were 1,486 deaths, 579 MACE (excluding those with a history of large vessel disease), and 680 cancer events (excluding those in patients with a history of cancer). Corresponding event rates were 41.5 (95% CI 39.4–43.6) deaths, 20.8 (19.2–22.5) MACE, and 21.6 (20.0–23.3) cancer events per 1,000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for people prescribed insulin plus metformin versus insulin monotherapy were 0.60 (95% CI 0.52–0.68) for all-cause mortality, 0.75 (0.62–0.91) for MACE, and 0.96 (0.80–1.15) for cancer. For patients who were propensity-score matched, the corresponding aHRs for all-cause mortality and cancer were 0.62 (0.52–0.75) and 0.99 (0.78–1.26), respectively. For MACE, the aHR was 1.06 (0.75–1.49) prior to 1,275 days and 1.87 (1.22–2.86) after 1,275 days post-index. Conclusions People with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin plus concomitant metformin had a reduced risk of death and MACE compared with people treated with insulin monotherapy. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of cancer between people treated with insulin as monotherapy or in combination with metformin

Healthcare resource utilization and related financial costs associated with glucose lowering with either exenatide or basal insulin: a retrospective cohort study

Aims Type 2 diabetes is a major health problem placing increasing demands on healthcare systems. Our objective was to estimate healthcare resource use and related financial costs following treatment with exenatide‐based regimens prescribed as once‐weekly (EQW) or twice‐daily (EBID) formulations, compared with regimens based on basal insulin (BI). Materials and methods This retrospective cohort study used data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Patients with type 2 diabetes who received exenatide or BI between 2009 and 2014 as their first recorded exposure to injectable therapy were selected. Costs were attributed to primary care contacts, diabetes‐related prescriptions and inpatient admissions using standard UK healthcare costing methods (2014 prices). Frequency and costs were compared between cohorts before and after matching by propensity score using Poisson regression. Results Groups of 8723, 218 and 2180 patients receiving BI, EQW and EBID, respectively, were identified; 188 and 1486 patients receiving EQW and EBID, respectively, were matched 1:1 to patients receiving BI by propensity score. Among unmatched cohorts, total crude mean costs per patient‐year were £2765 for EQW, £2549 for EBID and £4080 for BI. Compared with BI, the adjusted annual cost ratio (aACR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91‐0.92) for EQW and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.82‐0.82) for EBID. Corresponding costs for the propensity‐matched subgroups were £2646 vs £3283 (aACR, 0.80, 0.80‐0.81) for EQW vs BI and £2532 vs £3070 (aACR, 0.84, 0.84‐0.84) for EBID vs BI. Conclusion Overall, exenatide once‐weekly and twice‐daily‐based regimens were associated with reduced healthcare resource use and costs compared with basal‐insulin‐based regimens

Risk of cardiovascular events, arrhythmia and all-cause mortality associated with clarithromycin versus alternative antibiotics prescribed for respiratory tract infections: a retrospective cohort study

Objective: To determine whether treatment with clarithromycin for respiratory tract infections was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, arrhythmias or all-cause mortality compared with other antibiotics. Design: Retrospective cohort design comparing clarithromycin monotherapy for lower (LRTI) or upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) with other antibiotic monotherapies for the same indication. Setting: Routine primary care data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and inpatient data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Participants: Patients aged ≥35 years prescribed antibiotic monotherapy for LRTI or URTI 1998–2012 and eligible for data linkage to HES. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were: adjusted risk of first-ever CV event, within 37 days of initiation, in commonly prescribed antibiotics compared with clarithromycin. Secondarily, adjusted 37-day risks of first-ever arrhythmia and allcause mortality. Results: Of 700 689 treatments for LRTI and eligible for the CV analysis, there were 2071 CV events (unadjusted event rate: 29.6 per 10 000 treatments). Of 691 998 eligible treatments for URTI, there were 688 CV events (9.9 per 10 000 treatments). In LRTI and URTI, there were no significant differences in CV risk between clarithromycin and all other antibiotics combined: OR=1.00 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.22) and 0.82 (0.54 to 1.25), respectively. Adjusted CV risk in LRTI versus clarithromycin ranged from OR=1.42 (cefalexin; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.86) to 0.92 (doxycycline; 0.64 to 1.32); in URTI, from 1.17 (co-amoxiclav; 0.68 to 2.01) to 0.67 (erythromycin; 0.40 to 1.11). Adjusted mortality risk versus clarithromycin in LRTI ranged from 0.42 to 1.32; in URTI, from 0.75 to 1.43. For arrhythmia, adjusted risks in LRTI ranged from 0.68 to 1.05; in URTI, from 0.70 to 1.22. Conclusions: CV events were more likely after LRTI than after URTI. When analysed by specific indication, CV risk associated with clarithromycin was no different to other antibiotics

Non-Response to Antibiotic Treatment in Adolescents for Four Common Infections in UK Primary Care 1991-2012: A Retrospective, Longitudinal Study

We studied non-response rates to antibiotics in the under-reported subgroup of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years old, using standardised criteria representing antibiotic treatment failure. Routine, primary care data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were used. Annual, non-response rates by antibiotics and by indication were determined. We identified 824,651 monotherapies in 415,468 adolescents: 368,900 (45%) episodes for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), 89,558 (11%) for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), 286,969 (35%) for skin/soft tissue infections (SSTIs) and 79,224 (10%) for acute otitis media (AOM). The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were amoxicillin (27%), penicillin-V (24%), erythromycin (11%), flucloxacillin (11%) and oxytetracycline (6%). In 1991, the overall non-response rate was 9.3%: 11.9% for LRTIs, 9.5% for URTIs, 7.1% for SSTIs, 9.7% for AOM. In 2012, the overall non-response rate was 9.2%. Highest non-response rates were for AOM in 1991–1999 and for LRTIs in 2000–2012. Physicians generally prescribed antibiotics to adolescents according to recommendations. Evidence of antibiotic non-response was less common among adolescents during this 22-year study period compared with an all-age population, where the overall non-response rate was 12%

Characterization and Associated Costs of Constipation Relating to Exposure to Strong Opioids in England: An Observational Study

PurposeOpioid use is associated with gastrointestinal adverse events, including nausea and constipation. We used a real-world dataset to characterize the health care burden associated with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with particular emphasis on strong opioids.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a large UK primary care dataset linked to hospital data. Patients prescribed opioids during 2016 were selected and episodes of opioid therapy constructed. Episodes with ≥84 days of exposure were classified as chronic, with date of first prescription as the index date. The main analysis focused on patients prescribed strong opioids who were laxative naive. Constipation was defined by ≥2 laxative prescriptions during the opioid episode. Patients for whom initial laxative therapy escalated by switch, augmentation, or dose were defined as OIC unstable, and the first 3 lines of OIC escalation were classified. Health care costs accrued in the first 12 months of the opioid episode were aggregated and compared.FindingsA total of 27,629 opioid episodes were identified; 5916 (21.4%) involved a strong opioid for patients who were previously laxative naive. Of these patients, 2886 (48.8%) were defined as the OIC population; 941 (33.26%) were classified as stable. Of the 1945 (67.4%) episodes classified as unstable, 849 (43.7%), 360 (18.5%), and 736 (37.8%) had 1, 2, and ≥3 changes of laxative prescription, respectively. Patients without OIC had lower costs per patient year (£3822 [US$5160/€4242]) compared with OIC (£4786 [US$6461/€5312]). Costs increased as patients had multiple changes in therapy: £4696 (US$6340/€5213), £4749 (US$6411/€5271), and £4981 (US$6724/€5529) for 1, 2, and ≥3 changes, respectively. The adjusted cost ratio relative to non-OIC was 1.14 (95$5031/€4137] vs £2379 [US$3212 /€2641),and for those patients classified as unstable versus stable (£3931 [US$5307/€4363] vs £3432 [US$4633/€3810). Costs increased with each additional line of therapy from £3701 (US$4996/€4108), £3916 (US$5287/€4347), and £4318 (US$5829/€4793).ImplicationsOIC was a common adverse event of opioid treatment and was poorly controlled for a large number of patients. Poor control was associated with increased health care costs. The impact of OIC should be considered when prescribing opioids. These results should be interpreted with consideration of the caveats associated with the analysis of routine data

Hospital admissions for severe infections in people with chronic kidney disease in relation to renal disease severity and diabetes status

Background: Immunosuppressive agents are being investigated for the treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) but may increase risk of infection. This was a retrospective observational study intended to evaluate the risk of hospitalized infection in patients with CKD, by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria status, aiming to identify the most appropriate disease stage for immunosuppressive intervention. Methods: Routine UK primary-care and linked secondary-care data were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Patients with a record of CKD were identified and grouped into type 2, type 1 and nondiabetes cohorts. Time-dependent, Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the likelihood of hospitalized infection. Results: We identified 97 839 patients with a record of CKD, of these 11 719 (12%) had type 2 diabetes. In these latter patients, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.80-1.25), 1.00, 1.03 (95% CI: 0.92-1.15), 1.36 (95% CI: 0.20-1.54), 1.82 (95% CI: 1.54-2.15) and 2.41 (95% CI: 1.60-3.63) at eGFR stages G1, G2 (reference), G3a, G3b, G4 and G5, respectively; and 1.00, 1.45 (95% CI: 1.29-1.63) and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.67-2.20) at proteinuria stages A1 (reference), A2 and A3, respectively. All aHRs (except G1 and G3a) were significant, with similar patterns observed within the non-DM and overall cohorts. Conclusions: eGFR and degree of albuminuria were independent markers of hospitalized infection in both patients with and without diabetes. The same patterns of hazard ratios of eGFR and proteinuria were seen in CKD patients regardless of diabetes status, with the risk of each outcome increasing with a decreasing eGFR and increasing proteinuria. Infection risk increased significantly from eGFR stage G3b and proteinuria stage A2 in type 2 diabetes. Treating type 2 DM patients with CKD at eGFR stages G1-G3a with immunosuppressive therapy may therefore provide a favourable risk-benefit ratio (G1-G3a in type 2 diabetes; G1-G2 in nondiabetes and overall cohorts) although the degree of proteinuria needs to be considered

Hospital admissions for severe infections in people with chronic kidney disease in relation to renal disease severity and diabetes status

Background: Immunosuppressive agents are being investigated for the treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) but may increase risk of infection. This was a retrospective observational study intended to evaluate the risk of hospitalized infection in patients with CKD, by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria status, aiming to identify the most appropriate disease stage for immunosuppressive intervention. Methods: Routine UK primary-care and linked secondary-care data were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Patients with a record of CKD were identified and grouped into type 2, type 1 and nondiabetes cohorts. Time-dependent, Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the likelihood of hospitalized infection. Results: We identified 97 839 patients with a record of CKD, of these 11 719 (12%) had type 2 diabetes. In these latter patients, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.80-1.25), 1.00, 1.03 (95% CI: 0.92-1.15), 1.36 (95% CI: 0.20-1.54), 1.82 (95% CI: 1.54-2.15) and 2.41 (95% CI: 1.60-3.63) at eGFR stages G1, G2 (reference), G3a, G3b, G4 and G5, respectively; and 1.00, 1.45 (95% CI: 1.29-1.63) and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.67-2.20) at proteinuria stages A1 (reference), A2 and A3, respectively. All aHRs (except G1 and G3a) were significant, with similar patterns observed within the non-DM and overall cohorts. Conclusions: eGFR and degree of albuminuria were independent markers of hospitalized infection in both patients with and without diabetes. The same patterns of hazard ratios of eGFR and proteinuria were seen in CKD patients regardless of diabetes status, with the risk of each outcome increasing with a decreasing eGFR and increasing proteinuria. Infection risk increased significantly from eGFR stage G3b and proteinuria stage A2 in type 2 diabetes. Treating type 2 DM patients with CKD at eGFR stages G1-G3a with immunosuppressive therapy may therefore provide a favourable risk-benefit ratio (G1-G3a in type 2 diabetes; G1-G2 in nondiabetes and overall cohorts) although the degree of proteinuria needs to be considered