Association between levodopa and ischemic heart disease

Background Several studies linked the use of levodopa to an increase in homocysteine level, which can lead eventually to ischemic heart disease (IHD) in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. There is a lack of large population studies that have investigated the cardiovascular safety of levodopa. Objectives The main objective of the study is to investigate the one-year risk of IHD hospitalisation, all-cardiovascular hospital hospitalisation, and all-cause mortality among users of L-dopa compared with users of Monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors (as a reference). Methods A population-based study evaluated data obtained from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank of residents in Wales, aged 40 years or older, newly treated with PD medications between 2000 and 2016. The General Practice (GP) database was used to identify the PD diagnostic codes, PD medications, and other medications used by PD patients. Hospital data were used to identify the first hospitalisation event (IHD and other cardiovascular events). A fully adjusted propensity score multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to examine associations between levodopa and the study outcomes. The index date was set at the date of the first PD prescription in the newly diagnosed PD patients. Other variables included gender, comorbidities, social deprivation score and previous medications history were controlled for. Findings There were 5,140 participants on levodopa and 494 on MAO-B inhibitors. L-dopa was not associated with IHD (p=0.561), other cardiovascular events (p=0.233), or all-cause mortality (p=0.334). For IHD, the lack of difference was seen also in the unadjusted model and in the age-only adjusted model. Conclusions This study has shown that L-dopa does not increase the risk of IHD, cardiovascular risk, or all-cause mortality in the newly diagnosed PD patient within one year after the therapy initiation. This could contribute to the safety profile of L-dopa therapy. Future research with a longer follow up period is warranted

Factors affecting the choice of first-line therapy in Parkinson's disease patients in Wales: A population-based study

First line treatment for Parkinson’s disease (PD) is typically either L-dopa or a non-ergot dopamine agonist (DA). However, the options for the treatment of motor symptoms in PD patients have increased in the last thirty years, which have seen several new classes of PD medications introduced onto the market. The purpose of this study is to examine the changes in first line therapy of newly diagnosed Parkinson’s patients between 2000 and 2016 in Wales. A population-based study evaluated data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank of residents in Wales, aged 40 years or older, newly treated with PD medications between 2000 and 2016. The data was compared across three intervals: 2000–2005, 2006–2011 and 2012–2016. Patients were classified by age at diagnosis into young: 40–60 years; mid, 61–80 years; and older >80 years. Logistic regression was undertaken to determine the predictors of PD medication prescribing. For the whole study period, the profiles of 9142 newly diagnosed PD patients were analysed. L-dopa was the most common first line therapy (80.6%), followed by non-ergot DAs (12.9%) and monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors (7.9%). Odds of L-dopa prescribing were greater in patients >80 years (OR = 20.46 95%CI: 16.25–25.76) and in the period 2012–2016 (OR = 1.98 95% CI: 1.70–2.29). Prescribing of non-ergot DAs significantly declined in 2012–2016 (OR = 0.42 95% CI: 0.35–0.49). Additional factors influencing first line therapy were deprivation, presence of diabetes and prior use of antidepressants. For example, PD patients residing in the least deprived area were less likely to be prescribed L-dopa compared to patients residing in the most deprived area (OR = 0.77 95% CI: 0.65–0.93). First line therapy in PD in Wales has undergone a significant switch towards L-dopa over the last 16 years. The data indicates reasonable compliance with guidelines on efficacy and safety issues related to Parkinson’s medications

Ethnicity data resource in population-wide health records:completeness, coverage and granularity of diversity

Intersectional social determinants including ethnicity are vital in health research. We curated a population-wide data resource of self-identified ethnicity data from over 60 million individuals in England primary care, linking it to hospital records. We assessed ethnicity data in terms of completeness, consistency, and granularity and found one in ten individuals do not have ethnicity information recorded in primary care. By linking to hospital records, ethnicity data were completed for 94% of individuals. By reconciling SNOMED-CT concepts and census-level categories into a consistent hierarchy, we organised more than 250 ethnicity sub-groups including and beyond “White”, “Black”, “Asian”, “Mixed” and “Other, and found them to be distributed in proportions similar to the general population. This large observational dataset presents an algorithmic hierarchy to represent self-identified ethnicity data collected across heterogeneous healthcare settings. Accurate and easily accessible ethnicity data can lead to a better understanding of population diversity, which is important to address disparities and influence policy recommendations that can translate into better, fairer health for all.<br/

Ethnicity data resource in population-wide health records: completeness, coverage and granularity of diversity

Intersectional social determinants including ethnicity are vital in health research. We curated a population-wide data resource of self-identified ethnicity data from over 60 million individuals in England primary care, linking it to hospital records. We assessed ethnicity data in terms of completeness, consistency, and granularity and found one in ten individuals do not have ethnicity information recorded in primary care. By linking to hospital records, ethnicity data were completed for 94% of individuals. By reconciling SNOMED-CT concepts and census-level categories into a consistent hierarchy, we organised more than 250 ethnicity sub-groups including and beyond “White”, “Black”, “Asian”, “Mixed” and “Other, and found them to be distributed in proportions similar to the general population. This large observational dataset presents an algorithmic hierarchy to represent self-identified ethnicity data collected across heterogeneous healthcare settings. Accurate and easily accessible ethnicity data can lead to a better understanding of population diversity, which is important to address disparities and influence policy recommendations that can translate into better, fairer health for all

Using national electronic health records for pandemic preparedness: validation of a parsimonious model for predicting excess deaths among those with COVID-19–a data-driven retrospective cohort study

Objectives: To use national, pre- and post-pandemic electronic health records (EHR) to develop and validate a scenario-based model incorporating baseline mortality risk, infection rate (IR) and relative risk (RR) of death for prediction of excess deaths. Design: An EHR-based, retrospective cohort study. Setting: Linked EHR in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD); and linked EHR and COVID-19 data in England provided in NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment (TRE). Participants: In the development (CPRD) and validation (TRE) cohorts, we included 3.8 million and 35.1 million individuals aged ≥30 years, respectively. Main outcome measures: One-year all-cause excess deaths related to COVID-19 from March 2020 to March 2021. Results: From 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021, there were 127,020 observed excess deaths. Observed RR was 4.34% (95% CI, 4.31–4.38) and IR was 6.27% (95% CI, 6.26–6.28). In the validation cohort, predicted one-year excess deaths were 100,338 compared with the observed 127,020 deaths with a ratio of predicted to observed excess deaths of 0.79. Conclusions: We show that a simple, parsimonious model incorporating baseline mortality risk, one-year IR and RR of the pandemic can be used for scenario-based prediction of excess deaths in the early stages of a pandemic. Our analyses show that EHR could inform pandemic planning and surveillance, despite limited use in emergency preparedness to date. Although infection dynamics are important in the prediction of mortality, future models should take greater account of underlying conditions

Population and fertility by age and sex for 195 countries and territories, 1950–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background Population estimates underpin demographic and epidemiological research and are used to track progress on numerous international indicators of health and development. To date, internationally available estimates of population and fertility, although useful, have not been produced with transparent and replicable methods and do not use standardised estimates of mortality. We present single-calendar year and single-year of age estimates of fertility and population by sex with standardised and replicable methods. Methods We estimated population in 195 locations by single year of age and single calendar year from 1950 to 2017 with standardised and replicable methods. We based the estimates on the demographic balancing equation, with inputs of fertility, mortality, population, and migration data. Fertility data came from 7817 location-years of vital registration data, 429 surveys reporting complete birth histories, and 977 surveys and censuses reporting summary birth histories. We estimated age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs; the annual number of livebirths to women of a specified age group per 1000 women in that age group) by use of spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression and used the ASFRs to estimate total fertility rates (TFRs; the average number of children a woman would bear if she survived through the end of the reproductive age span [age 10–54 years] and experienced at each age a particular set of ASFRs observed in the year of interest). Because of sparse data, fertility at ages 10–14 years and 50–54 years was estimated from data on fertility in women aged 15–19 years and 45–49 years, through use of linear regression. Age-specific mortality data came from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 estimates. Data on population came from 1257 censuses and 761 population registry location-years and were adjusted for underenumeration and age misreporting with standard demographic methods. Migration was estimated with the GBD Bayesian demographic balancing model, after incorporating information about refugee migration into the model prior. Final population estimates used the cohort-component method of population projection, with inputs of fertility, mortality, and migration data. Population uncertainty was estimated by use of out-of-sample predictive validity testing. With these data, we estimated the trends in population by age and sex and in fertility by age between 1950 and 2017 in 195 countries and territories.Background Population estimates underpin demographic and epidemiological research and are used to track progress on numerous international indicators of health and development. To date, internationally available estimates of population and fertility, although useful, have not been produced with transparent and replicable methods and do not use standardised estimates of mortality. We present single-calendar year and single-year of age estimates of fertility and population by sex with standardised and replicable methods. Methods We estimated population in 195 locations by single year of age and single calendar year from 1950 to 2017 with standardised and replicable methods. We based the estimates on the demographic balancing equation, with inputs of fertility, mortality, population, and migration data. Fertility data came from 7817 location-years of vital registration data, 429 surveys reporting complete birth histories, and 977 surveys and censuses reporting summary birth histories. We estimated age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs; the annual number of livebirths to women of a specified age group per 1000 women in that age group) by use of spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression and used the ASFRs to estimate total fertility rates (TFRs; the average number of children a woman would bear if she survived through the end of the reproductive age span [age 10–54 years] and experienced at each age a particular set of ASFRs observed in the year of interest). Because of sparse data, fertility at ages 10–14 years and 50–54 years was estimated from data on fertility in women aged 15–19 years and 45–49 years, through use of linear regression. Age-specific mortality data came from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 estimates. Data on population came from 1257 censuses and 761 population registry location-years and were adjusted for underenumeration and age misreporting with standard demographic methods. Migration was estimated with the GBD Bayesian demographic balancing model, after incorporating information about refugee migration into the model prior. Final population estimates used the cohort-component method of population projection, with inputs of fertility, mortality, and migration data. Population uncertainty was estimated by use of out-of-sample predictive validity testing. With these data, we estimated the trends in population by age and sex and in fertility by age between 1950 and 2017 in 195 countries and territories

Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality and life expectancy, 1950–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background Assessments of age-specific mortality and life expectancy have been done by the UN Population Division, Department of Economics and Social Affairs (UNPOP), the United States Census Bureau, WHO, and as part of previous iterations of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD). Previous iterations of the GBD used population estimates from UNPOP, which were not derived in a way that was internally consistent with the estimates of the numbers of deaths in the GBD. The present iteration of the GBD, GBD 2017, improves on previous assessments and provides timely estimates of the mortality experience of populations globally. Methods The GBD uses all available data to produce estimates of mortality rates between 1950 and 2017 for 23 age groups, both sexes, and 918 locations, including 195 countries and territories and subnational locations for 16 countries. Data used include vital registration systems, sample registration systems, household surveys (complete birth histories, summary birth histories, sibling histories), censuses (summary birth histories, household deaths), and Demographic Surveillance Sites. In total, this analysis used 8259 data sources. Estimates of the probability of death between birth and the age of 5 years and between ages 15 and 60 years are generated and then input into a model life table system to produce complete life tables for all locations and years. Fatal discontinuities and mortality due to HIV/AIDS are analysed separately and then incorporated into the estimation. We analyse the relationship between age-specific mortality and development status using the Socio-demographic Index, a composite measure based on fertility under the age of 25 years, education, and income. There are four main methodological improvements in GBD 2017 compared with GBD 2016: 622 additional data sources have been incorporated; new estimates of population, generated by the GBD study, are used; statistical methods used in different components of the analysis have been further standardised and improved; and the analysis has been extended backwards in time by two decades to start in 1950.Background Assessments of age-specific mortality and life expectancy have been done by the UN Population Division, Department of Economics and Social Affairs (UNPOP), the United States Census Bureau, WHO, and as part of previous iterations of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD). Previous iterations of the GBD used population estimates from UNPOP, which were not derived in a way that was internally consistent with the estimates of the numbers of deaths in the GBD. The present iteration of the GBD, GBD 2017, improves on previous assessments and provides timely estimates of the mortality experience of populations globally. Methods The GBD uses all available data to produce estimates of mortality rates between 1950 and 2017 for 23 age groups, both sexes, and 918 locations, including 195 countries and territories and subnational locations for 16 countries. Data used include vital registration systems, sample registration systems, household surveys (complete birth histories, summary birth histories, sibling histories), censuses (summary birth histories, household deaths), and Demographic Surveillance Sites. In total, this analysis used 8259 data sources. Estimates of the probability of death between birth and the age of 5 years and between ages 15 and 60 years are generated and then input into a model life table system to produce complete life tables for all locations and years. Fatal discontinuities and mortality due to HIV/AIDS are analysed separately and then incorporated into the estimation. We analyse the relationship between age-specific mortality and development status using the Socio-demographic Index, a composite measure based on fertility under the age of 25 years, education, and income. There are four main methodological improvements in GBD 2017 compared with GBD 2016: 622 additional data sources have been incorporated; new estimates of population, generated by the GBD study, are used; statistical methods used in different components of the analysis have been further standardised and improved; and the analysis has been extended backwards in time by two decades to start in 1950

Measuring progress from 1990 to 2017 and projecting attainment to 2030 of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals for 195 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background Efforts to establish the 2015 baseline and monitor early implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight both great potential for and threats to improving health by 2030. To fully deliver on the SDG aim of “leaving no one behind”, it is increasingly important to examine the health-related SDGs beyond national-level estimates. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017), we measured progress on 41 of 52 health-related SDG indicators and estimated the health-related SDG index for 195 countries and territories for the period 1990–2017, projected indicators to 2030, and analysed global attainment. Methods We measured progress on 41 health-related SDG indicators from 1990 to 2017, an increase of four indicators since GBD 2016 (new indicators were health worker density, sexual violence by non-intimate partners, population census status, and prevalence of physical and sexual violence [reported separately]). We also improved the measurement of several previously reported indicators. We constructed national-level estimates and, for a subset of health-related SDGs, examined indicator-level differences by sex and Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. We also did subnational assessments of performance for selected countries. To construct the health-related SDG index, we transformed the value for each indicator on a scale of 0–100, with 0 as the 2·5th percentile and 100 as the 97·5th percentile of 1000 draws calculated from 1990 to 2030, and took the geometric mean of the scaled indicators by target. To generate projections through 2030, we used a forecasting framework that drew estimates from the broader GBD study and used weighted averages of indicator-specific and country-specific annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2017 to inform future estimates. We assessed attainment of indicators with defined targets in two ways: first, using mean values projected for 2030, and then using the probability of attainment in 2030 calculated from 1000 draws. We also did a global attainment analysis of the feasibility of attaining SDG targets on the basis of past trends. Using 2015 global averages of indicators with defined SDG targets, we calculated the global annualised rates of change required from 2015 to 2030 to meet these targets, and then identified in what percentiles the required global annualised rates of change fell in the distribution of country-level rates of change from 1990 to 2015. We took the mean of these global percentile values across indicators and applied the past rate of change at this mean global percentile to all health-related SDG indicators, irrespective of target definition, to estimate the equivalent 2030 global average value and percentage change from 2015 to 2030 for each indicator.Background Efforts to establish the 2015 baseline and monitor early implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight both great potential for and threats to improving health by 2030. To fully deliver on the SDG aim of “leaving no one behind”, it is increasingly important to examine the health-related SDGs beyond national-level estimates. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017), we measured progress on 41 of 52 health-related SDG indicators and estimated the health-related SDG index for 195 countries and territories for the period 1990–2017, projected indicators to 2030, and analysed global attainment. Methods We measured progress on 41 health-related SDG indicators from 1990 to 2017, an increase of four indicators since GBD 2016 (new indicators were health worker density, sexual violence by non-intimate partners, population census status, and prevalence of physical and sexual violence [reported separately]). We also improved the measurement of several previously reported indicators. We constructed national-level estimates and, for a subset of health-related SDGs, examined indicator-level differences by sex and Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. We also did subnational assessments of performance for selected countries. To construct the health-related SDG index, we transformed the value for each indicator on a scale of 0–100, with 0 as the 2·5th percentile and 100 as the 97·5th percentile of 1000 draws calculated from 1990 to 2030, and took the geometric mean of the scaled indicators by target. To generate projections through 2030, we used a forecasting framework that drew estimates from the broader GBD study and used weighted averages of indicator-specific and country-specific annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2017 to inform future estimates. We assessed attainment of indicators with defined targets in two ways: first, using mean values projected for 2030, and then using the probability of attainment in 2030 calculated from 1000 draws. We also did a global attainment analysis of the feasibility of attaining SDG targets on the basis of past trends. Using 2015 global averages of indicators with defined SDG targets, we calculated the global annualised rates of change required from 2015 to 2030 to meet these targets, and then identified in what percentiles the required global annualised rates of change fell in the distribution of country-level rates of change from 1990 to 2015. We took the mean of these global percentile values across indicators and applied the past rate of change at this mean global percentile to all health-related SDG indicators, irrespective of target definition, to estimate the equivalent 2030 global average value and percentage change from 2015 to 2030 for each indicator