Implementing high-dimensional propensity score principles to improve confounder adjustment in UK electronic health records.

PURPOSE: Recent evidence from US claims data suggests use of high-dimensional propensity score (hd-PS) methods improve adjustment for confounding in non-randomised studies of interventions. However, it is unclear how best to apply hd-PS principles outside their original setting, given important differences between claims data and electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to implement the hd-PS in the setting of United Kingdom (UK) EHRs. METHODS: We studied the interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Whilst previous observational studies suggested an interaction (with reduced effect of clopidogrel), case-only, genetic and randomised trial approaches showed no interaction, strongly suggesting the original observational findings were subject to confounding. We derived a cohort of clopidogrel users from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. Analyses estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for myocardial infarction (MI) comparing PPI users with non-users using a Cox model adjusting for confounders. To reflect unique characteristics of UK EHRs, we varied the application of hd-PS principles including the level of grouping within coding systems and adapting the assessment of code recurrence. Results were compared with traditional analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-four thousand four hundred and seventy-one patients took clopidogrel, of whom 9111 were prescribed a PPI. Traditional PS approaches obtained a HR for the association between PPI use and MI of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00-1.35). Applying hd-PS modifications resulted in estimates closer to the expected null (HR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.78-1.28). CONCLUSIONS: hd-PS provided improved adjustment for confounding compared with other approaches, suggesting hd-PS can be usefully applied in UK EHRs

Factors that influence vaccination decision-making among pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The most important factor influencing maternal vaccination uptake is healthcare professional (HCP) recommendation. However, where data are available, one-third of pregnant women remain unvaccinated despite receiving a recommendation. Therefore, it is essential to understand the significance of other factors and distinguish between vaccines administered routinely and during outbreaks. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD 42019118299) to examine the strength of the relationships between identified factors and maternal vaccination uptake. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase Classic & Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, IBSS, LILACS, AfricaWideInfo, IMEMR, and Global Health databases for studies reporting factors that influence maternal vaccination. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) of being vaccinated by vaccine type. FINDINGS: We screened 17,236 articles and identified 120 studies from 30 countries for inclusion. Of these, 49 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The odds of receiving a pertussis or influenza vaccination were ten to twelve-times higher among pregnant women who received a recommendation from HCPs. During the 2009 influenza pandemic an HCP recommendation increased the odds of antenatal H1N1 vaccine uptake six times (OR 6.76, 95% CI 3.12-14.64, I2 = 92.00%). Believing there was potential for vaccine-induced harm had a negative influence on seasonal (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.44 I2 = 84.00%) and pandemic influenza vaccine uptake (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, I2 = 89.48%), reducing the odds of being vaccinated five-fold. Combined with our qualitative analysis the relationship between the belief in substantial disease risk and maternal seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination uptake was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of an HCP recommendation during an outbreak, whilst still powerful, may be muted by other factors. This requires further research, particularly when vaccines are novel. Public health campaigns which centre on the protectiveness and safety of a maternal vaccine rather than disease threat alone may prove beneficial

Survival Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: IDH-wildtype glioblastoma is the most common malignant primary brain tumour in adults. As there is limited information on prognostic factors outside of clinical trials; thus, we conducted a retrospective study to characterise the glioblastoma population at our centre. METHODS: Demographic, tumour molecular profiles, treatment, and survival data were collated for patients diagnosed with glioblastoma at our centre between July 2011 and December 2015. We used multivariate proportional hazard model associations with survival. RESULTS: 490 patients were included; 60% had debulking surgery and 40% biopsy only. Subsequently, 56% had standard chemoradiotherapy, 25% had non-standard chemo/radio-therapy, and 19% had no further treatment. Overall survival was 9.2 months. In the multivariate analysis, longer survival was associated with debulking surgery vs. biopsy alone (14.9 vs. 8 months) (HR 0.54 [95% CI 0.41-0.70]), subsequent treatment after diagnosis (HR 0.12 [0.08-0.16]) (standard chemoradiotherapy [16.9 months] vs. non-standard regimens [9.2 months] vs. none [2.0 months]), tumour MGMT promotor methylation (HR 0.71 [0.58-0.87]), and younger age (hazard ratio vs. age < 50: 1.70 [1.26-2.30] for ages 50-59; 3.53 [2.65-4.70] for ages 60-69; 4.82 [3.54-6.56] for ages 70+). CONCLUSIONS: The median survival for patients with glioblastoma is less than a year. Younger age, debulking surgery, treatment with chemoradiotherapy, and MGMT promotor methylation are independently associated with longer survival

Checklist and guidance on creating codelists for electronic health records research

Background Codelists are required to extract meaningful information on characteristics and events from electronic health records (EHRs). EHR research relies on codelists to define study populations and variables, thus, trustworthy codelists are important. Here, we provide a checklist, in the style of commonly used reporting guidelines, to help researchers adhere to best practice in codelist development and sharing. Methods Based on a literature search and a workshop with experienced EHR researchers we created a set of recommendations that are 1. broadly applicable to different datasets, research questions, and methods of codelist creation; 2. easy to follow, implement and document by an individual researcher, and 3. fit within a step-by-step process. We then formatted these recommendations into a checklist. Results We have created a 9-step checklist, comprising 26 items, with accompanying guidance on each step. The checklist advises on which metadata to provide, how to define a clinical concept, how to identify and evaluate existing codelists, how to create new codelists, and how to review, finalise, and publish a created codelist. Conclusions Use of the checklist can reassure researchers that best practice was followed during the development of their codelists, increasing trust in research that relies on these codelists and facilitating wider re-use and adaptation by other researchers.</ns3:p

Proton pump inhibitors and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and both all-cause and cause-specific mortality. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. We compared 733 885 new users of PPIs to 124 410 new users of H2 receptor antagonists (H2Ras). In a secondary analysis we compared 689 602 PPI new users to 1 361 245 nonusers of acid suppression therapy matched on age, sex and calendar year. Hazard ratios for all-cause and cause-specific mortality were estimated using propensity score (PS) weighted Cox models. RESULTS: PPI prescription was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios decreasing considerably by increasing adjustment (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-1.69; PS-weighted HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.33-1.44; high-dimensional PS-weighted HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37). Short-term associations were observed with mortality from causes where a causal short-term association is unexpected (eg, lung cancer mortality: PS-weighted HR at 6 months 1.77, 95% CI 1.39-2.25). Adjusted hazard ratios were substantially higher when compared to nonusers (PS-weighted HR all-cause mortality 1.96, 95% CI 1.94-1.99) rather than H2RA users. CONCLUSIONS: PPI prescription was strongly associated with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. However, the change in hazard ratios (a) by increasing adjustment and (b) between comparator groups indicates that residual confounding is likely to explain the association between poor health outcomes and PPI use, and fully accounting for this using observational data may not be possible

Living alone and mental health: parallel analyses in UK longitudinal population surveys and electronic health records prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: People who live alone experience greater levels of mental illness; however, it is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic had a disproportionately negative impact on this demographic. OBJECTIVE: To describe the mental health gap between those who live alone and with others in the UK prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Self-reported psychological distress and life satisfaction in 10 prospective longitudinal population surveys (LPSs) assessed in the nearest pre-pandemic sweep and three periods during the pandemic. Recorded diagnosis of common and severe mental illnesses between March 2018 and January 2022 in electronic healthcare records (EHRs) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP. FINDINGS: In 37 544 LPS participants, pooled models showed greater psychological distress (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04; 0.14); relative risk: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.12; 1.39)) and lower life satisfaction (SMD: −0.22 (95% CI: −0.30; −0.15)) for those living alone pre-pandemic. This gap did not change during the pandemic. In the EHR analysis of c.16 million records, mental health conditions were more common in those who lived alone (eg, depression 26 (95% CI: 18 to 33) and severe mental illness 58 (95% CI: 54 to 62) more cases more per 100 000). For common mental health disorders, the gap in recorded cases in EHRs narrowed during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: People living alone have poorer mental health and lower life satisfaction. During the pandemic, this gap in self-reported distress remained; however, there was a narrowing of the gap in service use. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Greater mental health need and potentially greater barriers to mental healthcare access for those who live alone need to be considered in healthcare planning

Ethnic differences in the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical monitoring and hospitalisations for non-COVID conditions in England: a population-based, observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

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

Ethnic differences in the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical monitoring and hospitalisations for non-COVID conditions in England:a population-based, observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsOf 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.InterpretationOur 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.FundingLSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912)

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY

Objective: To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England. Design: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England. Setting: Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants: Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes. Interventions: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. Results: 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%). Conclusions: Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents

Study protocol: Comparison of different risk prediction modelling approaches for COVID-19 related death using the OpenSAFELY platform

On March 11th 2020, the World Health Organization characterised COVID-19 as a pandemic. Responses to containing the spread of the virus have relied heavily on policies involving restricting contact between people. Evolving policies regarding shielding and individual choices about restricting social contact will rely heavily on perceived risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In order to make informed decisions, both individual and collective, good predictive models are required.   For outcomes related to an infectious disease, the performance of any risk prediction model will depend heavily on the underlying prevalence of infection in the population of interest. Incorporating measures of how this changes over time may result in important improvements in prediction model performance.  This protocol reports details of a planned study to explore the extent to which incorporating time-varying measures of infection burden over time improves the quality of risk prediction models for COVID-19 death in a large population of adult patients in England. To achieve this aim, we will compare the performance of different modelling approaches to risk prediction, including static cohort approaches typically used in chronic disease settings and landmarking approaches incorporating time-varying measures of infection prevalence and policy change, using COVID-19 related deaths data linked to longitudinal primary care electronic health records data within the OpenSAFELY secure analytics platform.</ns4:p