Retrospectively patient-reported pre-event health status showed strong association and agreement with contemporaneous reports.

OBJECTIVE: The unpredictability of the occurrence of illnesses and injuries leading to most emergency admissions to hospital makes it impossible prospectively to collect preadmission patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Our aims were to review the evidence for using retrospective PROMs to determine pre-event health status and the validity of using general population norms instead of retrospective PROMs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Searches of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, and Health Management information. Six studies met the inclusion criteria for the first aim, and 11 studies addressed the second aim. Narrative syntheses were conducted. RESULTS: Strong associations were found between retrospective and contemporary PROMs in 21 of 30 comparisons (correlation coefficients over 0.68) and 20 of 24 showed strong agreement for continuous measures (intraclass correlations over 0.75). Categorical measures revealed only fair to moderate levels of agreement (kappa 0.3-0.6). Associations were stronger for indices than for individual items and for shorter time intervals. The direction of differences was inconsistent. Retrospective PROMs reported by elderly patients were similar to the general population but younger adults had been healthier. CONCLUSION: Retrospective collection offers a means of assessing PROMs in unexpected emergency admissions. However, further research is needed to establish the best policy for their use

Agreement between retrospectively and contemporaneously collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hip and knee replacement patients.

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between retrospectively and contemporaneously collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and the influence on this relationship of patients' age and socio-economic status and the length of time. METHODS: Patients undergoing hip or knee replacement in four hospitals who had completed a pre-operative questionnaire were invited to recall their pre-operative health status shortly after surgery. The questionnaires included a disease-specific (Oxford Hip Score; Oxford Knee Score) and generic (EQ-5D-3L) PROM. Consistency and absolute agreement between contemporary and retrospective reports were investigated using intraclass correlations (ICCs). Differences were visualised using Bland-Altman plots. Linear regression analysis explored whether retrospective can predict contemporary PROMs. RESULTS: Patients' recalled health statuses were similar to their contemporaneous reports, with no significant systematic bias. Absolute agreement for disease-specific PROMs was very strong (ICC 0.82) and stronger than for the generic PROM (ICC 0.60, 0.62). Agreement was consistently strong across the range of severity of a patient's condition, age and socio-economic status. Patients' age and socio-economic status had no significant influence on size of difference and direction of recall, although reliability of recall was slightly worse among the over-75s versus under-60s for hips (Oxford Hip Score ICC 0.88 vs. 0.78). Mean retrospective PROMs for groups or populations of patients can reliably predict what mean contemporary reports of PROMs would have been. CONCLUSION: Retrospective PROMs can be used to obtain a baseline assessment of health status when contemporary collection is not feasible or cost effective. Research is needed to determine the feasibility of retrospective PROMs in emergency admissions

Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?

INTRODUCTION: The use of PROs for assessing the outcomes of emergency hospital admissions requires a means of estimating patients' pre-admission health status. A possible alternative to asking patients to recall how their health was before the incident causing admission is to use estimates derived from matched samples from population surveys. Our aims were to explore the impact of different methods of matching and to compare the results with estimates based on retrospective reporting. METHODS: First, elective hip arthroplasty patients were matched to respondents to the General Practice Patient Survey using age, sex, socio-economic status and number of comorbidities. The impact of restricting matching for locality and specific co-morbidities was explored. Second, the best matching method was applied to emergency admissions for laparotomy and for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after acute myocardial infarction. Data were stratified by patient characteristics. Differences in mean EQ-5D scores between the patients and matched population respondents were tested using t tests. RESULTS: Modifying the most basic form of matching by also taking locality and the specific comorbid conditions into account made no significant difference to the mean EQ-5D score for hip arthroplasty patients. Even using the most detailed matching possible, patients' mean EQ-5D score was significantly different to that of the general population for all three cohorts. The difference was greatest for elective hip arthroplasty (0.22 v 0.64), less so for emergency laparotomy (0.56 v 0.72) and least for PCI (0.79 v 0.71). This reflects hip arthroplasty patients having a long-standing condition characterised by pain and limited mobility, whereas the other two cohorts may have enjoyed reasonable health until an unexpected acute episode led to their emergency admission. CONCLUSION: Routine PRO data acquired from population surveys cannot be used as an accurate alternative to retrospectively reported PROMs by patients during their emergency admission episode

Feasibility of collecting retrospective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in emergency hospital admissions.

INTRODUCTION: Outcome of emergency admissions is usually limited to mortality with little attempt to capture the views of health status of survivors. This is because of the challenge of determining patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the period before their emergency admission. The aim was to assess the feasibility of collecting retrospective PROMs to capture the pre-admission health status of patients admitted as emergencies. METHODS: Prospective study of two cohorts: patients undergoing primary coronary angioplasty for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in five hospitals and emergency laparotomy (EL) for gastro-intestinal conditions in 11 hospitals. Three rates were calculated: proportion of patients eligible for inclusion; proportion of eligible patients invited to participate; proportion of invitees who participated. Staff views were thematically analysed to understand factors that affected recruitment. RESULTS: About 85% of patients were eligible of whom most were invited to participate (84% EL; 79% STEMI). The proportions of invitees agreeing to participate differed between STEMI (92%) and EL (72%), probably reflecting greater post-intervention morbidity in the latter. Variation between hospitals was observed in the proportion deemed eligible (EL 72-97%; STEMI 63-100%), proportion invited (EL 60-93%; STEMI 71-96%) and the proportion of invitees agreeing to participate (EL 55-92%; STEMI 67-100%). While this might reflect case-mix differences between hospitals, it suggests there is scope for less well performing hospitals to improve their recruitment processes. The extent to which this initial feasibility study was able to assess selection bias was limited to the age and sex of patients. There was no bias evident for EL patients but for STEMI, younger men were more likely to participate. CONCLUSION: It appears to be feasible to collect retrospective PROMs from patients admitted unexpectedly as emergencies for the two conditions studied. The relevance of these findings to other causes of emergency admissions needs to be established. In addition, these findings justify the case for a large, multi-site study that could explore unresolved concerns about selection bias, particularly those arising from the clinical characteristics of patients. It would also enable estimates of the extent of variation in PROMs between hospitals to determine the usefulness of using PROMs in emergency admissions

Simulator of Space Communication Networks

Multimission Advanced Communications Hybrid Environment for Test and Evaluation (MACHETE) is a suite of software tools that simulates the behaviors of communication networks to be used in space exploration, and predict the performance of established and emerging space communication protocols and services. MACHETE consists of four general software systems: (1) a system for kinematic modeling of planetary and spacecraft motions; (2) a system for characterizing the engineering impact on the bandwidth and reliability of deep-space and in-situ communication links; (3) a system for generating traffic loads and modeling of protocol behaviors and state machines; and (4) a system of user-interface for performance metric visualizations. The kinematic-modeling system makes it possible to characterize space link connectivity effects, including occultations and signal losses arising from dynamic slant-range changes and antenna radiation patterns. The link-engineering system also accounts for antenna radiation patterns and other phenomena, including modulations, data rates, coding, noise, and multipath fading. The protocol system utilizes information from the kinematic-modeling and link-engineering systems to simulate operational scenarios of space missions and evaluate overall network performance. In addition, a Communications Effect Server (CES) interface for MACHETE has been developed to facilitate hybrid simulation of space communication networks with actual flight/ground software/hardware embedded in the overall system

Feasibility of collecting and assessing patient-reported outcomes for emergency admissions: laparotomy for gastrointestinal conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Audit of emergency surgery is usually limited to immediate clinical outcomes relating to outcomes during the acute hospital episode with little attempt to capture patients' views of their longer-term outcomes. Our aim was to determine the response rate to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy for gastrointestinal conditions, identify response bias and explore the feasibility of comparing outcomes with their prior health based on their recalled view collected during their admission. METHODS: Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy in 11 hospitals were recruited to complete a retrospective questionnaire containing the EQ-5D-3L and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Response rate for 3-month mailed follow-up questionnaire and potential response biases were assessed. Patients' outcomes were compared with their baseline using χ2 and paired t-test to assess for differences. RESULTS: Of 255 patients contacted at 3 months, 190 (74.1%) responded. Responders were more likely to be older, female and more affluent. Patients' health improved significantly as regards the GIQLI (93.3 vs 97.9; p=0.048) and the subscale on symptoms (51.9 vs 59.6; p<0.001). No significant change in subscales on emotion or physical aspects or for overall health status (EQ-5D: 0.58 vs 0.64; p=0.06). According to the social subscale, patients had deteriorated (11.0 vs 9.8; p<0.0006). Differences in change scores by patient characteristics were slight, suggesting minimal response bias. CONCLUSION: This approach offers the opportunity for assessing the impact of treatment, from the patient's perspective and the potential to evaluate emergency laparotomy care using PROMs

Impact of a delayed second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on risks of all-cause mortality, emergency department visit, and unscheduled hospitalization

BACKGROUND: Safety after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine remains to be elucidated, especially among individuals reporting adverse events after their first dose. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a delayed second dose on all-cause mortality and emergency services. METHODS: A territory-wide, retrospective cohort of people who had completed two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (CoronaVac) vaccine between February 23 and July 3, 2021, in Hong Kong was analyzed, with linkage to electronic health records retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Vaccine recipients were classified as receiving a second dose within recommended intervals (21-28 days for BNT162b2; 14-28 days for CoronaVac) or delayed. Study outcomes were all-cause mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, and unscheduled hospitalizations within 28 days after the second dose of vaccination. RESULTS: Among 417,497 BNT162b2 and 354,283 CoronaVac second dose recipients, 3.8% and 28.5% received the second dose beyond the recommended intervals (mean 34.4 and 31.8 days), respectively. During the study period, there were < 5 daily new cases of COVID-19 infections in the community. Delaying the second dose was not associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.185, 95% CI 0.478-2.937, P = 0.714), risk of ED visit (HR = 0.966, 95% CI 0.926-1.008, P = 0.113), and risk of unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 0.956, 95% CI 0.878-1.040, P = 0.294) compared to that within the recommended interval for CoronaVac recipients. No statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR = 4.438, 95% CI 0.951-20.701, P = 0.058), ED visit (HR = 1.037, 95% CI 0.951-1.130, P = 0.411), and unscheduled hospitalization (HR = 1.054, 95% CI 0.867-1.281, P = 0.597) were identified between people who received a second dose of BNT162b2 within and beyond the recommended intervals. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association between delayed second dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac and all-cause mortality, ED visit, and unscheduled hospitalization was observed in the present cohort. Regardless of the recommended or delayed schedule for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, a second dose of both vaccines should be administered to obtain better protection against infection and serious disease. The second dose should be administered within the recommended interval following the manufacturer's product information, until further studies support the benefits of delaying vaccination outweighing the risks

The genetic interplay between body mass index, breast size and breast cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence linking breast size to breast cancer risk has been inconsistent, and its interpretation is often hampered by confounding factors such as body mass index (BMI). Here, we used linkage disequilibrium score regression and two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) to examine the genetic associations between BMI, breast size and breast cancer risk. METHODS: Summary-level genotype data from 23andMe, Inc (breast size, n = 33 790), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (breast cancer risk, n = 228 951) and the Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits (BMI, n = 183 507) were used for our analyses. In assessing causal relationships, four complementary MR techniques [inverse variance weighted (IVW), weighted median, weighted mode and MR-Egger regression] were used to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The genetic correlation (rg) estimated between BMI and breast size was high (rg = 0.50, P = 3.89x10-43). All MR methods provided consistent evidence that higher genetically predicted BMI was associated with larger breast size [odds ratio (ORIVW): 2.06 (1.80-2.35), P = 1.38x10-26] and lower overall breast cancer risk [ORIVW: 0.81 (0.74-0.89), P = 9.44x10-6]. No evidence of a relationship between genetically predicted breast size and breast cancer risk was found except when using the weighted median and weighted mode methods, and only with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative risk. There was no evidence of reverse causality in any of the analyses conducted (P > 0.050). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a potential positive causal association between BMI and breast size and a potential negative causal association between BMI and breast cancer risk. We found no clear evidence for a direct relationship between breast size and breast cancer risk

Sex-based differences in risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism after BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccination in patients with atrial fibrillation: a self-controlled case series and nested case-control study

AIMS: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism with a greater risk for female patients. This study aims to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AF and the sex differences. METHODS AND RESULTS: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with AF, using the territory-wide electronic medical records from the Hospital Authority and vaccination records from the Department of Health in Hong Kong. Patients with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or bleeding in the inpatient setting between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 were included. A nested case-control analysis was also conducted with each case randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression was used in the SCCS analysis and conditional logistic regression was used in nested case-control analysis to assess the risks and all analyses were stratified by sex and type of vaccines. Among 51 158 patients with AF, we identified an increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after the first dose of BNT162b2 in SCCS analysis during 0-13 days (incidence rate ratio 6.60[95% CI 1.51-28.77]) and 14-27 days (6.53[95% CI 1.31-32.51]), and nested case-control analysis during 0-13 days (adjusted odds ratio 6.21 [95% CI 1.14-33.91]) and 14-27 days (5.52 [95% CI 1.12-27.26]) only in female patients. The increased risk in female patients following the first dose of CoronaVac was only detected during 0-13 days (3.88 [95% CI 1.67-9.03]) in the nested case-control analysis. No increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was identified in male patients and no increased risk of bleeding was detected in all patients with AF for both vaccines. An increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 was also observed in both females (17.42 [95% CI 5.08-59.73]) and males (6.63 [95% CI 2.02-21.79]). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 vaccination was only increased in female patients with AF. However, as the risk after COVID-19 was even higher, proactive uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is recommended to prevent the potential severe outcomes after infection

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management