Suchergebnisse

IntroductionCritical Care is a specialty in medicine providing a service for severely ill and high-risk patients who, due to the nature of their condition, may require long periods recovering after discharge. Consequently, focus on the routine data collection carried out in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) leads to reporting that is confined to the critical care episode and is typically insensitive to variation in individual patient pathways through critical care to recovery.
A resource which facilitates efficient research into interactions with healthcare services surrounding critical admissions, capturing the complete patient's healthcare trajectory from primary care to non-acute hospital care prior to ICU, would provide an important longer-term perspective for critical care research.
ObjectiveTo describe and apply a reproducible methodology that demonstrates how both routine administrative and clinically rich critical care data sources can be integrated with primary and secondary healthcare data to create a single dataset that captures a broader view of patient care.
MethodTo demonstrate the INTEGRATE methodology, it was applied to routine administrative and clinical healthcare data sources in the Secure Anonymised Data Linking (SAIL) Databank to create a dataset of patients' complete healthcare trajectory prior to critical care admission. SAIL is a national, data safe haven of anonymised linkable datasets about the population of Wales.
ResultsWhen applying the INTEGRATE methodology in SAIL, between 2010 and 2019 we observed 91,582 critical admissions for 76,019 patients. Of these, 90,632 (99%) had an associated non-acute hospital admission, 48,979 (53%) hadan emergency admission, and 64,832 (71%) a primary care interaction in the week prior to the critical care admission.
ConclusionThis methodology, at population scale, integrates two critical care data sources into a single dataset together with data sources on healthcare prior to critical admission, thus providing a key research asset to study critical care pathways.

ObjectivesVarious analgesics are frequently prescribed to cancer patients for whom pain contributes to poor physical and emotional health and well-being. We examined changes in trends of analgesic prescribing in over 35,000 cancer patients diagnosed in the Welsh population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to gain insight into the COVID-19 pandemic effects on cancer patients' ability to receive analgesia and their potential ability to control their pain via medications.
ApproachWithin the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank trusted research environment (TRE), patients diagnosed with incident primary breast, lung, colorectal or prostate cancers during 2017–2021 were obtained from Cancer Network Information System Cymru (CaNISC) dataset and patients' prescription records were identified from Welsh Longitudinal General Practitioner (WLGP) dataset before being linked to their oncology e-record. We calculated opioid and non-opioid analgesic items prescribed per patient per year (PPPY) since cancer by clinical and demographic factors including cancer type, stage at diagnosis, diagnosis year, age at diagnosis, sex, comorbidities and patients' socioeconomic status. These factors were included to model the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trends in analgesic prescribing for each cancer group.
ResultsWe detected significant differences in the number of analgesic items prescribed PPPY in patients diagnosed before the COVID-19 pandemic (2017–2019) and those during the pandemic (2020–2021), with 1.3 more items PPPY prescribed for the latter group (p<0.001). Differences were accounted for largely by prescriptions for lung cancer patients, having 2.74 more items PPPY prescribed (p<0.001), the highest among the four cancer types evaluated. Patients diagnosed with a late-stage cancer had significantly more items prescribed than patients diagnosed at an early stage (p<0.001), with stage IV patients having 15.7 opioid items PPPY prescribed. For patients diagnosed at stage I, this rate PPPY was 6.7. Significant differences were also identified between patients from different socioeconomic backgrounds (p<0.001), with patients from the most deprived areas prescribed 11.3 items PPPY, 5.8 more than those from the least deprived areas.
ConclusionsThe significant impact of COVID-19 pandemic on pain medication prescribing for cancer patients could be partly related to the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on presentation, waiting lists and diagnosis timings, and access to healthcare for prescriptions after diagnosis. Explanatory factors revealed by this study can help inform policymakers and provide guidance in improving pain relief for cancer services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on existing and enduring health inequalities experienced by different ethnic groups. There has been a longstanding call to generate and improve the use of ethnicity data available across different data sources, in order to improve our understanding of health risks, behaviours and outcomes.
We used multiple anonymised individual-level population-scale data sources available within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank to develop a harmonised ethnicity spine for the population of Wales. We documented ethnicity information in multiple longitudinal records from January 2000 onwards. Data sources included: health and social care, birth and mortality records, national census records, specialist clinical audits and registers, surveys and other routine electronic data. To enable multi-source harmonisation, we explored the ethnicity categorisation as well as temporal changes in recording and classifications by obtaining distribution of records for population, which informed our harmonisation algorithm for standardisation of ethnicity records.
We used over 20-data sources on ~5-million individuals, spanning varying time-periods starting from January 2000 upto a maximum of 22-years. We harmonised available recorded ethnicity values into standardised ethnic classification groups within a national ethnicity-spine. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of different harmonisation methods, including composite, latest date of recording, modal and weighted modal results. With the main focus of the methodological development being in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, when linked to the ~3.1 million individuals alive and resident in Wales from January 2020, we generated harmonised ethnic groups towards ~95% completeness in data coverage for the whole population of Wales. The predominant ethnic group in Wales observed was White, accounting for 89% of the population when using the latest date of recording method.
This research highlights challenges in using longitudinal ethnicity data across different sources. Further work is needed to understand the basis on which individuals / organisations record ethnicity overtime. We recommend improvements recognising differences between ethnicity and other social constructs (e.g. ancestry, nationality, country of origin) are better documented / understood.

IntroductionCOVID-19 risk prediction algorithms can be used to identify at-risk individuals from short-term serious adverse COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalisation and death. It is important to validate these algorithms in different and diverse populations to help guide risk management decisions and target vaccination and treatment programs to the most vulnerable individuals in society.
ObjectivesTo validate externally the QCOVID risk prediction algorithm that predicts mortality outcomes from COVID-19 in the adult population of Wales, UK.
MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected individual-level data held in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. The cohort included individuals aged between 19 and 100 years, living in Wales on 24th January 2020, registered with a SAIL-providing general practice, and followed-up to death or study end (28th July 2020). Demographic, primary and secondary healthcare, and dispensing data were used to derive all the predictor variables used to develop the published QCOVID algorithm. Mortality data were used to define time to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 death. Performance metrics, including R2 values (explained variation), Brier scores, and measures of discrimination and calibration were calculated for two periods (24th January–30th April 2020 and 1st May–28th July 2020) to assess algorithm performance.
Results1,956,760 individuals were included. 1,192 (0.06%) and 610 (0.03%) COVID-19 deaths occurred in the first and second time periods, respectively. The algorithms fitted the Welsh data and population well, explaining 68.8% (95% CI: 66.9-70.4) of the variation in time to death, Harrell's C statistic: 0.929 (95% CI: 0.921-0.937) and D statistic: 3.036 (95% CI: 2.913-3.159) for males in the first period. Similar results were found for females and in the second time period for both sexes.
ConclusionsThe QCOVID algorithm developed in England can be used for public health risk management for the adult Welsh population.

IntroductionThe risk of cardiovascular events amongst people with epilepsy who are receiving enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic drugs (EIAEDs) seems to be higher than those on other medications and the general population. National-level record linkage enables development of case-control studies at a wider scope accounting for multiple factors.
Objectives and ApproachPeople with epilepsy were identified between 2003-01-01 and 2017-12-31 and were matched to a control group on: age, gender, deprivation quintile and year of diagnosis, accounting for any changes in clinical therapeutic guidelines. Primary and secondary care population records were linked to capture relevant comorbidities and major cardiovascular events. Annual district birth and death extract were used in combination with the Welsh Demographic Service (WDS) dataset to capture demographic and cardiovascular related death records. The WDS dataset was used to identify eligible control groups for each case and a linkage approach between the control and case database was developed for matching cases and controls with replacement and randomization. Survival analysis was conducted to evaluate the difference in time to first major cardiovascular event in patients receiving EIAED versus Non-EIAEDs and controls.
Results10,241 cases (mean age 49.6 years, 52.2% male) with diagnosis of epilepsy were matched to 35,145 controls. 3,180 (31.1%) cases received EIAEDs and 7,061 (68.9%) received non-EIAEDs. The risk of experiencing a major cardiovascular event was higher in cases compared to controls (adjusted hazard ratio 1.52,95%CI[1.50–1.55];p<0.001). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular events between those treated with non-EIAEDs and EIAEDs (adjusted hazard ratio 1.04,95%CI[0.95-1.12];p=0.407).
Conclusion / ImplicationsData linkage provides a unique opportunity and insight into studying disease risk factors. We have shown that individuals with epilepsy prescribed antiepileptic drugs, re at an increased risk of a major cardiovascular events regardless of treatment type (EIAED,NEIAED) compared with a matched control population.

BackgroundPopulation-level information on dispensed medication provides insight on the distribution of treated morbidities, particularly if linked to other population-scale data at an individual-level.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on dispensing patterns of medications.
MethodsRetrospective observational study using population-scale, individual-level dispensing records in Wales, UK. Total dispensed drug items for the population between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2019 (3-years, pre-COVID-19) were compared to 2020 with follow up until 27th July 2021 (COVID-19 period). We compared trends across all years and British National Formulary (BNF) chapters and highlighted the trends in three major chapters for 2019-21: 1-Cardiovascular system (CVD); 2-Central Nervous System (CNS); 3-Immunological & Vaccine. We developed an interactive dashboard to enable monitoring of changes as the pandemic evolves.
ResultAmongst all BNF chapters, 73,410,543 items were dispensed in 2020 compared to 74,121,180 items in 2019 demonstrating -0.96% relative decrease in 2020. Comparison of monthly patterns showed average difference (D) of -59,220 and average Relative Change (RC) of -0.74% between the number of dispensed items in 2020 and 2019. Maximum RC was observed in March 2020 (D= +1,224,909 and RC= +20.62%), followed by second peak in June 2020 (D= +257,920, RC= +4.50%). A third peak was observed in September 2020 (D= +264,138, RC= +4.35%). Large increases in March 2020 were observed for CVD and CNS medications across all age groups. The Immunological and Vaccine products dropped to very low levels across all age groups and all months (including the March dispensing peak).
ConclusionsReconfiguration of routine clinical services during COVID-19 led to substantial changes in community pharmacy drug dispensing. This change may contribute to a long-term burden of COVID-19, raising the importance of a comprehensive and timely monitoring of changes for evaluation of the potential impact on clinical care and outcomes.

EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Scottish Government's director-general of Health and Social Care. FDRH acknowledges part support from the National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. We thank Dave Kelly from Albasoft for his support with making primary care data available, and James Pickett, Wendy Inglis-Humphrey, Vicky Hammersley, Maria Georgiou, and Laura Gonzalez Rienda for their support with project management and administration. SVK acknowledges funding from an NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Scottish Government's director-general of Health and Social Care. FDRH acknowledges part support from the National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. SVK acknowledges funding from an NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ; Background The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. Methods We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19—EAVE II—database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1–adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. Findings Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination). Interpretation Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK. ; proof ; Peer reviewed

EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Scottish Government's director-general of Health and Social Care. FDRH acknowledges part support from the National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. SVK acknowledges funding from an NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ; Background The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. Methods We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19—EAVE II—database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1–adjusted rate ratio) following the first ...

Funding: This research is part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (HDRUK2020.146). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19075) and supported by the Scottish Government. This work is supported by BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004). BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. ConCOV is supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/V028367/1); Health Data Research UK (HDR-9006) which receives its funding from the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Wellcome Trust; and Administrative Data Research UK which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant ES/S007393/1). ; Introduction : The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which emerged in December 2019, has caused millions of deaths and severe illness worldwide. Numerous vaccines are currently under development of which a few have now been authorised for population-level administration by several countries. As of 20 September 2021, over 48 million people have received their first vaccine dose and over 44 million people have received their second vaccine dose across the UK. We aim to assess the uptake rates, effectiveness, and safety of all currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the UK. Methods and analysis : We will use prospective cohort study designs to assess vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety against clinical outcomes and deaths. Test-negative case–control study design will be used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Self-controlled case series and retrospective cohort study designs will be carried out to assess vaccine safety against mild-to-moderate and severe adverse events, respectively. Individual-level pseudonymised data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory test and death records will be linked and analysed in secure research environments in each UK nation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models will be carried out to estimate vaccine uptake levels in relation to various population characteristics. VE estimates against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection will be generated using a generalised additive logistic model. Time-dependent Cox models will be used to estimate the VE against clinical outcomes and deaths. The safety of the vaccines will be assessed using logistic regression models with an offset for the length of the risk period. Where possible, data will be meta-analysed across the UK nations. Ethics and dissemination : We obtained approvals from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (12/SS/0201), the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage independent Information Governance Review Panel project number 0911. Concerning English data, University of Oxford is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation and the National Health Service (NHS) Digital Data Security and Protection Policy. This is an approved study (Integrated Research Application ID 301740, Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee 21/HRA/2786). The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub meets NHS Digital's Data Security and Protection Toolkit requirements. In Northern Ireland, the project was approved by the Honest Broker Governance Board, project number 0064. Findings will be made available to national policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed