OpenSAFELY: A platform for analysing electronic health records designed for reproducible research.

Electronic health records (EHRs) and other administrative health data are increasingly used in research to generate evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and utilisation of medical products and services, and to inform public health guidance and policy. Reproducibility is a fundamental step for research credibility and promotes trust in evidence generated from EHRs. At present, ensuring research using EHRs is reproducible can be challenging for researchers. Research software platforms can provide technical solutions to enhance the reproducibility of research conducted using EHRs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed the secure, transparent, analytic open-source software platform OpenSAFELY designed with reproducible research in mind. OpenSAFELY mitigates common barriers to reproducible research by: standardising key workflows around data preparation; removing barriers to code-sharing in secure analysis environments; enforcing public sharing of programming code and codelists; ensuring the same computational environment is used everywhere; integrating new and existing tools that encourage and enable the use of reproducible working practices; and providing an audit trail for all code that is run against the real data to increase transparency. This paper describes OpenSAFELY's reproducibility-by-design approach in detail.

Pooling of primary care electronic health record (EHR) data on Huntington's disease (HD) and cancer: establishing comparability of two large UK databases.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether UK primary care databases arising from two different software systems can be feasibly combined, by comparing rates of Huntington's disease (HD, which is rare) and 14 common cancers in the two databases, as well as characteristics of people with these conditions. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Primary care electronic health records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases, with linked hospital admission and death registration data. PARTICIPANTS: 4986 patients with HD and 1 294 819 with an incident cancer between 1990 and 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence and prevalence of HD by calendar period, age group and region, and annual age-standardised incidence of 14 common cancers in each database, and in a subset of 'overlapping' practices which contributed to both databases. Characteristics of patients with HD or incident cancer: medical history, recent prescribing, healthcare contacts and database follow-up. RESULTS: Incidence and prevalence of HD were slightly higher in CPRD GOLD than CPRD Aurum, but with similar trends over time. Cancer incidence in the two databases differed between 1990 and 2000, but converged and was very similar thereafter. Participants in each database were most similar in terms of medical history (median standardised difference, MSD 0.03 (IQR 0.01-0.03)), recent prescribing (MSD 0.06 (0.03-0.10)) and demographics and general health variables (MSD 0.05 (0.01-0.09)). Larger differences were seen for healthcare contacts (MSD 0.27 (0.10-0.41)), and database follow-up (MSD 0.39 (0.19-0.56)). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cancer incidence trends between 1990 and 2000 may relate to use of a practice-level data quality filter (the 'up-to-standard' date) in CPRD GOLD only. As well as the impact of data curation methods, differences in underlying data models can make it more challenging to define exactly equivalent clinical concepts in each database. Researchers should be aware of these potential sources of variability when planning combined database studies and interpreting results.

Risk of fractures in half a million survivors of 20 cancers: a population-based matched cohort study using linked English electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: A history of multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, and breast cancer has been associated with adverse bone health, but associations across a broader range of cancers are unclear. We aimed to compare the risk of any bone fracture and major osteoporotic fractures in survivors of a wide range of cancers versus cancer-free individuals. METHODS: In this population-based matched cohort study, we used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to hospital data. We included adults (aged ≥18 years) eligible for linkage, and we restricted the study start to Jan 2, 1998, onwards and applied administrative censoring on Jan 31, 2020. The cancer survivor group included survivors of the 20 most common cancers. Each individual with cancer was matched (age, sex, and general practice) to up to five controls (1:5) who were cancer-free. The primary outcomes were any bone fracture and any major osteoporotic fracture (pelvic, hip, wrist, spine, or proximal humeral fractures) occurring more than 1 year after index date (ie, the diagnosis date of the matched individual with cancer). We used Cox regression models, adjusted for shared risk factors, to estimate associations between cancer survivorship and bone fractures. FINDINGS: 578 160 adults with cancer diagnosed in 1998-2020 were matched to 3 226 404 cancer-free individuals. Crude incidence rates of fractures in cancer survivors ranged between 8·39 cases (95% CI 7·45-9·46) per 1000 person-years for thyroid cancer and 21·62 cases (20·18-23·18) per 1000 person-years for multiple myeloma. Compared with cancer-free individuals, the risk of any bone fracture was increased in 15 of 20 cancers, and of major osteoporotic fractures in 17 of 20 cancers. Effect sizes varied: adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were largest for multiple myeloma (1·94, 95% CI 1·77-2·13) and prostate cancer (1·43, 1·39-1·47); HRs in the range 1·20-1·50 were seen for stomach, liver, pancreas, lung, breast, kidney, and CNS cancers; smaller associations (HR <1·20) were observed for malignant melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia, and oesophageal, colorectal, and cervical cancers. Increased risks of major osteoporotic fracture were noted most substantially in multiple myeloma (2·25, 1·96-2·58) and CNS (2·12, 1·56-2·87), liver (1·62, 1·01-2·61), prostate (1·60, 1·53-1·67), and lung cancers (1·60, 1·44-1·77). Effect sizes tended to reduce over time since diagnosis but remained elevated for more than 5 years in several cancers, such as multiple myeloma and stomach, lung, breast, prostate, and CNS cancers. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of most types of cancer were at increased risk of bone fracture for several years after cancer, with variation by cancer type. These findings can help to inform mitigation and prevention strategies. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

Incident dementia risk among patients with type 2 diabetes receiving metformin versus alternative oral glucose-lowering therapy: an observational cohort study using UK primary healthcare records.

INTRODUCTION: 4.2 million individuals in the UK have type 2 diabetes, a known risk factor for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Diabetes treatment may modify this association, but existing evidence is conflicting. We therefore aimed to assess the association between metformin therapy and risk of incident all-cause dementia or MCI compared with other oral glucose-lowering therapies (GLTs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink among UK adults diagnosed with diabetes at ≥40 years between 1990 and 2019. We used an active comparator new user design to compare risks of dementia and MCI among individuals initially prescribed metformin versus an alternative oral GLT using Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical confounders. We assessed for interaction by age and sex. Sensitivity analyses included an as-treated analysis to mitigate potential exposure misclassification. RESULTS: We included 211 396 individuals (median age 63 years; 42.8% female), of whom 179 333 (84.8%) initiated on metformin therapy. Over median follow-up of 5.4 years, metformin use was associated with a lower risk of dementia (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.86 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.94)) and MCI (aHR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99)). Metformin users aged under 80 years had a lower dementia risk (aHR 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.85)), which was not observed for those aged ≥80 years (aHR 0.95 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.05)). There was no interaction with sex. The as-treated analysis showed a reduced effect size compared with the main analysis (aHR 0.90 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.98)). CONCLUSIONS: Metformin use was associated with lower risks of incident dementia and MCI compared with alternative GLT among UK adults with diabetes. While our findings are consistent with a neuroprotective effect of metformin against dementia, further research is needed to reduce risks of confounding by indication and assess causality.

Excess mortality in US Veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual-level cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most analyses of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic have employed aggregate data. Individual-level data from the largest integrated healthcare system in the US may enhance understanding of excess mortality. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study following patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022. We estimated excess mortality on an absolute scale (i.e. excess mortality rates, number of excess deaths) and a relative scale by measuring the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality comparing pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, overall and within demographic and clinical subgroups. Comorbidity burden and frailty were measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index, respectively. RESULTS: Of 5 905 747 patients, the median age was 65.8 years and 91% were men. Overall, the excess mortality rate was 10.0 deaths/1000 person-years (PY), with a total of 103 164 excess deaths and pandemic HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.25-1.26). Excess mortality rates were highest among the most frail patients (52.0/1000 PY) and those with the highest comorbidity burden (16.3/1000 PY). However, the largest relative mortality increases were observed among the least frail (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30-1.32) and those with the lowest comorbidity burden (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.43-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level data offered crucial clinical and operational insights into US excess mortality patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable differences emerged among clinical risk groups, emphasizing the need for reporting excess mortality in both absolute and relative terms to inform resource allocation in future outbreaks.

The risk of acute kidney injury in colorectal cancer survivors: an english population-based matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer survival has improved in recent decades but there are concerns that survivors may develop kidney problems due to adverse effects of cancer treatment or complications of the cancer itself. We quantified the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in colorectal cancer survivors compared to people with no prior cancer. METHODS: Retrospective matched cohort study using electronic health record primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD linked to hospital data in England (HES-APC). Individuals with colorectal cancer between 1997-2018 were individually matched on age, sex, and GP practice to people with no prior cancer. We used Cox models to estimate hazard ratios for an incident hospital diagnosis of AKI in colorectal cancer survivors compared to individuals without cancer, overall and stratified by time since diagnosis adjusted for other individual-level factors (adj-HR). RESULTS: Twenty thousand three hundred forty colorectal cancer survivors were matched to 100,058 cancer-free individuals. Colorectal cancer survivors were at increased risk of developing AKI compared to people without cancer (adj-HR = 2.16; 95%CI 2.05-2.27). The HR was highest in the year after diagnosis (adj-HR 7.47, 6.66-8.37), and attenuated over time, but there was still increased AKI risk > 5 years after diagnosis (adj-HR = 1.26, 1.17-1.37). The association between colorectal cancer and AKI was greater for younger people, men, and those with pre-existing chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer survivors were at increased risk of AKI for several years after cancer diagnosis, suggesting a need to prioritise monitoring, prevention, and management of kidney problems in this group of cancer survivors.

Sex-specific risks for cardiovascular disease across the glycaemic spectrum: a population-based cohort study using the UK Biobank.

Background: We sought to examine sex-specific risks for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) across the full glycaemic spectrum. Methods: Using data from UK Biobank, we categorised participants' glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline as low-normal (<35 mmol/mol), normal (35-41 mmol/mol), pre-diabetes (42-47 mmol/mol), undiagnosed diabetes (≥48 mmol/mol), or diagnosed diabetes. Our outcomes were coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), stroke, heart failure, and a composite outcome of any CVD. Cox regression estimated sex-specific associations between HbA1c and each outcome, sequentially adjusting for socio-demographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics. Findings: Among 427,435 people, CVD rates were 16.9 and 9.1 events/1000 person-years for men and women, respectively. Both men and women with pre-diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and, more markedly, diagnosed diabetes were at higher risks of CVD than those with normal HbA1c, with relative increases more pronounced in women than men. Age-adjusted HRs for pre-diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes ranged from 1.30 to 1.47; HRs for diagnosed diabetes were 1.55 (1.49-1.61) in men and 2.00 (1.89-2.12) in women (p-interaction <0.0001). Excess risks attenuated and were more similar between men and women after adjusting for clinical and lifestyle factors particularly obesity and antihypertensive or statin use (fully adjusted HRs for diagnosed diabetes: 1.06 [1.02-1.11] and 1.17 [1.10-1.24], respectively). Interpretation: Excess risks in men and women were largely explained by modifiable factors, and could be ameliorated by attention to weight reduction strategies and greater use of antihypertensive and statin medications. Addressing these risk factors could reduce sex disparities in risk of CVD among people with and without diabetes. Funding: Diabetes UK (#15/0005250) and British Heart Foundation (SP/16/6/32726).

Neonatal and maternal outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination: a population-based matched cohort study.

Understanding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy on neonatal and maternal outcomes informs clinical decision-making. Here we report a national, population-based, matched cohort study to investigate associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection and, separately, COVID-19 vaccination just before or during pregnancy and the risk of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes among women in Scotland with a singleton pregnancy ending at ≥20 weeks gestation. Neonatal outcomes are stillbirth, neonatal death, extended perinatal mortality, preterm birth (overall, spontaneous, and provider-initiated), small-for-gestational age, and low Apgar score. Maternal outcomes are admission to critical care or death, venous thromboembolism, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and pregnancy-related bleeding. We use conditional logistic regression to derive odds ratios adjusted for socio-demographic and clinical characteristics (aORs). We find that infection is associated with an increased risk of preterm (aOR=1.36, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.16-1.59) and very preterm birth (aOR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.20-3.02), maternal admission to critical care or death (aOR=1.72, 95% CI = 1.39-2.12), and venous thromboembolism (aOR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.47-4.35). We find no evidence of increased risk for any of our outcomes following vaccination. These data suggest SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes, and COVID-19 vaccination remains a safe way for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies against infection.

Absolute and relative excess mortality across demographic and clinical subgroups during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual-level cohort study from a nationwide healthcare system of US Veterans.

Background: Most analyses of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic have employed aggregate data. Individual-level data from the largest integrated healthcare system in the US may enhance understanding of excess mortality. Methods: We performed an observational cohort study following patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022. We estimated excess mortality on an absolute scale (i.e., excess mortality rates, number of excess deaths), and a relative scale by measuring the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality comparing pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, overall, and within demographic and clinical subgroups. Comorbidity burden and frailty were measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index, respectively. Results: Of 5,905,747 patients, median age was 65.8 years and 91% were men. Overall, the excess mortality rate was 10.0 deaths/1000 person-years (PY), with a total of 103,164 excess deaths and pandemic HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.25-1.26). Excess mortality rates were highest among the most frail patients (52.0/1000 PY) and those with the highest comorbidity burden (16.3/1000 PY). However, the largest relative mortality increases were observed among the least frail (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30-1.32) and those with the lowest comorbidity burden (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.43-1.46). Conclusions: Individual-level data offered crucial clinical and operational insights into US excess mortality patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable differences emerged among clinical risk groups, emphasising the need for reporting excess mortality in both absolute and relative terms to inform resource allocation in future outbreaks.

Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

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.

Ethnic differences in hypertension management, medication use and blood pressure control in UK primary care, 2006-2019: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: In the UK, previous work suggests ethnic inequalities in hypertension management. We studied ethnic differences in hypertension management and their contribution to blood pressure (BP) control. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of antihypertensive-naïve individuals of European, South Asian and African/African Caribbean ethnicity with a new raised BP reading in UK primary care from 2006 to 2019, using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We studied differences in: BP re-measurement after an initial hypertensive BP, antihypertensive initiation, BP monitoring, antihypertensive intensification, antihypertensive persistence/adherence and BP control one year after antihypertensive initiation. Models adjusted for socio-demographics, BP, comorbidity, healthcare usage and polypharmacy (plus antihypertensive class, BP monitoring, intensification, persistence and adherence for BP control models). Findings: A total of 731,506 (93.5%), 30,379 (3.9%) and 20,256 (2.6%) people of European, South Asian and African/African Caribbean ethnicity were studied. Hypertension management indicators were similar or more favourable for South Asian than European groups (OR/HR [95% CI] in fully-adjusted models of BP re-measurement: 1.16 [1.09, 1.24]), antihypertensive initiation: 1.49 [1.37, 1.62], BP monitoring: 0.97 [0.94, 1.00] and antihypertensive intensification: 1.10 [1.04, 1.16]). For people of African/African Caribbean ethnicity, BP re-measurement rates were similar to those of European ethnicity (0.98 [0.91, 1.05]), and antihypertensive initiation rates greater (1.48 [1.32, 1.66]), but BP monitoring (0.91 [0.87, 0.95]) and intensification rates lower (0.93 [0.87, 1.00]). Persistence and adherence were lower in South Asian (0.48 [0.45, 0.51] and 0.51 [0.47, 0.56]) and African/African Caribbean (0.38 [0.35, 0.42] and 0.39 [0.36, 0.43]) than European groups. BP control was similar in South Asian and less likely in African/African Caribbean than European groups (0.98 [0.90, 1.06] and 0.81 [0.74, 0.89] in age, gender and BP adjusted models). The latter difference attenuated after adjustment for persistence (0.91 [0.82, 0.99]) or adherence (0.92 [0.83, 1.01]), and was absent for antihypertensive-adherent people (0.99 [0.88, 1.10]). Interpretation: We demonstrate that antihypertensive initiation does not vary by ethnicity, but subsequent BP control was notably lower among people of African/African Caribbean ethnicity, potentially associated with being less likely to remain on regular treatment. A nationwide strategy to understand and address differences in ongoing management of people on antihypertensives is imperative. Funding: Diabetes UK.

A population-based matched cohort study of major congenital anomalies following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Evidence on associations between COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of congenital anomalies is limited. Here we report a national, population-based, matched cohort study using linked electronic health records from Scotland (May 2020-April 2022) to estimate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and, separately, SARS-CoV-2 infection between six weeks pre-conception and 19 weeks and six days gestation and the risk of [1] any major congenital anomaly and [2] any non-genetic major congenital anomaly. Mothers vaccinated in this pregnancy exposure period mostly received an mRNA vaccine (73.7% Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and 7.9% Moderna mRNA-1273). Of the 6731 babies whose mothers were vaccinated in the pregnancy exposure period, 153 had any anomaly and 120 had a non-genetic anomaly. Primary analyses find no association between any vaccination and any anomaly (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.01, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.83-1.24) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.81-1.22). Primary analyses also find no association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and any anomaly (aOR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.66-1.60) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.57-1.54). Findings are robust to sensitivity analyses. These data provide reassurance on the safety of vaccination, in particular mRNA vaccines, just before or in early pregnancy.

Cancer history as a predictor in cardiovascular risk scores: a primary care cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risks are raised in cancer survivors but cancer history is not included in cardiovascular risk scores that inform preventive decisions. AIM: To assess whether cancer diagnosis should be included in cardiovascular risk scores. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study using data from English general practices linked to hospital, cancer registration, and death registration data from 1990 to 2015. METHOD: Adults alive 1 year after a first cancer diagnosis and age, sex, general practice, and calendar- time matched cancer-free individuals were included. Individuals with <2 years of follow-up before index, recent statin prescriptions, or pre-existing coronary heart or cerebrovascular disease were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models used to develop QRISK3 scores were replicated with added cancer history variables. Whether independent hazard ratios for these variables met thresholds for inclusion in QRISK3 (>10% relative difference with P<0.01) was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 81 420 cancer survivors and 413 547 cancer-free individuals were followed for a median 5.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.8- 9.1) and 6.3 years (IQR 3.5-10.2), respectively. Including a 1-year cancer survivorship variable in a QRISK3-based model met the threshold for inclusion for males (independent hazard ratio [iHR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.20, P<0.001) but not females (iHR 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.14, P = 0.02). When including cancer type, the threshold was met for both sexes with history of haematological cancer (males: iHR 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.40, P <0.001; females: iHR 1.59, 95% CI = 1.32 to 1.91, P<0.001) and for males but not females with history of solid cancers (males: iHR 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.18, P <0.001; females: iHR 1.04, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.10, P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Developers should consider including cancer history variables in future cardiovascular risk models.

Five-alpha reductase inhibitors and risk of prostate cancer among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: A historical cohort study using primary care data.

Background: Five-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) are used in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). 5ARIs prevent the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, which is important in prostate development. It has been suggested that 5ARIs can be used a chemopreventative agent for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of prostate cancer associated with 5ARI use among men with BPH. Methods: Using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 1992 to 2011 in UK, prostate cancer risk was retrospectively compared in men with a new diagnosis of BPH, with no history of prostate cancer who were treated with 5ARIs, to men treated with alpha blockers (ABs) and those given no pharmacological treatment. Incidence rate of prostate cancer was calculated by treatment group; the association between BPH treatment group and prostate cancer was estimated by a multivariate Cox model. Results: 77,494 men with newly diagnosed BPH were included. The crude incidence rate of prostate cancer was 892.4 cases per 100,000 person-years amongst those treated with 5ARIs, compared with 1209.0 and 1542.9 in those treated with ABs and untreated individuals, respectively. The HR adjusted for potential confounders was 0.79 (0.72-0.86) for 5ARI vs ABs and 0.72 (0.66-0.79) for 5ARI vs untreated. After excluding the first year after BPH diagnosis, adjusted HRs attenuated to 0.87 (0.79-0.97) for 5ARI vs ABs and 0.97 (0.87-1.08) for 5ARI vs untreated. Conclusion: Among men diagnosed with BPH, we found evidence of lower risks of subsequent prostate cancer in those treated with 5ARIs, but this appeared to be driven by cases diagnosed within a year of BPH, possibly reflecting prevalent prostate cancers that were initially misdiagnosed. After excluding the first year after BPH diagnosis, there was little evidence of a reduced prostate cancer risk in those taking 5ARIs.

Recording of patients' mental health and quality of life-related outcomes in primary care: a cross-sectional study in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported anxiety, depression and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes, with data registered in patients' primary care electronic health record (EHR). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 608 women registered in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database (data from a previous study on 356 breast cancer survivors (8.1 years postdiagnosis) and 252 women with no prior cancer). OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported data on anxiety, depression and QoL, collected through postal questionnaires, and compared with coded information in EHR up to 2 years prior. RESULTS: Abnormal anxiety symptoms were reported by 118 of 599 women who answered the relevant questions (21%); 59/118 (50%) had general practitioner (GP)-recorded anxiolytic/antidepressant use, and 2 (1.6%) had anxiety coded in the EHR. 26/601 women (11%) reported depression symptoms, of whom 17 (65.4%) had GP-recorded antidepressant use and none had depression coded. 65 of 123 women reporting distress on the pain QoL domain (52.8%) had a corresponding record in the EHR <3 months before and 92 (74.8%) <24 months before. No patients reporting fatigue (n=157), sexual health problems (156), social avoidance (82) or cognitive problems (93) had corresponding codes in the EHR. There were no meaningful differences in the concordance results between breast cancer survivors and women with no history of cancer. CONCLUSION: Many patients reporting mental health and QoL problems had no record of this in coded primary care data. This finding suggests that coded data does not fully reflect the burden of disease. Further research is needed to understand whether or not GPs are aware of patient distress in cases where codes have not been recorded.

Respiratory diseases in survivors of adult cancer compared with the general population: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is concern that survivors of adult cancers may be at increased risk of respiratory infections and of exacerbations of pre-existing respiratory conditions. Considering the high prevalence of respiratory disease in the general population, increased respiratory disease risk in survivors of adult cancers could translate into an important impact on morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and assess the quality of all studies comparing respiratory outcomes between adult cancer survivors and individuals with no history of cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic literature review will be conducted using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane. We will include cohort or case-control studies that provide a comparative estimate of the risk of a respiratory disease of interest in survivors of adult cancer against a comparator cohort of cancer-free individuals. No geographic, time or language restrictions will be applied. We will assess the risk of bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology checklists. Results will be summarised by type of respiratory outcome, cancer type and cancer survivorship definition. If sufficient numbers of homogeneous studies are found, summary measures of association will be calculated using random effects meta-analysis models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable to our study. The results will be used to identify evidence gaps and priorities for future research to understand respiratory morbidity in survivors of adult cancers and identify possible mitigation strategies. Results from this review will be disseminated to clinical audiences and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study has been registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022311557).

COVID-19 during pregnancy and risk of pregnancy loss (miscarriage or stillbirth): a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to concerns about potential adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with infection, resulting in intensive research. Numerous studies have attempted to examine whether COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss. However, studies and reviews to date have drawn differing conclusions. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a summary of all quantitative research on the relationship between pregnancy loss and COVID-19 infection and, if appropriate, to synthesise the evidence into an overall effect estimate. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three publication databases (Embase, PubMed and Cochrane) and four preprint databases (medRxiv, Lancet Preprint, Gates Open Research and Wellcome Open Research) will be searched. Boolean logic will be used to combine terms associated with pregnancy loss and COVID-19. The population of interest are pregnant women. Retrieved results will be assessed in two phases: (1) abstract screening and (2) full text evaluation. All studies which compare pregnancy loss outcomes in women who had COVID-19 versus those who did not quantitatively will be included. Narrative and non-English studies will be excluded. Two reviewers will screen independently, with results compared and discrepancies resolved by the study team. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed using a quality appraisal tool. Results will be summarised descriptively and where possible synthesised in a meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review requires no ethical approval. This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and provide an important update in a rapidly evolving field of research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022327437.

A population-based matched cohort study of early pregnancy outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in early pregnancy are limited. We conducted a national, population-based, matched cohort study assessing associations between COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage prior to 20 weeks gestation and, separately, ectopic pregnancy. We identified women in Scotland vaccinated between 6 weeks preconception and 19 weeks 6 days gestation (for miscarriage; n = 18,780) or 2 weeks 6 days gestation (for ectopic; n = 10,570). Matched, unvaccinated women from the pre-pandemic and, separately, pandemic periods were used as controls. Here we show no association between vaccination and miscarriage (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], pre-pandemic controls = 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.96-1.09) or ectopic pregnancy (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.92-1.38). We undertook additional analyses examining confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection as the exposure and similarly found no association with miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Our findings support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies from COVID-19.