Systemic Fluoroquinolone Use and Risk of Uveitis or Retinal Detachment.

Importance: Fluoroquinolone use has been associated with increased risk of uveitis and retinal detachment in noninterventional studies, but the findings have been conflicting and causality is unclear. Objective: To estimate the association of systemic fluoroquinolone use with acute uveitis or retinal detachment, using multiple analyses and multiple databases to increase the robustness of results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and GOLD UK primary care records databases, which were linked to hospital admissions data. Adults prescribed a fluoroquinolone or a comparator antibiotic, cephalosporin, between April 1997 and December 2019 were included. Adults with uveitis or retinal detachment were analyzed in a separate self-controlled case series. Data analysis was performed from May 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Systemic fluoroquinolone or comparator antibiotic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a diagnosis of acute uveitis or retinal detachment. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated in the cohort study for the association of fluoroquinolone prescription with either uveitis or retinal detachment, using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated in the self-controlled case series, using conditional Poisson regression. Estimates were pooled across databases using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 3 001 256 individuals in Aurum (1 893 561 women [63.1%]; median [IQR] age, 51 [35-68] years) and 434 754 in GOLD (276 259 women [63.5%]; median [IQR] age, 53 [37-70] years) were included in the cohort study. For uveitis, the pooled adjusted HRs (aHRs) for use of fluoroquinolone vs cephalosporin were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72-1.14) at first treatment episode and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92-1.25) over all treatment episodes. For retinal detachment, the pooled aHRs were 1.37 (95% CI, 0.80-2.36) at first treatment episode and 1.18 (95% CI, 0.84-1.65) over all treatment episodes. In the self-controlled case series, for uveitis, the pooled adjusted RRs (aRRs) for fluoroquinolone use vs nonuse were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.97-1.31) for 1 to 29 days of exposure, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34) for 30 to 59 days, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.74-1.31) for 60 days for longer. For retinal detachment, pooled aRRs for fluoroquinolone use vs nonuse were 1.15 (95% CI, 0.86-1.54) for 1 to 29 days of exposure, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.69-1.30) for 30 to 59 days, and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.59-1.78) for 60 days or longer. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings do not support an association of systemic fluoroquinolone use with substantively increased risk of uveitis or retinal detachment. Although an association cannot be completely ruled out, these findings indicate that any absolute increase in risk would be small and, hence, of limited clinical importance.

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial). SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21. PARTICIPANTS: 75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures. RESULTS: 75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were -2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and -3.2 mmol/mol (-4.6 to -1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking-the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints.

A self-controlled case series study to measure the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with attendance at sporting and cultural events: the UK Events Research Programme events.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, whilst societies were emerging from major social restrictions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the UK government instigated an Events Research Programme to examine the risk of COVID-19 transmission from attendance at cultural events and explore ways to enable people to attend a range of events whilst minimising risk of transmission. We aimed to measure any impact on risk of COVID-19 transmission from attendance at events held at or close to commercially viable capacity using routinely collected data. METHODS: Data were obtained on attendees at Phase 3 Events Research Programme events, for which some infection risk mitigation measures were in place (i.e. evidence of vaccination or a negative lateral flow test). Attendance data were linked with COVID-19 test result data from the UK Test and Trace system. Using a self-controlled case series design, we measured the within person incidence rate ratio for testing positive for COVID-19, comparing the rate in days 3 to 9 following event attendance (high risk period) with days 1 and 2 and 10-16 (baseline period). Rate ratios were adjusted for estimates of underlying regional COVID-19 prevalence to account for population level fluctuations in infection risk, and events were grouped into broadly similar types. RESULTS: From attendance data available for 188,851 attendees, 3357 people tested positive for COVID-19 during the observation period. After accounting for total testing trends over the period, incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals for positive tests were 1.16 (0.53-2.57) for indoor seated events, 1.12 (0.95-1.30) for mainly outdoor seated events, 0.65 (0.51-0.83) for mainly outdoor partially seated events, and 1.70 (1.52-1.89) for mainly outdoor unseated multi-day events. CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of event types studied in the third phase of the UK Events Research Programme, we found no evidence of an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission associated with event attendance. However, we found a 70% increased risk of infection associated with attendance at mainly outdoor unseated multi-day events. We have also demonstrated a novel use for self-controlled case series methodology in monitoring infection risk associated with event attendance.

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.

Implementation of a Taxonomy-Based Framework for the Selection of Appropriate Drugs and Outcomes for Real-World Data Signal Detection Studies.

INTRODUCTION: For signal detection studies investigating either drug safety or method evaluation, the choice of drug-outcome pairs needs to be tailored to the planned study design and vice versa. While this is well understood in hypothesis-testing epidemiology, it should be as important in signal detection, but this has not widely been considered. There is a need for a taxonomy framework to provide guidance and a systematic reproducible approach to the selection of appropriate drugs and outcomes for signal detection studies either investigating drug safety or assessing method performance using real-world data. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to design a general framework for the selection of appropriate drugs and outcomes for signal detection studies given a study design of interest. As a motivating example, we illustrate how the framework is applied to build a reference set for a study aiming to assess the performance of the self-controlled case series with active comparators. METHODS: We reviewed criteria presented in two published studies which aimed to provide practical advice for choosing the appropriate signal evaluation methodology, and assessed their relevance for signal detection. Further characteristics specific to signal detection were added. The final framework is based on: the application of study design requirements, the database(s) of interest, and the clinical importance of the drug(s) and outcome(s) under consideration. This structure was applied by selecting drug-outcome pairs as a reference set (i.e. list of drug-outcome pairs classified as positive or negative controls) for which the method is expected to work well for a signal detection study aiming to assess the performance of self-controlled case series. Eight criteria were used, related to the application of self-controlled case series assumptions, choice of active comparators, coverage in the database of interest and clinical importance of the outcomes. RESULTS: After application of the framework, two classes of antibiotics (seven drugs) were selected for the study, and 28 outcomes from all organ classes were chosen from the drug labels, out of the 273 investigated. In total, this corresponds to 104 positive controls (drug-outcome pairs) and 58 negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed and applied a framework for the selection of drugs and outcomes for both drug safety signal detection and method assessment used in signal detection to optimise their performance given a study design. This framework will eliminate part of the bias relating to drugs and outcomes not being suited to the method or database. The main difficulty lies in the choice of the criteria and their application to ensure systematic selection, especially as some information remains unknown in signal detection, and clinical judgement was needed on occasions. The same framework could be adapted for other methods.

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups. Findings: A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033). Interpretation: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Association Between Fluoroquinolone Use and Hospitalization With Aortic Aneurysm or Aortic Dissection.

Importance: Fluoroquinolone use has been associated with increased hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection in noninterventional studies, but the reason for this observed association is unclear. Objective: To determine the association between fluoroquinolone use and aortic aneurysm or dissection using multiple study designs and multiple databases to increase the robustness of findings. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort and case-crossover studies were conducted separately in 2 databases of UK primary care records. Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and GOLD primary care records were linked to hospital admissions data. Adults with a systemic fluoroquinolone or cephalosporin prescription between April 1997 and December 2019 were included in the cohort study. Adults hospitalized with aortic aneurysm or dissection within the eligibility period were included in the case-crossover study. Individuals meeting inclusion criteria in the case-crossover study were matched 1:3 to control individuals on age, sex, index date, and clinical practice to adjust for calendar trends in prescribing. Data were analyzed from January to July 2022. Exposures: Systemic fluoroquinolone or comparator antibiotic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated in the cohort study for the association between prescription of fluoroquinolones and hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection using stabilized inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox regression. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated in the case-crossover study for the association between systemic fluoroquinolone use and hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection using a conditional logistic regression model. Estimates were pooled across databases using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Results: In the cohort study, we identified 3 134 121 adults in Aurum (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [20.3] years; 1 969 257 [62.8%] female) and 452 086 in GOLD (mean [SD] age, 53.9 [20.2] years; 286 502 [63.4%] female) who were prescribed fluoroquinolones or cephalosporins. In crude analyses, fluoroquinolone relative to cephalosporin use was associated with increased hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection (pooled HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.44; P < .001) but after adjustment for potential confounders, this association disappeared (pooled adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.91-1.17; P = .65). In the case-crossover study, we identified 84 841 individuals hospitalized with aortic aneurysm or dissection in Aurum (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [10.9]; 23 551 [27.8%] female) and 10 357 in GOLD (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [10.5]; 2809 [27.1%] female). Relative to nonuse, fluoroquinolone use was associated with an increase in hospitalization with aortic aneurysm or dissection, but no association was found relative to other antibiotics (vs cephalosporin pooled OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; vs trimethoprim, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.06; vs co-amoxiclav, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.18). Conclusions and Relevance: The results in this study suggest that estimates of association of fluoroquinolones with aortic aneurysm or dissection may be affected by confounding. When such confounding is accounted for, no association was evident, providing reassurance on the safety of fluoroquinolones with respect to aortic aneurysm or dissection.

Prevalent new user designs: A literature review of current implementation practice.

PURPOSE: Prevalent new user (PNU) designs extend the active comparator new user design by allowing for the inclusion of initiators of the study drug who were previously on a comparator treatment. We performed a literature review summarising current practice. METHODS: PubMed was searched for studies applying the PNU design since its proposal in 2017. The review focused on three components. First, we extracted information on the overall study design, including the database used. We summarised information on implementation of the PNU design, including key decisions relating to exposure set definition and estimation of time-conditional propensity scores. Finally, we reviewed the analysis strategy of the matched cohort. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the criteria for inclusion. Most studies (73%) implemented the PNU design in electronic health record or registry databases, with the remaining using insurance claims databases. Of 15 studies including a class of prevalent users, 40% deviated from the original exposure set definition proposals in favour of a more complex definition. Four studies did not include prevalent new users but used other aspects of the PNU framework. Several studies lacked details on exposure set definition (n = 2), time-conditional propensity score model (n = 2) or integration of complex analytical techniques, such as the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm (n = 3). CONCLUSION: PNU designs have been applied in a range of therapeutic and disease areas. However, to encourage more widespread use of this design and help shape best practice, there is a need for improved accessibility, specifically through the provision of analytical code alongside guidance to support implementation and transparent reporting.

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.

Methods for drug safety signal detection using routinely collected observational electronic health care data: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Signal detection is a crucial step in the discovery of post-marketing adverse drug reactions. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected data to complement established spontaneous report analyses. This work aims to systematically review the methods for drug safety signal detection using routinely collected healthcare data and their performance, both in general and for specific types of drugs and outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines, and registered a protocol in PROSPERO. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched until July 13, 2021. RESULTS: The review included 101 articles, among which there were 39 methodological works, 25 performance assessment papers, and 24 observational studies. Methods included adaptations from those used with spontaneous reports, traditional epidemiological designs, methods specific to signal detection with real-world data. More recently, implementations of machine learning have been studied in the literature. Twenty-five studies evaluated method performances, 16 of them using the area under the curve (AUC) for a range of positive and negative controls as their main measure. Despite the likelihood that performance measurement could vary by drug-event pair, only 10 studies reported performance stratified by drugs and outcomes, in a heterogeneous manner. The replicability of the performance assessment results was limited due to lack of transparency in reporting and the lack of a gold standard reference set. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of methods have been described in the literature for signal detection with routinely collected data. No method showed superior performance in all papers and across all drugs and outcomes, performance assessment and reporting were heterogeneous. However, there is limited evidence that self-controlled designs, high dimensional propensity scores, and machine learning can achieve higher performances than other methods.

Proton pump inhibitors and myocardial infarction: an application of active comparators in a self-controlled case series.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies investigating potential cardiovascular adverse events of acid-suppressing drugs are susceptible to protopathic bias and confounding. We aimed to investigate the association between short-term risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) using a self-controlled case series (SCCS) with an active comparator. METHODS: We conducted a SCCS using a population-wide database from Hong Kong from 2003-2014. Adult with ≥1 outpatient oral PPI prescription or H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) and MI during the observation period were included. We used both simple ratio and effect modifier approaches to SCCS with active comparators to obtain comparator adjusted estimates. RESULTS: A total of 2802 and 1889 people with MI who had exposure to PPIs and H2RA were included respectively. We observed a higher risk of MI during days 1-14 following the start of PPI prescription (Incidence rate ratio (IRR): 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.76-3.00) versus baseline. Similarly, we observed a higher risk of MI during days 1-14 following the start of H2RA prescription (IRR: 2.46, 95%CI: 1.92-3.16) versus baseline. In the novel SCCS analyses, comparator adjusted estimates were 0.93 (95%CI: 0.57-1.30) and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.58-1.20) during days 1-14 in simple ratio and effect modifier approach, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no difference in risk of MI associated with PPIs compared with baseline using H2RA as the active comparator. The elevated risk of MI associated with PPIs is likely due to protopathic bias. More studies are required to explore the feasibility of using active comparators in SCCS to address protopathic bias in addition to confounding.

Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatment for people with type 2 diabetes in England: A cross-sectional study.

AIMS: To assess any disparities in the initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatments prescribed among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in England according to ethnicity and social deprivation level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics), and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). We included people aged 18 years or older with T2DM who intensified to second-line oral antidiabetic medication between 2014 and 2020 to investigate disparities in second-line antidiabetic treatment prescribing (one of sulphonylureas [SUs], dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors, in combination with metformin) by ethnicity (White, South Asian, Black, mixed/other) and deprivation level (IMD quintiles). We report prescriptions of the alternative treatments by ethnicity and deprivation level according to predicted percentages derived from multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 36 023 people, 85% were White, 10% South Asian, 4% Black and 1% mixed/other. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing by ethnicity were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-23%), 20% (95% CI 18-22%), 19% (95% CI 16-22%) and 17% (95% CI 14-21%) among people with White, South Asian, Black, and mixed/other ethnicity, respectively. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing by deprivation were 22% (95% CI 20-25%) and 19% (95% CI 17-21%) for the least deprived and the most deprived quintile, respectively. When stratifying by prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) status, we found lower predicted percentages of people with prevalent CVD prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors compared with people without prevalent CVD across all ethnicity groups and all levels of social deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with T2DM, there were no substantial differences by ethnicity or deprivation level in the percentage prescribed either SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors or SUs as second-line antidiabetic treatment.

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.

Myocarditis and pericarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A population-based descriptive cohort and a nested self-controlled risk interval study using electronic health care data from four European countries.

Background: Estimates of the association between COVID-19 vaccines and myo-/pericarditis risk vary widely across studies due to scarcity of events, especially in age- and sex-stratified analyses. Methods: Population-based cohort study with nested self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) using healthcare data from five European databases. Individuals were followed from 01/01/2020 until end of data availability (31/12/2021 latest). Outcome was first myo-/pericarditis diagnosis. Exposures were first and second dose of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines. Baseline incidence rates (IRs), and vaccine- and dose-specific IRs and rate differences were calculated from the cohort The SCRI calculated calendar time-adjusted IR ratios (IRR), using a 60-day pre-vaccination control period and dose-specific 28-day risk windows. IRRs were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Findings: Over 35 million individuals (49·2% women, median age 39-49 years) were included, of which 57·4% received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Baseline incidence of myocarditis was low. Myocarditis IRRs were elevated after vaccination in those aged < 30 years, after both Pfizer vaccine doses (IRR = 3·3, 95%CI 1·2-9.4; 7·8, 95%CI 2·6-23·5, respectively) and Moderna vaccine dose 2 (IRR = 6·1, 95%CI 1·1-33·5). An effect of AstraZeneca vaccine dose 2 could not be excluded (IRR = 2·42, 95%CI 0·96-6·07). Pericarditis was not associated with vaccination. Interpretation: mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and potentially AstraZeneca are associated with increased myocarditis risk in younger individuals, although absolute incidence remains low. More data on children (≤ 11 years) are needed.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for prevention of severe covid-19 outcomes in patients in the community: observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) with molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe outcomes of covid-19 in adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community and at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19. DESIGN: Observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform. SETTING: With the approval of NHS England, a real world cohort study was conducted with the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (a secure, transparent, open source software platform for analysis of NHS electronic health records), and patient level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatments, hospital admission, and death, over a period when both drug treatments were frequently prescribed in community settings. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with covid-19 in the community at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir from 16 December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Sotrovimab or molnupiravir given in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Admission to hospital with covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the primary diagnosis) or death from covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the underlying or contributing cause of death) within 28 days of the start of treatment. RESULTS: Between 16 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively, with no substantial differences in baseline characteristics. Mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (standard deviation 16) years; 59% were women, 89% were white, and 88% had received three or more covid-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days of the start of treatment, 87 (1.4%) patients were admitted to hospital or died of infection from SARS-CoV-2 (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographic information, high risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index, and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). Consistent results were found from propensity score weighted Cox models (0.50, 0.31 to 0.81, P=0.005) and when restricted to people who were fully vaccinated (0.53, 0.31 to 0.90, P=0.02). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction >0.10). The findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between 16 February and 1 May 2022 when omicron BA.2 was the predominant variant in England. CONCLUSIONS: In routine care of adult patients in England with covid-19 in the community, at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe outcomes of covid-19 than those treated with molnupiravir.

Recording of 'COVID-19 vaccine declined': a cohort study on 57.9 million National Health Service patients' records in situ using OpenSAFELY, England, 8 December 2020 to 25 May 2021.

BackgroundPriority patients in England were offered COVID-19 vaccination by mid-April 2021. Codes in clinical record systems can denote the vaccine being declined.AimWe describe records of COVID-19 vaccines being declined, according to clinical and demographic factors.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a retrospective cohort study between 8 December 2020 and 25 May 2021 with primary care records for 57.9 million patients using OpenSAFELY, a secure health analytics platform. COVID-19 vaccination priority patients were those aged ≥ 50 years or ≥ 16 years clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) or 'at risk'. We describe the proportion recorded as declining vaccination for each group and stratified by clinical and demographic subgroups, subsequent vaccination and distribution of clinical code usage across general practices.ResultsOf 24.5 million priority patients, 663,033 (2.7%) had a decline recorded, while 2,155,076 (8.8%) had neither a vaccine nor decline recorded. Those recorded as declining, who were subsequently vaccinated (n = 125,587; 18.9%) were overrepresented in the South Asian population (32.3% vs 22.8% for other ethnicities aged ≥ 65 years). The proportion of declining unvaccinated patients was highest in CEV (3.3%), varied strongly with ethnicity (black 15.3%, South Asian 5.6%, white 1.5% for ≥ 80 years) and correlated positively with increasing deprivation.ConclusionsClinical codes indicative of COVID-19 vaccinations being declined are commonly used in England, but substantially more common among black and South Asian people, and in more deprived areas. Qualitative research is needed to determine typical reasons for recorded declines, including to what extent they reflect patients actively declining.

Association between household composition and severe COVID-19 outcomes in older people by ethnicity: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of age-based generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in Wave 1 (1 February 2020-31 August 2020) and 2 731 427 in Wave 2 (1 September 2020-31 January 2021). RESULTS: Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves [e.g. Wave 2, 67+ living with three other generations vs 67+-year-olds only: White hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 95% CI 1.38-1.87, South Asian HR 1.76 95% CI 1.48-2.10], with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in Wave 2. There was also an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in Wave 1 associated with living alone for White (HR 1.35 95% CI 1.30-1.41), South Asian (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.18-1.84) and Other (HR 1.72 95% CI 0.99-2.97) ethnicities, an effect that persisted for White older people in Wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: Both multigenerational living and living alone were associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings, whereas a substantial proportion of White older people live alone. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics.