Saving bones without risking brain-bisphosphonates and risk of stroke: matched case-control study.

We investigated the association between bisphosphonate treatment and the risk of stroke using a large routine clinical dataset. We found no association between bisphosphonate treatment and risk of stroke, after adjusting for large number of clinical and demographic confounders. INTRODUCTION: There is conflicting evidence on the link between bisphosphonates and stroke with studies variously showing increased, decreased or unchanged risk. We investigated the association between bisphosphonate treatment and the risk of stroke using a large routine clinical dataset. METHODS: We used a matched nested case-control study design analysing routinely collected electronic data from patients registered at primary care practices in England participating in the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Cases were patients aged 18 years or over, either living or dead, recorded as having had a stroke in the period 1 January 2005 to 31 March 2016. Each case was matched to one control according to age, sex, general practice attended and calendar time. Data were analysed using Stata, version 14.2. and RStudio, version 1.1.463. Conditional logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios for stroke according to bisphosphonate treatment and duration in cases compared with controls. We adjusted for disease risk groups, cardiovascular risk factors, treatments, smoking status, alcohol consumption, ethnicity, bisphosphonate types, fracture and socioeconomic status using IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation). RESULTS: We included 31,414 cases of stroke with an equal number of matched controls. Overall, 83.2% of cases and controls were aged 65 years or older, and there were similar proportions of females (51.5%) and males (48.5%). Bisphosphonate treatment was not associated with stroke after adjusting for the wide range of confounders considered (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between bisphosphonate treatment and risk of stroke, after adjusting for other confounders.

Association between glycaemic control and common infections in people with Type 2 diabetes: a cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the impact of glycaemic control on infection incidence in people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We compared infection rates during 2014 in people with Type 2 diabetes and people without diabetes in a large primary care cohort in the UK (the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre database). We performed multilevel logistic regression to investigate the impact of Type 2 diabetes on presentation with infection, and the effect of glycaemic control on presentation with upper respiratory tract infections, bronchitis, influenza-like illness, pneumonia, intestinal infectious diseases, herpes simplex, skin and soft tissue infections, urinary tract infections, and genital and perineal infections. People with Type 2 diabetes were stratified by good [HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (< 7%)], moderate [HbA1c 53-69 mmol/mol (7-8.5%)] and poor [HbA1c > 69 mmol/mol (> 8.5%)] glycaemic control using their most recent HbA1c concentration. Infection incidence was adjusted for important sociodemographic factors and patient comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 34 278 people with Type 2 diabetes and 613 052 people without diabetes for comparison. The incidence of infections was higher in people with Type 2 diabetes for all infections except herpes simplex. Worsening glycaemic control was associated with increased incidence of bronchitis, pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, urinary tract infections, and genital and perineal infections, but not with upper respiratory tract infections, influenza-like illness, intestinal infectious diseases or herpes simplex. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all infections analysed were more common in people with Type 2 diabetes. Infections that are most commonly of bacterial, fungal or yeast origin were more frequent in people with worse glycaemic control.