Explore the vast range of titles available.

Improved understanding of the quality of survival of patients is crucial in evaluating trauma care, understanding recovery patterns and timeframes, and informing healthcare, social, and disability service provision. We aimed to describe the longer-term health status of seriously injured patients, identify predictors of outcome, and establish recovery trajectories by population characteristics. A population-based, prospective cohort study using the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) was undertaken. We followed up 2,757 adult patients, injured between July 2011 and June 2012, through deaths registry linkage and telephone interview at 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months postinjury. The 3-level EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) was collected, and mixed-effects regression modelling was used to identify predictors of outcome, and recovery trajectories, for the EQ-5D-3L items and summary score. Mean (SD) age of participants was 50.8 (21.6) years, and 72% were male. Twelve percent (n = 333) died during their hospital stay, 8.1% (n = 222) of patients died postdischarge, and 155 (7.0%) were known to have survived to 36-months postinjury but were lost to follow-up at all time points. The prevalence of reporting problems at 36-months postinjury was 37% for mobility, 21% for self-care, 47% for usual activities, 50% for pain/discomfort, and 41% for anxiety/depression. Continued improvement to 36-months postinjury was only present for the usual activities item; the adjusted relative risk (ARR) of reporting problems decreased from 6 to 12 (ARR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.90), 12 to 24 (ARR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98), and 24 to 36 months (ARR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99). The risk of reporting problems with pain or discomfort increased from 24- to 36-months postinjury (ARR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.12). While loss to follow-up was low, there was responder bias with patients injured in intentional events, younger, and less seriously injured patients less likely to participate; therefore, these patient subgroups were underrepresented in the study findings. The prevalence of ongoing problems at 3-years postinjury is high, confirming that serious injury is frequently a chronic disorder. These findings have implications for trauma system design. Investment in interventions to reduce the longer-term impact of injuries is needed, and greater investment in primary prevention is needed.

AbstractObjectiveTo derive and validate a risk prediction algorithm to estimate hospital admission and mortality outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in adults.DesignPopulation based cohort study.Setting and participantsQResearch database, comprising 1205 general practices in England with linkage to covid-19 test results, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. 6.08 million adults aged 19-100 years were included in the derivation dataset and 2.17 million in the validation dataset. The derivation and first validation cohort period was 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. The second temporal validation cohort covered the period 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was time to death from covid-19, defined as death due to confirmed or suspected covid-19 as per the death certification or death occurring in a person with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the period 24 January to 30 April 2020. The secondary outcome was time to hospital admission with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance, including measures of discrimination and calibration, was evaluated in each validation time period.Results4384 deaths from covid-19 occurred in the derivation cohort during follow-up and 1722 in the first validation cohort period and 621 in the second validation cohort period. The final risk algorithms included age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, and a range of comorbidities. The algorithm had good calibration in the first validation cohort. For deaths from covid-19 in men, it explained 73.1% (95% confidence interval 71.9% to 74.3%) of the variation in time to death (R2); the D statistic was 3.37 (95% confidence interval 3.27 to 3.47), and Harrell’s C was 0.928 (0.919 to 0.938). Similar results were obtained for women, for both outcomes, and in both time periods. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths within 97 days was 75.7%. People in the top 20% of predicted risk of death accounted for 94% of all deaths from covid-19.ConclusionThe QCOVID population based risk algorithm performed well, showing very high levels of discrimination for deaths and hospital admissions due to covid-19. The absolute risks presented, however, will change over time in line with the prevailing SARS-C0V-2 infection rate and the extent of social distancing measures in place, so they should be interpreted with caution. The model can be recalibrated for different time periods, however, and has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves.

AbstractObjectivesTo derive and validate risk prediction algorithms to estimate the risk of covid-19 related mortality and hospital admission in UK adults after one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination.DesignProspective, population based cohort study using the QResearch database linked to data on covid-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 results, hospital admissions, systemic anticancer treatment, radiotherapy, and the national death and cancer registries.SettingsAdults aged 19-100 years with one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was covid-19 related death. Secondary outcome was covid-19 related hospital admission. Outcomes were assessed from 14 days after each vaccination dose. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort of general practices.ResultsOf 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. Of 2031 covid-19 deaths and 1929 covid-19 hospital admissions, 81 deaths (4.0%) and 71 admissions (3.7%) occurred 14 days or more after the second vaccine dose. The risk algorithms included age, sex, ethnic origin, deprivation, body mass index, a range of comorbidities, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. Incidence of covid-19 mortality increased with age and deprivation, male sex, and Indian and Pakistani ethnic origin. Cause specific hazard ratios were highest for patients with Down’s syndrome (12.7-fold increase), kidney transplantation (8.1-fold), sickle cell disease (7.7-fold), care home residency (4.1-fold), chemotherapy (4.3-fold), HIV/AIDS (3.3-fold), liver cirrhosis (3.0-fold), neurological conditions (2.6-fold), recent bone marrow transplantation or a solid organ transplantation ever (2.5-fold), dementia (2.2-fold), and Parkinson’s disease (2.2-fold). Other conditions with increased risk (ranging from 1.2-fold to 2.0-fold increases) included chronic kidney disease, blood cancer, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, thromboembolism, peripheral vascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. A similar pattern of associations was seen for covid-19 related hospital admissions. No evidence indicated that associations differed after the second dose, although absolute risks were reduced. The risk algorithm explained 74.1% (95% confidence interval 71.1% to 77.0%) of the variation in time to covid-19 death in the validation cohort. Discrimination was high, with a D statistic of 3.46 (95% confidence interval 3.19 to 3.73) and C statistic of 92.5. Performance was similar after each vaccine dose. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted covid-19 mortality risk, sensitivity for identifying covid-19 deaths within 70 days was 78.7%.ConclusionThis population based risk algorithm performed well showing high levels of discrimination for identifying those patients at highest risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission after vaccination.

Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer–BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 17 337 580 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 14 698 030 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·3%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18–49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45–3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07–9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20–1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions—in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53–6·09])—and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90–4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29–0·58]). Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. National Core Studies–Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

How the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected prevention and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is not fully understood. In this study, we used medication data as a proxy for CVD management using routinely collected, de-identified, individual-level data comprising 1.32 billion records of community-dispensed CVD medications from England, Scotland and Wales between April 2018 and July 2021. Here we describe monthly counts of prevalent and incident medications dispensed, as well as percentage changes compared to the previous year, for several CVD-related indications, focusing on hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes. We observed a decline in the dispensing of antihypertensive medications between March 2020 and July 2021, with 491,306 fewer individuals initiating treatment than expected. This decline was predicted to result in 13,662 additional CVD events, including 2,281 cases of myocardial infarction and 3,474 cases of stroke, should individuals remain untreated over their lifecourse. Incident use of lipid-lowering medications decreased by 16,744 patients per month during the first half of 2021 as compared to 2019. By contrast, incident use of medications to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, other than insulin, increased by approximately 623 patients per month for the same time period. In light of these results, methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment for CVD risk factors and remain undiagnosed are urgently required to avoid large numbers of excess future CVD events, an indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysis of 1.32 billion records of medication data from England, Scotland and Wales reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial declines in dispensing of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications, leading to increased risks for future cardiovascular disease.

ObjectivesTo describe the epidemiology of diagnosed hypermobility spectrum disorder (HSD) and Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS) using linked electronic medical records. To examine whether these conditions remain rare and primarily affect the musculoskeletal system.DesignNationwide linked electronic cohort and nested case–control study.SettingRoutinely collected data from primary care and hospital admissions in Wales, UK.ParticipantsPeople within the primary care or hospital data systems with a coded diagnosis of EDS or joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) between 1 July 1990 and 30 June 2017.Main outcome measuresCombined prevalence of JHS and EDS in Wales. Additional diagnosis and prescription data in those diagnosed with EDS or JHS compared with matched controls.ResultsWe found 6021 individuals (men: 30%, women: 70%) with a diagnostic code of either EDS or JHS. This gives a diagnosed point prevalence of 194.2 per 100 000 in 2016/2017 or roughly 10 cases in a practice of 5000 patients. There was a pronounced gender difference of 8.5 years (95% CI: 7.70 to 9.22) in the mean age at diagnosis. EDS or JHS was not only associated with high odds for other musculoskeletal diagnoses and drug prescriptions but also with significantly higher odds of a diagnosis in other disease categories (eg, mental health, nervous and digestive systems) and higher odds of a prescription in most disease categories (eg, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular drugs) within the 12 months before and after the first recorded diagnosis.ConclusionsEDS and JHS (since March 2017 classified as EDS or HSD) have historically been considered rare diseases only affecting the musculoskeletal system and soft tissues. These data demonstrate that both these assertions should be reconsidered.

Undervaccination (receiving fewer than the recommended number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses) could be associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes—ie, COVID-19 hospitalisation or death—compared with full vaccination (receiving the recommended number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses). We sought to determine the factors associated with undervaccination, and to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people who were undervaccinated in each UK nation and across the UK. We used anonymised, harmonised electronic health record data with whole population coverage to carry out cohort studies in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Participants were required to be at least 5 years of age to be included in the cohorts. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for undervaccination as of June 1, 2022. We also estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for severe COVID-19 outcomes during the period June 1 to Sept 30, 2022, with undervaccination as a time-dependent exposure. We combined results from nation-specific analyses in a UK-wide fixed-effect meta-analysis. We estimated the reduction in severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with a counterfactual scenario in which everyone in the UK was fully vaccinated on June 1, 2022. The numbers of people undervaccinated on June 1, 2022 were 26 985 570 (45·8%) of 58 967 360 in England, 938 420 (49·8%) of 1 885 670 in Northern Ireland, 1 709 786 (34·2%) of 4 992 498 in Scotland, and 773 850 (32·8%) of 2 358 740 in Wales. People who were younger, from more deprived backgrounds, of non-White ethnicity, or had a lower number of comorbidities were less likely to be fully vaccinated. There was a total of 40 393 severe COVID-19 outcomes in the cohorts, with 14 156 of these in undervaccinated participants. We estimated the reduction in severe COVID-19 outcomes in the UK over 4 months of follow-up associated with a counterfactual scenario in which everyone was fully vaccinated on June 1, 2022 as 210 (95% CI 94–326) in the 5–15 years age group, 1544 (1399–1689) in those aged 16–74 years, and 5426 (5340–5512) in those aged 75 years or older. aHRs for severe COVID-19 outcomes in the meta-analysis for the age group of 75 years or older were 2·70 (2·61–2·78) for one dose fewer than recommended, 3·13 (2·93–3·34) for two fewer, 3·61 (3·13–4·17) for three fewer, and 3·08 (2·89–3·29) for four fewer. Rates of undervaccination against COVID-19 ranged from 32·8% to 49·8% across the four UK nations in summer, 2022. Undervaccination was associated with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. UK Research and Innovation National Core Studies: Data and Connectivity.

ObjectiveTo develop international consensus on the definition and measurement of multimorbidity in research.DesignDelphi consensus study.SettingInternational consensus; data collected in three online rounds from participants between 30 November 2020 and 18 May 2021.ParticipantsProfessionals interested in multimorbidity and people with long term conditions were recruited to professional and public panels.Results150 professional and 25 public participants completed the first survey round. Response rates for rounds 2/3 were 83%/92% for professionals and 88%/93% in the public panel, respectively. Across both panels, the consensus was that multimorbidity should be defined as two or more long term conditions. Complex multimorbidity was perceived to be a useful concept, but the panels were unable to agree on how to define it. Both panels agreed that conditions should be included in a multimorbidity measure if they were one or more of the following: currently active; permanent in their effects; requiring current treatment, care, or therapy; requiring surveillance; or relapsing-remitting conditions requiring ongoing care. Consensus was reached for 24 conditions to always include in multimorbidity measures, and 35 conditions to usually include unless a good reason not to existed. Simple counts were preferred for estimating prevalence and examining clustering or trajectories, and weighted measures were preferred for risk adjustment and outcome prediction.ConclusionsPrevious multimorbidity research is limited by inconsistent definitions and approaches to measuring multimorbidity. This Delphi study identifies professional and public panel consensus guidance to facilitate consistency of definition and measurement, and to improve study comparability and reproducibility.

Background Measurement of multimorbidity in research is variable, including the choice of the data source used to ascertain conditions. We compared the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity and associations with mortality using different data sources. Methods A cross-sectional study of SAIL Databank data including 2,340,027 individuals of all ages living in Wales on 01 January 2019. Comparison of prevalence of multimorbidity and constituent 47 conditions using data from primary care (PC), hospital inpatient (HI), and linked PC-HI data sources and examination of associations between condition count and 12-month mortality. Results Using linked PC-HI compared with only HI data, multimorbidity was more prevalent (32.2% versus 16.5%), and the population of people identified as having multimorbidity was younger (mean age 62.5 versus 66.8 years) and included more women (54.2% versus 52.6%). Individuals with multimorbidity in both PC and HI data had stronger associations with mortality than those with multimorbidity only in HI data (adjusted odds ratio 8.34 [95% CI 8.02-8.68] versus 6.95 (95%CI 6.79-7.12] in people with ≥ 4 conditions). The prevalence of conditions identified using only PC versus only HI data was significantly higher for 37/47 and significantly lower for 10/47: the highest PC/HI ratio was for depression (14.2 [95% CI 14.1–14.4]) and the lowest for aneurysm (0.51 [95% CI 0.5–0.5]). Agreement in ascertainment of conditions between the two data sources varied considerably, being slight for five (kappa < 0.20), fair for 12 (kappa 0.21–0.40), moderate for 16 (kappa 0.41–0.60), and substantial for 12 (kappa 0.61–0.80) conditions, and by body system was lowest for mental and behavioural disorders. The percentage agreement, individuals with a condition identified in both PC and HI data, was lowest in anxiety (4.6%) and highest in coronary artery disease (62.9%). Conclusions The use of single data sources may underestimate prevalence when measuring multimorbidity and many important conditions (especially mental and behavioural disorders). Caution should be used when interpreting findings of research examining individual and multiple long-term conditions using single data sources. Where available, researchers using electronic health data should link primary care and hospital inpatient data to generate more robust evidence to support evidence-based healthcare planning decisions for people with multimorbidity.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing national lockdowns have dramatically changed the healthcare landscape. The pandemic’s impact on people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains poorly understood. We hypothesised that the UK-wide lockdown restrictions were associated with reductions in severe COPD exacerbations. We provide the first national level analyses of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and first lockdown on severe COPD exacerbations resulting in emergency hospital admissions and/or leading to death as well as those recorded in primary care or emergency departments. Methods Using data from Public Health Scotland and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in Wales, we accessed weekly counts of emergency hospital admissions and deaths due to COPD over the first 30 weeks of 2020 and compared these to the national averages over the preceding 5 years. For both Scotland and Wales, we undertook interrupted time-series analyses to model the impact of instigating lockdown on these outcomes. Using fixed-effect meta-analysis, we derived pooled estimates of the overall changes in trends across the two nations. Results Lockdown was associated with 48% pooled reduction in emergency admissions for COPD in both countries (incidence rate ratio, IRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58), relative to the 5-year averages. There was no statistically significant change in deaths due to COPD (pooled IRR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33). In Wales, lockdown was associated with 39% reduction in primary care consultations for acute exacerbation of COPD (IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.71) and 46% reduction in COPD-related emergency department attendances (IRR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81). Conclusions The UK-wide lockdown was associated with the most substantial reductions in COPD exacerbations ever seen across Scotland and Wales, with no corresponding increase in COPD deaths. This may have resulted from reduced transmission of respiratory infections, reduced exposure to outdoor air pollution and/or improved COPD self-management.