scholarly journals Methods to generate and validate a Pregnancy Register in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care database

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 923-933 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Minassian ◽  
Rachael Williams ◽  
Wilhelmine H. Meeraus ◽  
Liam Smeeth ◽  
Oona M.R. Campbell ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. e0173272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Thompson ◽  
Darren M. Ashcroft ◽  
Lynn Owens ◽  
Tjeerd P. van Staa ◽  
Munir Pirmohamed

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e019382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Doble ◽  
Rupert Payne ◽  
Amelia Harshfield ◽  
Edward C F Wilson

ObjectivesTo investigate patterns of early repeat prescriptions and treatment switching over an 11-year period to estimate differences in the cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time for short (<60 days) and long (≥60 days) prescription lengths from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK.SettingRetrospective, multiple cohort study of primary care prescriptions from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.ParticipantsFive random samples of 50 000 patients each prescribed oral drugs for (1) glucose control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); (2) hypertension in T2DM; (3) statins (lipid management) in T2DM; (4) secondary prevention of myocardial infarction; and (5) depression.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe volume of medication wastage from early repeat prescriptions and three other types of treatment switches was quantified and costed. Dispensing fees and prescriber time were also determined. Total unnecessary costs (TUC; cost of medication wastage, dispensing fees and prescriber time) associated with <60 day and ≥60 day prescriptions, standardised to a 120-day period, were then compared.ResultsLonger prescription lengths were associated with more medication waste per prescription. However, when including dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescription lengths resulted in lower TUC. This finding was consistent across all five cohorts. Savings ranged from £8.38 to £12.06 per prescription per 120 days if a single long prescription was issued instead of multiple short prescriptions. Prescriber time costs accounted for the largest component of TUC.ConclusionsShorter prescription lengths could potentially reduce medication wastage, but they may also increase dispensing fees and/or the time burden of issuing prescriptions.


Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D Pauling ◽  
Anita McGrogan ◽  
Julia Snowball ◽  
Neil J McHugh

Abstract Objectives We developed and tested a robust case ascertainment strategy within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), with the aim of assessing the incidence, prevalence, mortality and delay in diagnosis of SSc in the UK. Methods A two-stage case ascertainment strategy was devised and tested to establish a valid cohort of SSc cases within the CPRD. Incidence, prevalence and mortality statistics were analysed, alongside evaluation of the relationship between primary care codes for RP and SSc to examine diagnostic delay. Results SSc Read codes were identified in 3123 patients (from a study cohort of &gt;10.1 million individuals). Of these, 1757 cases of SSc were identified using our case ascertainment approach. The overall incidence rate of SSc over the period between 1999 and 2017 was 10.7/million/year (95% CI: 9.9–11.4), being higher in females [17.69/million/year (95% CI: 16.32–19.07)] than in males [3.59/million/year (95% CI: 2.97–4.21)]. The overall prevalence of SSc in adults was 235.5/million (95% CI: 207.2–245.7). The mean rate of mortality was 32/1000 person-years, with an overall standardized mortality ratio of 3.51 (95% CI: 3.19–3.84). Of those with an initial code of RP prior to a Read code of SSc, 191/854 (22.4%) had a lag period of &gt;10 years. Conclusion We have developed and tested a robust case ascertainment strategy to examine the incidence, prevalence, mortality and diagnostic delay of SSc using primary care records of over 10 million UK residents. A significant lag between coding of RP and SSc in many patients suggests diagnostic delay in SSc remains an important unmet need.


BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e009147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda ◽  
Olaf Klungel ◽  
Xavier Kurz ◽  
Mark C H de Groot ◽  
Ana S Maciel Afonso ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dahai Yu ◽  
Kelvin P Jordan ◽  
Kym I E Snell ◽  
Richard D Riley ◽  
John Bedson ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe ability to efficiently and accurately predict future risk of primary total hip and knee replacement (THR/TKR) in earlier stages of osteoarthritis (OA) has potentially important applications. We aimed to develop and validate two models to estimate an individual’s risk of primary THR and TKR in patients newly presenting to primary care.MethodsWe identified two cohorts of patients aged ≥40 years newly consulting hip pain/OA and knee pain/OA in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Candidate predictors were identified by systematic review, novel hypothesis-free ‘Record-Wide Association Study’ with replication, and panel consensus. Cox proportional hazards models accounting for competing risk of death were applied to derive risk algorithms for THR and TKR. Internal–external cross-validation (IECV) was then applied over geographical regions to validate two models.Results45 predictors for THR and 53 for TKR were identified, reviewed and selected by the panel. 301 052 and 416 030 patients newly consulting between 1992 and 2015 were identified in the hip and knee cohorts, respectively (median follow-up 6 years). The resultant model C-statistics is 0.73 (0.72, 0.73) and 0.79 (0.78, 0.79) for THR (with 20 predictors) and TKR model (with 24 predictors), respectively. The IECV C-statistics ranged between 0.70–0.74 (THR model) and 0.76–0.82 (TKR model); the IECV calibration slope ranged between 0.93–1.07 (THR model) and 0.92–1.12 (TKR model).ConclusionsTwo prediction models with good discrimination and calibration that estimate individuals’ risk of THR and TKR have been developed and validated in large-scale, nationally representative data, and are readily automated in electronic patient records.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document