Trends in recorded abortions in UK general practice – cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

Author(s):  
Richard Ma
BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e032646
Author(s):  
Anneka Mitchell ◽  
Tomas J Welsh ◽  
Margaret C Watson ◽  
Julia Snowball ◽  
Anita McGrogan

IntroductionWarfarin has frequently been underused in older people for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) entered the UK market from 2008 and have been recommended as an alternative to warfarin. This study aimed to describe any changes in the prescribing of oral anticoagulants (OACs) to people aged ≥75 years in UK general practice before and after the introduction of DOACs, to examine differences in patient characteristics which may influence prescribers’ decisions regarding anticoagulation, to evaluate the time people stay on OACs and switching between OACs.Methods and analysisA retrospective cohort study design will be used. Patients with a diagnosis of AF will be identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The study period will run from 1 January 2003 to 27 December 2017. Patients enter the cohort at the latest date of the start of the study period, first AF diagnosis, 75th birthday or a year from when they started to contribute research standard data. Follow-up continues until they leave the practice, death, the date the practice stops contributing research standard data or the end of the study period (27 December 2017). Exposure to OACs will be defined as ≥1 prescription issued for an OAC of interest during the study period. Patients issued an OAC in the year preceding study entry will be defined as ‘prevalent users’. Patients starting on an OAC during the study period will be defined as ‘incident users’. Incidence and prevalence of OAC prescribing, patient demographics and characteristics will be described during three time periods: 2003–2007, 2008–2012 and 2013–2017. Persistence (defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of medication) with and switching between different OACs will be described.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol for this study was approved by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at conferences.Trial registration numberEUPAS29923.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e023830 ◽  
Author(s):  
John-Michael Gamble ◽  
Eugene Chibrikov ◽  
William K Midodzi ◽  
Laurie K Twells ◽  
Sumit R Majumdar

ObjectivesTo compare population-based incidence rates of new-onset depression or self-harm in patients initiating incretin-based therapies with that of sulfonylureas (SU) and other glucose-lowering agents.DesignPopulation-based cohort study.SettingPatients attending primary care practices registered with the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).ParticipantsUsing the UK-based CPRD, we identified two incretin-based therapies cohorts: (1) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i)-cohort, consisting of new users of DPP-4i and SU and (2) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA)-cohort, consisting of new users of GLP-1RA and SU, between January 2007 and January 2016. Patients with a prior history of depression, self-harm and other serious psychiatric conditions were excluded.Main outcome measuresThe primary study outcome comprised a composite of new-onset depression or self-harm. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to quantify the association between incretin-based therapies and depression or self-harm. Deciles of High-Dimensional Propensity Scores and concurrent number of glucose-lowering agents were used to adjust for potential confounding.ResultsWe identified new users of 6206 DPP-4i and 22 128 SU in the DPP-4i-cohort, and 501 GLP-1RA and 16 409 SU new users in the GLP-1RA-cohort. The incidence of depression or self-harm was 8.2 vs 11.7 events/1000 person-years in the DPP-4i-cohort and 18.2 vs 13.6 events/1000 person-years in the GLP-1RA-cohort for incretin-based therapies versus SU, respectively. Incretin-based therapies were not associated with an increased or decreased incidence of depression or self-harm compared with SU (DPP-4i-cohort: unadjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; GLP-1RA-cohort: unadjusted HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58; adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.50). Consistent results were observed for other glucose-lowering comparators including insulin and thiazolidinediones.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the two incretin-based therapies are not associated with an increased or decreased risk of depression or self-harm.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jemima Scott ◽  
Tim Jones ◽  
Maria Theresa Redaniel ◽  
Margaret T. May ◽  
Yoav Ben-Shlomo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) attributable to renin angiotensin aldosterone (RAAS) inhibitors and diuretics remains unclear. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2008–2015) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics – Admitted Patient Care and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Patients were included if they had one or more chronic diagnoses requiring medication. Exposed patients had a first ever prescription for RAAS inhibitors/diuretics during the study period. AKI risk associated with exposure was determined by multivariable Cox regression, propensity score-adjusted Cox regression and a prior event rate ratio (PERR) analysis. Results One hundred forty thousand nine hundred fifty-two individuals were included. Increased AKI risk in the exposed group was demonstrated in both the multivariable and propensity score-adjusted cox regressions (HR 1.23 (95% CI 1.04–1.45) and HR 1.24 (1.05–1.47) respectively). The PERR analysis provided a similar overall hazard ratio with a wider confidence interval (HR 1.29 (0.94–1.63)). The increased AKI risk in the exposed group was present only in those receiving two or more antihypertensives. Absolute AKI risk was small. Conclusions RAAS inhibitors/diuretics result in an increased risk of AKI. The absolute increase in AKI risk is small, however, and needs to be considered in the context of any potential benefits.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document