Search

Background: Sepsis is a growing concern for health systems, but the epidemiology of sepsis is poorly characterised. We evaluated sepsis recording across primary care electronic records, hospital episodes and mortality registrations. Methods and findings: Cohort study including 378 general practices in England from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from 2002–2017 with 36,209,676 patient-years of follow-up with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality registrations. Incident sepsis episodes were identified for each source. Concurrent records from different sources were identified and age-standardised and age-specific incidence rates compared. Logistic regression analysis evaluated associations of gender, age-group, fifth of deprivation and period of diagnosis with concurrent sepsis recording. There were 20,206 first episodes of sepsis from primary care, 20,278 from HES and 13,972 from ONS. There were 4,117 (20%) first HES sepsis events and 2,438 (17%) mortality records concurrent with incident primary care sepsis records within 30 days. Concurrent HES and primary care records of sepsis within 30 days before or after first diagnosis were higher at younger or older ages and for patients with the most recent period of diagnosis. Those diagnosed during 2007:2011 were less likely to have a concurrent HES record given CPRD compared to those diagnosed during 2012–2017 (odd ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.60–0.70). At age 85 and older, primary care incidence was 5.22 per 1,000 patient years (95% CI 1.75–11.97) in men and 3.55 (0.87–9.58) in women which increased to 10.09 (4.86–18.51) for men and 7.22 (2.96–14.72) for women after inclusion of all three sources. Conclusion: Explicit recording of 'sepsis' is inconsistent across healthcare sectors with a high proportion of non-concurrent records. Incidence estimates are higher when linked data are analysed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Health Service (NHS) in England introduced a population-wide programme for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in 2009, known as NHS Health Checks. This research aimed to measure the cardiovascular risk management and cardiovascular risk factor outcomes of the health check programme during six years' follow-up.Methods and Findings: A controlled interrupted time series study was conducted. Participants were registered with general practices in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England and received health checks between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2013. Control participants, who did not receive a health check, were matched for age, sex, and general practice. Outcomes were blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). Analyses estimated the net effect of health check by year, allowing for the underlying trend in risk factor values and baseline differences between cases and controls, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, and clustering by general practice. There were 127,891 health check participants and 322,910 matched controls. Compared with controls, health check participants had lower BMI (cases mean 27.0, SD 4.8; controls 27.3, SD 5.6, Kg/m2), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (cases 129.0, SD 14.3; controls 129.3, SD 15.0, mm Hg), and smoking (21% in health check participants versus 27% in controls), but total and HDL cholesterol were similar. Health check participants were more likely to receive weight management advice (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 5.03, 4.98 to 5.08, P < 0.001), smoking cessation interventions (HR 3.20, 3.13 to 3.27, P < 0.001), or statins (HR 1.24, 1.21 to 1.27, P < 0.001). There were net reductions in risk factor values up to six years after the check for BMI (-0.30, -0.39 to -0.20 Kg/m2, P < 0.001), SBP (-1.43, -1.70 to -1.16 mm Hg, P < 0.001), and smoking (17% in health check participants versus 25% in controls; odds ratio 0.90, 0.87 to 0.94, P < 0.001). The main study limitation was that residual confounding may be present because randomisation was not employed; health check-associated measurement introduced differential recording that might cause bias.Conclusions: Our results suggest that people who take up a health check generally have lower risk factor values than controls and are more likely to receive risk factor interventions. Risk factor values show net reductions up to six years following a health check in BMI, blood pressure, and smoking, which may be of public health importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To provide estimates of visual impairment in people with diabetes attending screening in a multi-ethnic population in England (United Kingdom). Methods: The Diabetic Retinopathy In Various Ethnic groups in UK (DRIVE UK) Study is a cross-sectional study on the ethnic variations of the prevalence of DR and visual impairment in two multi-racial cohorts in the UK. People on the diabetes register in West Yorkshire and South East London who were screened, treated or monitored between April 2008 to July 2009 (London) or August 2009 (West Yorkshire) were included in the study. Data on age, gender, ethnic group, visual acuity and diabetic retinopathy were collected. Ethnic group was defined according to the 2011 census classification. The two main ethnic minority groups represented here are Blacks (''Black/African/Caribbean/Black British'') and South Asians (''Asians originating from the Indian subcontinent''). We examined the prevalence of visual impairment in the better eye using three cut-off points (a) loss of vision sufficient for driving (approximately ,6/9) (b) visual impairment (,6/12) and (c) severe visual impairment (,6/60), standardising the prevalence of visual impairment in the minority ethnic groups to the age-structure of the white population. Results: Data on visual acuity and were available on 50,331individuals 3.4% of people diagnosed with diabetes and attending screening were visually impaired (95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.2% to 3.5%) and 0.39% severely visually impaired (0.33% to 0.44%). Blacks and South Asians had a higher prevalence of visual impairment (directly age standardised prevalence 4.6%, 95% CI 4.0% to 5.1% and 6.9%, 95% CI 5.8% to 8.0% respectively) compared to white people (3.3%, 95% CI 3.1% to 3.5%). Visual loss was also more prevalent with increasing age, type 1 diabetes and in people living in Yorkshire. Conclusions: Visual impairment remains an important public health problem in people with diabetes, and is more prevalent in the minority ethnic groups in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to determine whether family practices' achievement of diabetes quality of care targets is associated with diabetic retinal disease in registered patients. Methods: Data for achievement of diabetes quality of care targets, including the proportion of patients with HbA1c≤7.5%, for 144 family practices in London UK, for the years 2004/5 to 2007/8, were linked to data from a population-based diabetes eye screening programme collected from September 2007 to February 2009. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, duration and type of diabetes, unadjusted diabetes prevalence, ethnicity and deprivation category. Results: Data were analysed for 24,458 participants with one or more eye screening results in the period. There were 9,332 (38%) with any diabetic retinopathy and 2,819 (11.5%) with sight threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR), including 2,654 (10.9%) with maculopathy. Among participants registered at 13 family practices that were in the highest quartile for achievement of the HbA1c quality of care target for all four years of study, the relative odds of any diabetic retinopathy were 0.78 (0.69 to 0.88) P<0.001. For participants at 12 practices consistently in the lowest quartile of HbA1c achievement, the relative odds of any diabetic retinopathy were 1.16 (1.03 to 1.30), P = 0.015. In the highest achieving practices, the relative odds of maculopathy were 0.74 (0.62 to 0.89), P = 0.001 and STDR 0.77 (0.65 to 0.92), P = 0.004. Conclusions: The risk of diabetic retinopathy might be lower at family practices that consistently achieve highly on diabetes quality of care targets for HbA1c. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]