Search

Objectives: The risk of dying by alcohol-specific causes in people with epilepsy has seldom been reported from population-based studies. We aimed to estimate the relative risk of alcohol-specific mortality in people with epilepsy, and the extent to which problematic alcohol use was previously identified in the patients' medical records. Method: We delineated cohort studies in two population-based datasets, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) in England (January 01, 2001–December 31, 2014) and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales (January 01, 2001–December 31, 2014), linked to hospitalization and mortality records. People with epilepsy were matched to up to 20 persons without epilepsy on gender, age (±2 years) and registered general practice. We identified alcohol-specific death from Office for National Statistics (ONS) records using specified ICD-10 codes. We further identified prescriptions, interventions and hospitalisations related to alcohol use. Results: In the CPRD GOLD, we identified 9,871 individuals in the incident epilepsy cohort and 185,800 in the comparison cohort and, in the SAIL Databank, these numbers were 5,569 and 110,021, respectively. We identified a five-fold increased risk of alcohol-specific mortality in people with epilepsy vs. those without the condition in our pooled estimate across the two datasets (deprivation-adjusted HR 4.85, 95%CI 3.46–6.79). Conclusions: People with epilepsy are at increased risk of dying by an alcohol-specific cause than those without the disorder. It is plausible that serious alcohol misuse could either contribute to the development of epilepsy or it could commence subsequent to epilepsy being diagnosed. Regardless of the direction of the association, it is important that the risk of dying as a consequence of alcohol misuse is accurately quantified in people affected by epilepsy. Systematically-applied, sensitive assessment of alcohol consumption by healthcare professionals, at opportunistic, clinical contacts, with rapid access to quality treatment services, should be mandatory and play a key role in reduction of health harms and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: There is a known shortfall in hepatology service resources across England and Wales. Aim: To investigate early and late mortality following unscheduled admissions for severe liver disease, overall and by cause of death, and to determine how mortality is related to admissions to transplant centres, transplant surgery, hospital size, consultant specialty, patient socio‐demographics, seasonal and geographical factors. Methods: Cohorts of people with a first unscheduled admission for severe liver disease across England and Wales from 2004, based on record linkage of national inpatient and mortality data. Findings: Mortality for alcoholic liver disease and hepatic failure was 23.4% and 35.4% respectively at 60 days and 61.8% and 57.1% at 5 years. Standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) were extremely high at 60 days (184 and 117 respectively) and remained highly increased at 5 years (16.7 and 6.3). Mortality at 5 years was most elevated from liver disease, viral hepatitis and varices. The 60‐day mortality was significantly lower for patients seen by consultant hepatologists and gastroenterologists. Both early and late mortality were significantly reduced for patients admitted to transplant centres or larger hospitals, who received a liver transplant, or were resident in London. Early mortality was significantly higher for patients admitted in winter and autumn, while elevated mortality among the most vs least deprived quintile increased with longer follow‐up. Conclusions: The study shows a very poor prognosis for people with unscheduled hospitalisation for severe liver disease. The findings suggest that access to specialist expertise and services improves survival, both in the short and long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To establish which major disorders are susceptible to increased mortality following acute admissions on weekends, compared with week days, and how this may be explained.Methods: Cohorts based on national administrative inpatient and mortality data for 14,168,443 hospitalised patients in England and 913,068 in Wales who were admitted for 66 disorders that were associated with at least 200 deaths within 30 days of acute admission. The main outcome measure was the weekend mortality effect (defined as the conventional mortality odds ratio for admissions on weekends compared with week days).Results: There were large, statistically significant weekend mortality effects (> 20%) in England for 22 of the 66 conditions and in both countries for 14. These 14 were 4 of 13 cancers (oesophageal, colorectal, lung and lymphomas); 4 of 13 circulatory disorders (angina, abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral vascular disease and arterial embolism & thrombosis); one of 8 respiratory disorders (pleural effusion); 2 of 12 gastrointestinal disorders (alcoholic and other liver disease); 2 of 3 ageing-related disorders (Alzheimer's disease and dementia); none of 7 trauma conditions; and one of 10 other disorders (acute renal failure). Across the disorders, 64% of the variation in weekend mortality effects in England and Wales was explained by reductions in admission rates at weekends and the medical disease category.Conclusions: The effect of weekend admission on 30 day mortality is seen mainly for cancers, some circulatory disorders, liver disease and a few other conditions which are mainly ageing- or cancer-related. Most of the increased mortality is associated with reduced admission rates at weekends and the medical disease category. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are growing concerns about the mental health and risk of suicide amongst university students.Aim: To investigate trends in the incidence and characteristics of university student suicides in England & Wales for the academic years 2000/01 to 2016/17.Method: Record linkage between Office for National Statistics mortality data and Higher Education Statistics Agency data for England and Wales. Poisson regression and chi-squared tests were used to investigate secular trends and the characteristics of students dying by suicide.Results: There were 1330 student suicide deaths from 2000/01 to 2016/17; the annual incidence in 2015/16-2016/17 was 4.7 per 100,000 students. There was evidence of a rise in incidence since 2009/10 (incidence rate ratio per year 1.04 ((95%CI 1.00-1.07) p = 0.029). Incidence in 2012/13 to 2016/17 was less than half the rate in the general population of a similar age. Incidence was higher in males than females and amongst undergraduates vs. postgraduates. There was some evidence of a reduced risk amongst black compared to white students (RR 0.53 (95%CI 0.32-0.88). Incidence was highest in January and lowest during the summer holidays (July-September).Limitations: There was no age/sex or sociodemographic breakdown of the overall student population for 2000/01 to 2011/12.Conclusion: Rates of suicide are considerably lower amongst students than the general population. In keeping with trends in young people in the wider population, the incidence of student suicide has increased since 2009/10. To inform prevention, research is needed to understand reasons for the rise in suicide in young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding of ethnic disparities in suicide in England and Wales is poor as ethnicity is not recorded on death certificates. Using linked data, we examined variations, by sex, in suicide rates in England and Wales by ethnicity and migrant and descendant status., Methods: Using the Office for National Statistics 2012-19 mortality data linked to the 2011 census from the Public Health Research Database, we calculated the age-standardised suicide rates by sex for each of the 18 self-identified ethnicity groups in England and Wales. We present rates by age, sex, and methods used for suicide by ethnic group. We estimated age-adjusted and sex-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using Poisson regression models for each minority ethnic group compared with the majority population. We involved people with lived experience in the research., Findings: Overall, 31 644 suicide deaths occurred over the study period, including 3602 (11%) in people from minority ethnic backgrounds, with a mean age of death of 43·3 years (SD 17·0, range 13-96). Almost all minority ethnic groups had a lower rate of suicide than the White British majority, apart from individuals who identified as being from a Mixed heritage background or White Gypsy or Irish Travellers. In females who identified as Mixed White and Caribbean, the suicide IRR was 1·79 (95% CI 1·45-2·21) compared with the White British majority; in those who identified as White Gypsy or Irish Travellers, the IRR was 2·26 (1·42-3·58). Rates in males identifying as from these two groups and those identifying as White Irish were similar to the White British majority. Compared with the non-migrant population, migrants had a lower rate of suicide regardless of ethnicity, but in the descendant population, people from a Mixed ethnicity background had a higher risk of suicide than the White British majority., Interpretation: There are ethnic disparities in suicide mortality in England and Wales, but the reasons for this are unclear. The higher rate in previously overlooked minority ethnic groups warrants further attention., Funding: Wellcome Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DK reports grants and personal fees from the Wellcome Trust, the Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, and the UK Department of Health and Social Care. DK is a steering group member of the Migration Health and Development Research Initiative and the UK National Suicide Prevention Alliance; she receives no fees for this work. NK reports grants and personal fees from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Healthcare Quality and Improvement Partnership, outside the submitted work; and work with NHS England on national quality improvement initiatives for suicide and self-harm. He sits on the Department of Health and Social Care's (England) National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group. He has chaired and been the Topic Advisor for NICE guideline committees for self-harm and depression. LR is an ONS employee. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention., Design and Participants: We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model., Results: The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place., Conclusions: Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RL, SJ, AJ and AE are members of the Welsh Government COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group (TAG). AJ is also cochair of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) advising the UK government. SJ is also a member of the Welsh Government Testing TAG and Cardiff University COVID Strategic Advisory Board (SAB)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To estimate the proportion of ethnic inequalities explained by living in a multi-generational household., Design: Causal mediation analysis., Setting: Retrospective data from the 2011 Census linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (2017-2019) and death registration data (up to 30 November 2020)., Participants: Adults aged 65 years or over living in private households in England from 2 March 2020 until 30 November 2020 (n=10,078,568)., Main Outcome Measures: Hazard ratios were estimated for COVID-19 death for people living in a multi-generational household compared with people living with another older adult, adjusting for geographic factors, socioeconomic characteristics and pre-pandemic health., Results: Living in a multi-generational household was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death. After adjusting for confounding factors, the hazard ratios for living in a multi-generational household with dependent children were 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30) and 1.21 (95% CI 1.06-1.38) for elderly men and women. The hazard ratios for living in a multi-generational household without dependent children were 1.07 (95% CI 1.01-1.13) for elderly men and 1.17 (95% CI 1.07-1.25) for elderly women. Living in a multi-generational household explained about 11% of the elevated risk of COVID-19 death among elderly women from South Asian background, but very little for South Asian men or people in other ethnic minority groups., Conclusion: Elderly adults living with younger people are at increased risk of COVID-19 mortality, and this is a contributing factor to the excess risk experienced by older South Asian women compared to White women. Relevant public health interventions should be directed at communities where such multi-generational households are highly prevalent.

Objectives: Examination of current temporal trends and clinical management patterns of eating disorders (ED) in primary care is lacking. We aimed to calculate annual incidence rates of EDs in primary care by age, sex and deprivation. We also explored the care received through referrals, psychotropic prescriptions and associated secondary care service use., Participants and Settings: A retrospective electronic cohort study was conducted using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in those aged 11-24 years between 2004 and 2014 in England (n=1 135 038)., Results: A total of 4775 individuals with a first ever recorded ED diagnosis were identified. The crude incidence rate was 100.1 per 100 000 person years at risk (95% CI 97.2 to 102.9). Incidence rates were highest in females (189.3 per 100 000 person years, 95% CI 183.7 to 195.0, n=4336), 16-20 years of age (141.0 per 100 000 person years, 95% CI 135.4 to 146.9, n=2348) and individuals from the least deprived areas (115.8 per 100 000 person years (95% CI 109.3 to 122.5, n=1203). Incidence rates decreased across the study period (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8), particularly for individuals with bulimia nervosa (IRR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) and from the most deprived areas (IRR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7). A total of 17.4% (95% CI 16.3 to 18.5, n=831) of first ever recorded ED cases were referred from primary to secondary care. 27.1% (95% CI 25.9 to 28.4, n=1294) of individuals had an inpatient admission 6 months before or 12 months after an incident ED diagnosis and 53.4% (95% CI 52.0 to 54.9, n=2550) had an outpatient attendance. Antidepressants were the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medication., Conclusions: New ED presentations in primary care are reducing. Understanding the cause of this decrease (coding behaviours, changes in help-seeking or a genuine reduction in new cases) is important to plan services, allocate resources and deliver effective care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: People with epilepsy are at increased risk of mortality, but, to date, the cause-specific risks of all unnatural causes have not been reported., Objective: To estimate cause-specific unnatural mortality risks in people with epilepsy and to identify the medication types involved in poisoning deaths., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used 2 electronic primary care data sets linked to hospitalization and mortality records, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England (from January 1, 1998, to March 31, 2014) and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales (from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2014). Each person with epilepsy was matched on age (within 2 years), sex, and general practice with up to 20 individuals without epilepsy. Unnatural mortality was determined using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes V01 through Y98 in the Office for National Statistics mortality records. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated in each data set using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, and meta-analyses were conducted using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. The analysis was performed from January 5, 2016, to November 16, 2017., Exposures: People with epilepsy were identified using primary care epilepsy diagnoses and associated antiepileptic drug prescriptions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) for unnatural mortality and the frequency of each involved medication type estimated as a percentage of all medication poisoning deaths., Results: In total, 44 678 individuals in the CPRD and 14 051 individuals in the SAIL Databank were identified in the prevalent epilepsy cohorts, and 891 429 (CPRD) and 279 365 (SAIL) individuals were identified in the comparison cohorts. In both data sets, 51% of the epilepsy and comparison cohorts were male, and the median age at entry was 40 years (interquartile range, 25-60 years) in the CPRD cohorts and 43 years (interquartile range, 24-64 years) in the SAIL cohorts. People with epilepsy were significantly more likely to die of any unnatural cause (HR, 2.77; 95% CI, 2.43-3.16), unintentional injury or poisoning (HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.54-3.48) or suicide (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.51-3.07) than people in the comparison cohort. Particularly large risk increases were observed in the epilepsy cohorts for unintentional medication poisoning (HR, 4.99; 95% CI, 3.22-7.74) and intentional self-poisoning with medication (HR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.01-12.53). Opioids (56.5% [95% CI, 43.3%-69.0%]) and psychotropic medication (32.3% [95% CI, 20.9%-45.3%)] were more commonly involved than antiepileptic drugs (9.7% [95% CI, 3.6%-19.9%]) in poisoning deaths in people with epilepsy., Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with people without epilepsy, people with epilepsy are at increased risk of unnatural death and thus should be adequately advised about unintentional injury prevention and monitored for suicidal ideation, thoughts, and behaviors. The suitability and toxicity of concomitant medication should be considered when prescribing for comorbid conditions.