Search

Daniel Hsiang-Te Tsai,1,2 J Simon Bell,3 Shahab Abtahi,4 Brenda N Baak,5 Marloes T Bazelier,4 Ruth Brauer,6 Adrienne YL Chan,6– 9 Esther W Chan,9– 12 Haoqian Chen,13 Celine SL Chui,9,14,15 Sharon Cook,16 Stephen Crystal,16 Poonam Gandhi,13 Sirpa Hartikainen,17 Frederick K Ho,18 Shao-Ti Hsu,1 Jenni Ilomäki,3 Ju Hwan Kim,19 Olaf H Klungel,4 Marjaana Koponen,17 Wallis CY Lau,6,8,9 Kui Kai Lau,20,21 Terry YS Lum,22 Hao Luo,22 Kenneth KC Man,6,8,9 Jill P Pell,18 Soko Setoguchi,13,23 Shih-Chieh Shao,1,24 Chin-Yao Shen,1 Ju-Young Shin,19,25,26 Patrick C Souverein,4 Anna-Maija Tolppanen,17 Li Wei,6,9 Ian CK Wong,6,8,9,27 Edward Chia-Cheng Lai1 1School of Pharmacy, Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan; 2Centre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, St George’s University of London, London, UK; 3Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 4Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 5PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 6Research Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK; 7Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Unit of Pharmacotherapy, ‐Epidemiology and ‐Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 8Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 9Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H), Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 10Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 11Department of Pharmacy, the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China; 12The University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Institute of Research and Innovation, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China; 13Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science (PETS), Institute for Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 14School of Nursing, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 15School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 16Center for Health Services Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 17Kuopio Research Centre of Geriatric Care and School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland; 18School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; 19School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea; 20Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 21State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 22Department of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China; 23Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatments Science, Institute for Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 24Department of Pharmacy, Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, Taiwan; 25Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea; 26Department of Biohealth Regulatory Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea; 27Aston Pharmacy School, Aston University, Birmingham, UKCorrespondence: Edward Chia-Cheng Lai, School of Pharmacy and Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Email edward_lai@mail.ncku.edu.twPurpose: To describe and categorize detailed components of databases in the Neurological and Mental Health Global Epidemiology Network (NeuroGEN).Methods: An online 132-item questionnaire was sent to key researchers and data custodians of NeuroGEN in North America, Europe, Asia and Oceania. From the responses, we assessed data characteristics including population coverage, data follow-up, clinical information, validity of diagnoses, medication use and data latency. We also evaluated the possibility of conversion into a common data model (CDM) to implement a federated network approach. Moreover, we used radar charts to visualize the data capacity assessments, based on different perspectives.Results: The results indicated that the 15 databases covered approximately 320 million individuals, included in 7 nationwide claims databases from Australia, Finland, South Korea, Taiwan and the US, 6 population-based electronic health record databases from Hong Kong, Scotland, Taiwan, the Netherlands and the UK, and 2 biomedical databases from Taiwan and the UK.Conclusion: The 15 databases showed good potential for a federated network approach using a common data model. Our study provided publicly accessible information on these databases for those seeking to employ real-world data to facilitate current assessment and future development of treatments for neurological and mental disorders.Keywords: meta-data, data repository, Neurological and Mental Health Global Epidemiology Network, NeuroGEN

Abstract Objective To assess variations in decisions to revascularise patients with coronary heart disease between general cardiologists, interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons Design Six cases of coronary heart disease were presented at an open meeting in a standard format including clinical details which might influence the decision to revascularise. Clinicians (n = 53) were then asked to vote using an anonymous electronic system for one of 5 treatment options: medical, surgical (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or initially medical proceeding to revascularisation if symptoms dictated. Each case was then discussed in an open forum following which clinicians were asked to revote. Differences in treatment preference were compared by chi squared test and agreement between groups and between voting rounds compared using Kappa. Results Surgeons were more likely to choose surgery as a form of treatment (p = 0.034) while interventional cardiologists were more likely to choose PCI (p = 0.056). There were no significant differences between non-interventional and interventional cardiologists (p = 0.13) in their choice of treatment. There was poor agreement between all clinicians in the first round of voting (Kappa 0.26) but this improved to a moderate level of agreement after open discussion for the second vote (Kappa 0.44). The level of agreement among surgeons (0.15) was less than that for cardiologists (0.34) in Round 1, but was similar in Round 2 (0.45 and 0.45 respectively) Conclusion In this case series, there was poor agreement between cardiac clinical specialists in the choice of treatment offered to patients. Open discussion appeared to improve agreement. These results would support the need for decisions to revascularise to be made by a multidisciplinary panel.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists. STUDY SELECTION: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15. RESULTS: We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention. CONCLUSIONS: As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a review of research which indicates that first degree relatives of patients with premature coronary heart disease are at increased risk of the disease, and that compared with the general population, siblings of the patients have at least double the risk. Arguments are presented which suggest that first degree relatives of patients admitted for premature myocardial infarction should be identified and then offered screening and treatment for risk factors of coronary heart disease.

AIM: To assess the effect of changing clinical practice on the costs and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 1998 and 2002. SETTING: Two tertiary interventional centres. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI over a 12-month period between 1998 and 2002. DESIGN: Comparative observational study of costs and 12-month clinical outcomes of consecutive PCI procedures in 1998 (n = 1047) and 2002 (n = 1346). Clinical data were recorded in the Scottish PCI register. Repeat PCI, coronary artery bypass graft and mortality were obtained by record linkage. Costs of equipment were calculated using a computerised bar-code system and standard National Health Service reference costs. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2002, the use of bare metal stents increased from 44% to 81%, and the use of glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibitors increased from 0% to 14% of cases. During this time, a significant reduction was observed in repeat target-vessel PCI (from 8.4% to 5.1%, p = 0.001), any repeat PCI (from 11.7% to 9.2%, p = 0.05) and any repeat revascularisation (from 15.1% to 11.3%, p = 0.009) within 12 months. Significantly higher cost per case in 2002 compared with 1998 (mean (standard deviation) 2311 pounds (1158) v 1785 pounds (907), p<0.001) was mainly due to increased contribution from bed-day costs in 2002 (45.0% (16.3%) v 26.2% (12.6%), p = 0.01) associated with non-elective cases spending significantly longer in hospital (6.22 (4.3) v 4.6 (4.3) days, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Greater use of stents and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors between 1998 and 2002 has been accompanied by a marked reduction in the need for repeat revascularisation. Longer duration of hospital stay for non-elective cases is mainly responsible for increasing costs. Strategies to reduce the length of stay could considerably reduce the costs of PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women with a previous stillbirth are known to be at increased risk of stillbirth in subsequent pregnancies. However, few studies have addressed the association between other complications of pregnancy and the future risk of stillbirth. Using linkage of national pregnancy and perinatal death registries, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study of 133,163 women having a second birth in Scotland between 1992 and 2001 whose first infant was liveborn. The risk of unexplained stillbirth was increased among women with a previous preterm birth (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34, 3.11), previous delivery of a small for gestational age (SGA) infant (HR = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.59, 2.87), and previous preeclampsia (HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.62). The associations were similar after adjustment for maternal age, height, marital and smoking status, and interpregnancy interval. There was a statistically significant positive interaction between previous delivery of a SGA infant and previous preeclampsia (p = 0.01): Women with this combination in their first pregnancy had an approximately fivefold risk of unexplained stillbirth in the second pregnancy (HR = 4.95, 95% CI: 2.63, 9.32). Associations were stronger with SGA unexplained stillbirths. The authors conclude that complicated first births of liveborn infants are associated with an increased risk of unexplained stillbirth in the next pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospital volume of throughput is associated with periprocedural and medium-term events, and whether any associations are independent of differences in case mix. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of all PCIs undertaken in Scottish National Health Service hospitals over a six-year period. METHODS: All PCIs in Scotland during 1997-2003 were examined. Linkage to administrative databases identified events over two years' follow up. The risk of events by hospital volume at 30 days and two years was compared by using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of the 17,417 PCIs, 4900 (28%) were in low-volume hospitals and 3242 (19%) in high-volume hospitals. After adjustment for case mix, there were no significant differences in risk of death or myocardial infarction. Patients treated in high-volume hospitals were less likely to require emergency surgery (adjusted odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.54, p = 0.002). Over two years, patients in high-volume hospitals were less likely to undergo surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.75, p = 0.001), but this was offset by an increased likelihood of further PCI. There was no net difference in coronary revascularisation or in overall events. CONCLUSION: Death and myocardial infarction were infrequent complications of PCI and did not differ significantly by volume. Emergency surgery was less common in high-volume hospitals. Over two years, patients treated in high-volume centres were as likely to undergo some form of revascularisation but less likely to undergo surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of disorders of placentation in subsequent pregnancies, but effects on the rate of antepartum stillbirth are unknown. We aimed to establish whether previous caesarean delivery is associated with an increased risk of antepartum stillbirth.Methods: We linked pregnancy discharge data from the Scottish Morbidity Record (1980-98) and the Scottish Stillbirth and Infant Death Enquiry (1985-98). We estimated the relative risk of antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies using time-to-event analyses.Findings: For 120633 singleton second births, there were 68 antepartum stillbirths in 17754 women previously delivered by caesarean section (2.39 per 10000 women per week) and 244 in 102879 women previously delivered vaginally (1.44; p<0.001). Risk of unexplained stillbirth associated with previous caesarean delivery differed significantly with gestational age (p=0.04); the excess risk was apparent from 34 weeks (hazard ratio 2.23 [95% CI 1.48-3.36]). Risk was not attenuated by adjustment for maternal characteristics or outcome of the first pregnancy (2.74 [1.74-4.30]). The absolute risk of unexplained stillbirth at or after 39 weeks' gestation was 1.1 per 1000 women who had had a previous caesarean section and 0.5 per 1000 in those who had not. The difference was due mostly to an excess of unexplained stillbirths among women previously delivered by caesarean section.Interpretation: Delivery by caesarean section in the first pregnancy could increase the risk of unexplained stillbirth in the second. In women with one previous caesarean delivery, the risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth at or after 39 weeks' gestation is about double the risk of stillbirth or neonatal death from intrapartum uterine rupture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

UK Biobank is an ambitious post-genomic project involving the recruitment and follow-up of 500 000 volunteers aged 45 to 69 years. Many primary care teams will be involved in the study directly or indirectly. The programme of research will use at least five data sources: paper-based questionnaires, blood samples, genotype information derived from the bloods, clinical/prescribing data from the medical records, and data on deaths. We describe three of the key challenges to primary care informatics posed by this project: patient recruitment, confidentiality, and data management. We then describe solutions proposed in Scotland, based on existing technologies. Some of these may be applicable elsewhere in the other Regional Collaborating Centres and other large-scale collaborative projects which rely on primary care informatics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]