ObjectiveTo assess the risk of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) among patient facing and non-patient facing healthcare workers and their household members.DesignNationwide linkage cohort study.SettingScotland, UK, 1 March to 6 June 2020.ParticipantsHealthcare workers aged 18-65 years, their households, and other members of the general population.Main outcome measureAdmission to hospital with covid-19.ResultsThe cohort comprised 158 445 healthcare workers, most of them (90 733; 57.3%) being patient facing, and 229 905 household members. Of all hospital admissions for covid-19 in the working age population (18-65 year olds), 17.2% (360/2097) were in healthcare workers or their households. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidity, the risk of admission due to covid-19 in non-patient facing healthcare workers and their households was similar to the risk in the general population (hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.26) and 0.86 (0.49 to 1.51), respectively). In models adjusting for the same covariates, however, patient facing healthcare workers, compared with non-patient facing healthcare workers, were at higher risk (hazard ratio 3.30, 2.13 to 5.13), as were household members of patient facing healthcare workers (1.79, 1.10 to 2.91). After sub-division of patient facing healthcare workers into those who worked in “front door,” intensive care, and non-intensive care aerosol generating settings and other, those in front door roles were at higher risk (hazard ratio 2.09, 1.49 to 2.94). For most patient facing healthcare workers and their households, the estimated absolute risk of hospital admission with covid-19 was less than 0.5%, but it was 1% and above in older men with comorbidity.ConclusionsHealthcare workers and their households contributed a sixth of covid-19 cases admitted to hospital. Although the absolute risk of admission was low overall, patient facing healthcare workers and their household members had threefold and twofold increased risks of admission with covid-19.

SummaryBackgroundHigh-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays permit use of lower thresholds for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction, but whether this improves clinical outcomes is unknown. We aimed to determine whether the introduction of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay with a sex-specific 99th centile diagnostic threshold would reduce subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.MethodsIn this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial across ten secondary or tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, we evaluated the implementation of an hs-cTnI assay in consecutive patients who had been admitted to the hospitals' emergency departments with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they presented with suspected acute coronary syndrome and had paired cardiac troponin measurements from the standard care and trial assays. During a validation phase of 6–12 months, results from the hs-cTnI assay were concealed from the attending clinician, and a contemporary cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assay was used to guide care. Hospitals were randomly allocated to early (n=5 hospitals) or late (n=5 hospitals) implementation, in which the high-sensitivity assay and sex-specific 99th centile diagnostic threshold was introduced immediately after the 6-month validation phase or was deferred for a further 6 months. Patients reclassified by the high-sensitivity assay were defined as those with an increased hs-cTnI concentration in whom cTnI concentrations were below the diagnostic threshold on the contemporary assay. The primary outcome was subsequent myocardial infarction or death from cardiovascular causes at 1 year after initial presentation. Outcomes were compared in patients reclassified by the high-sensitivity assay before and after its implementation by use of an adjusted generalised linear mixed model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01852123.FindingsBetween June 10, 2013, and March 3, 2016, we enrolled 48 282 consecutive patients (61 [SD 17] years, 47% women) of whom 10 360 (21%) patients had cTnI concentrations greater than those of the 99th centile of the normal range of values, who were identified by the contemporary assay or the high-sensitivity assay. The high-sensitivity assay reclassified 1771 (17%) of 10 360 patients with myocardial injury or infarction who were not identified by the contemporary assay. In those reclassified, subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death within 1 year occurred in 105 (15%) of 720 patients in the validation phase and 131 (12%) of 1051 patients in the implementation phase (adjusted odds ratio for implementation vs validation phase 1·10, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·61; p=0·620).InterpretationUse of a high-sensitivity assay prompted reclassification of 1771 (17%) of 10 360 patients with myocardial injury or infarction, but was not associated with a lower subsequent incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death at 1 year. Our finding...

South Asians in Newcastle report significantly lower levels of habitual physical activity than Europeans. This is likely to contribute to the higher levels of diabetes and cardiovascular risk in these populations. Measures to increase physical activity in these populations are urgently needed.

STUDY QUESTIONWhat is the impact of cancer in females aged ≤39 years on subsequent chance of pregnancy?SUMMARY ANSWERCancer survivors achieved fewer pregnancies across all cancer types, and the chance of achieving a first pregnancy was also lower.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYThe diagnosis and treatment of cancer in young females may be associated with reduced fertility but the true pregnancy deficit in a population is unknown.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONWe performed a retrospective cohort study relating first incident cancer diagnosed between 1981 and 2012 to subsequent pregnancy in all female patients in Scotland aged 39 years or less at cancer diagnosis (n = 23 201). Pregnancies were included up to end of 2014. Females from the exposed group not pregnant before cancer diagnosis (n = 10 271) were compared with general population controls matched for age, deprivation quintile and year of diagnosis.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSScottish Cancer Registry records were linked to hospital discharge records to calculate standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for pregnancy, standardized for age and year of diagnosis. Linkage to death records was also performed. We also selected women from the exposed group who had not been pregnant prior to their cancer diagnosis who were compared with a matched control group from the general population. Additional analyses were performed for breast cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia, cervical cancer and brain/CNS cancers.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCECancer survivors achieved fewer pregnancies: SIR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.63). Reduced SIR was observed for all cancer types. The chance of achieving a first pregnancy was also lower, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.61) for women >5 years after diagnosis, with marked reductions in women with breast, cervical and brain/CNS tumours, and leukaemia. The effect was reduced with more recent treatment period overall and in cervical cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma, but was unchanged for leukaemia or brain/CNS cancers. The proportion of pregnancies that ended in termination was lower after a cancer diagnosis, and the proportion ending in live birth was higher (78.7 vs 75.6%, CI of difference: 1.1, 5.0).LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONDetails of treatments received were not available, so the impact of specific treatment regimens on fertility could not be assessed. Limited duration of follow-up was available for women diagnosed in the most recent time period.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThis analysis provides population-based quantification by cancer type of the effect of cancer and its treatment on subsequent pregnancy across the reproductive age range, and how this has changed in recent decades. The demonstration of a reduced chance of pregnancy across all cancer types and the changing impact in some but not other common cancers highlights the need for appropriate fertility counselling of all females of reproductive age at diagnosis.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)This study was funded by NHS Lothian Cancer...

Objectives Following the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and the subsequent global spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), health systems and the populations who use them have faced unprecedented challenges. We aimed to measure the impact of COVID-19 on the uptake of hospital-based care at a national level. Design The study period (weeks ending 5 January to 28 June 2020) encompassed the pandemic announcement by the World Health Organization and the initiation of the UK lockdown. We undertook an interrupted time-series analysis to evaluate the impact of these events on hospital services at a national level and across demographics, clinical specialties and National Health Service Health Boards. Setting Scotland, UK. Participants Patients receiving hospital care from National Health Service Scotland. Main outcome measures Accident and emergency (A&E) attendances, and emergency and planned hospital admissions measured using the relative change of weekly counts in 2020 to the averaged counts for equivalent weeks in 2018 and 2019. Results Before the pandemic announcement, the uptake of hospital care was largely consistent with historical levels. This was followed by sharp drops in all outcomes until UK lockdown, where activity began to steadily increase. This time-period saw an average reduction of −40.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: −47.7 to −33.7) in A&E attendances, −25.8% (95% CI: −31.1 to −20.4) in emergency hospital admissions and −60.9% (95% CI: −66.1 to −55.7) in planned hospital admissions, in comparison to the 2018–2019 averages. All subgroup trends were broadly consistent within outcomes, but with notable variations across age groups, specialties and geography. Conclusions COVID-19 has had a profoundly disruptive impact on hospital-based care across National Health Service Scotland. This has likely led to an adverse effect on non-COVID-19-related illnesses, increasing the possibility of potentially avoidable morbidity and mortality. Further research is required to elucidate these impacts.

-Recent clinical trials of new glucose-lowering treatments have drawn attention to the importance of hospitalisation for heart failure as a complication of diabetes. However, the epidemiology is not well described, particularly for type 1 diabetes. We examined the incidence and case-fatality of heart failure hospitalisations in the entire population aged 30 and older resident in Scotland during 2004 to 2013. -Date and type of diabetes diagnosis were linked to heart failure hospitalisations and deaths using the national Scottish registers. Incidence rates and case-fatality were estimated in regression models (quasi-Poisson and logistic regression respectively). All estimates are adjusted for age, sex, socio-economic status and calendar-year. -Over the 10-year period of the study, among 3.25 million people there were 91,429, 22,959 and 1,313 incident heart failure events among those without diabetes, with type 2, and type 1 diabetes respectively. The crude incidence rates of heart failure hospitalisation were therefore 2.4, 12.4 and 5.6 per 1000 person-years for these three groups. Heart failure hospitalisation incidence was higher in people with diabetes, regardless of type, than in people without. Relative differences were smallest for older men, in whom the difference was nonetheless large (men aged 80, rate ratio 1.78; 95% CI 1.45 to 2.19). Rates declined similarly, by 0.2% per calendar-year, in people with type 2 diabetes and without diabetes. Rates fell faster, however, in those with type 1 diabetes (2.2% per calendar-year, RR for type 1/calendar-year interaction 0.978; 95% CI 0.959 to 0.998).30-day case-fatality was similar among people with type 2 diabetes and without diabetes, but was higher in type 1 diabetes for men (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.96) and women (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97 to 0.98). Case-fatality declined over time for all groups (3.3% per calendar-year, OR per calendar-year 0.967; 95% CI 0.961 to 0.973). -Despite falling incidence, particularly in type 1 diabetes, heart failure remains around 2-fold higher than in people without diabetes, with higher case-fatality in those with type 1 diabetes. These findings support the view that heart failure is an under-recognised and important complication in diabetes, particularly for type 1 disease.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for increasing deaths globally. Most estimates have focused on numbers of deaths, with little direct quantification of years of life lost (YLL) through COVID-19.  As most people dying with COVID-19 are older with underlying long-term conditions (LTCs), some have speculated that YLL are low. We aim to estimate YLL attributable to COVID-19, before and after adjustment for number/type of LTCs. Methods: We first estimated YLL from COVID-19 using standard WHO life tables, based on published age/sex data from COVID-19 deaths in Italy. We then used aggregate data on number/type of LTCs to model likely combinations of LTCs among people dying with COVID-19. From these, we used routine UK healthcare data to estimate life expectancy based on age/sex/different combinations of LTCs. We then calculated YLL based on age, sex and type of LTCs and multimorbidity count. Results: Using the standard WHO life tables, YLL per COVID-19 death was 14 for men and 12 for women. After adjustment for number and type of LTCs, the mean YLL was slightly lower, but remained high (13 and 11 years for men and women, respectively). The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and <3 years for people with ≥6). Conclusions: Deaths from COVID-19 represent a substantial burden in terms of per-person YLL, more than a decade, even after adjusting for the typical number and type of LTCs found in people dying of COVID-19. The extent of multimorbidity heavily influences the estimated YLL at a given age. More comprehensive and standardised collection of data on LTCs is needed to better understand and quantify the global burden of COVID-19 and to guide policy-making and interventions.

BackgroundClinicians are less likely to prescribe guideline-recommended treatments to people with multimorbidity than to people with a single condition. Doubts as to the applicability of clinical trials of drug treatments (the gold standard for evidence-based medicine) when people have co-existing diseases (comorbidity) may underlie this apparent reluctance. Therefore, for a range of index conditions, we measured the comorbidity among participants in clinical trials of novel drug therapies and compared this to the comorbidity among patients in the community.MethodsData from industry-sponsored phase 3/4 multicentre trials of novel drug therapies for chronic medical conditions were identified from two repositories: Clinical Study Data Request and the Yale University Open Data Access project. We identified 116 trials (n = 122,969 participants) for 22 index conditions. Community patients were identified from a nationally representative sample of 2.3 million patients in Wales, UK. Twenty-one comorbidities were identified from medication use based on pre-specified definitions. We assessed the prevalence of each comorbidity and the total number of comorbidities (level of multimorbidity), for each trial and in community patients.ResultsIn the trials, the commonest comorbidities in order of declining prevalence were chronic pain, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, affective disorders, acid-related disorders, asthma/COPD and diabetes. These conditions were also common in community-based patients.Mean comorbidity count for trial participants was approximately half that seen in community-based patients. Nonetheless, a substantial proportion of trial participants had a high degree of multimorbidity. For example, in asthma and psoriasis trials, 10–15% of participants had ≥ 3 conditions overall, while in osteoporosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials 40–60% of participants had ≥ 3 conditions overall.ConclusionsComorbidity and multimorbidity are less common in trials than in community populations with the same index condition. Comorbidity and multimorbidity are, nevertheless, common in trials. This suggests that standard, industry-funded clinical trials are an underused resource for investigating treatment effects in people with comorbidity and multimorbidity.