BackgroundAccurate identification of hospitalizations for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) within electronic health care records is important for research, public health, and to inform health care utilization and service provision. We aimed to develop a strategy to identify hospitalizations for AECOPD in secondary care data and to investigate the validity of strategies to identify hospitalizations for AECOPD in primary care data.MethodsWe identified patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) with linked Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. We used discharge summaries for recent hospitalizations for AECOPD to develop a strategy to identify the recording of hospitalizations for AECOPD in HES. We then used the HES strategy as a reference standard to investigate the positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity of strategies for identifying AECOPD using general practice CPRD data. We tested two strategies: 1) codes for hospitalization for AECOPD and 2) a code for AECOPD other than hospitalization on the same day as a code for hospitalization due to unspecified reason.ResultsIn total, 27,182 patients with COPD were included. Our strategy to identify hospitalizations for AECOPD in HES had a sensitivity of 87.5%. When compared with HES, using a code suggesting hospitalization for AECOPD in CPRD resulted in a PPV of 50.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48.5%–51.8%) and a sensitivity of 4.1% (95% CI 3.9%–4.3%). Using a code for AECOPD and a code for hospitalization due to unspecified reason resulted in a PPV of 43.3% (95% CI 42.3%–44.2%) and a sensitivity of 5.4% (95% CI 5.1%–5.7%).ConclusionHospitalization for AECOPD can be identified with high sensitivity in the HES database. The PPV and sensitivity of strategies to identify hospitalizations for AECOPD in primary care data alone are very poor. Primary care data alone should not be used to identify hospitalizations for AECOPD. Instead, researchers should use data that are linked to data from secondary care.

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

No abstract

Purpose Triple therapy comprising a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, long-acting β 2 -agonist and inhaled corticosteroid is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to experience frequent exacerbations or symptoms whilst receiving dual therapy. Adherence and persistence to multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is known to be poor. This study assessed comparative adherence to single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus MITT in a real-world setting in England. Patients and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics [HES] Admitted Patient Care) data to identify patients with COPD who were newly initiated on SITT or MITT between November 2017 and June 2019. Eligible patients were aged ≥35 years and had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity <0.7, linkage to HES and continuous registration with a general practitioner for 12 months pre- and 6 months post-initiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered by days’ supply of SITT or MITT prescriptions. Persistence was measured with a gap of >30 days between the end of a prescription and the following refill used to determine non-persistence. Results Overall, 4080 SITT and 6579 MITT users comprised the study cohort. After weighting, the baseline characteristics between the cohorts were comparable (absolute standardized mean difference <10%). SITT users had significantly higher adherence than MITT users at 6, 12, and 18 months post-initiation (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Median persistence was higher among SITT users than MITT users (5.09 months vs 0.99 months). Conclusion Patients with COPD in England initiating SITT had significantly better adherence and persistence compared with MITT initiators. These improvements continued at least 18 months following treatment initiation.

Background Financial incentives are increasingly considered to address socially patterned behaviours like smoking in pregnancy and breastfeeding. We investigated their mechanisms of action in relation to health inequalities to inform incentive intervention design. MethodsThe evidence syntheses we undertook were incentive eff ectiveness, delivery processes, barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation in pregnancy and also breastfeeding; and incentives for lifestyle behaviours. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library (all sections), MIDIRS, ASSIA, and the Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions for studies published in English between Jan 1, 1990, and March 31, 2012, using a range of natural language, MeSH, and other index terms. Surveys were done with 1144 respondents from the general public and with 497 maternity and early-years health professionals. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with pregnant women, recent mothers, and partners in three UK settings (n=88); and with 53 service providers, 24 experts and decision makers, and 63 conference attendees. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 320 female current or ex-smokers.Findings Systematic reviews raised concerns about the reach of incentives, particularly to marginalised groups. Baseline characteristics for people who were eligible, approached, and recruited to studies were under-reported. Sample sizes were mostly small. Surveys revealed mixed acceptability. Less educated, white British, and women general public respondents disagreed (odds ratios [OR] 0•5≤OR<1•0) particularly with smoking cessation incentives. Universal incentives (55% net agreement) were preferred to targeting low income women (49% net agreement). DCE results showed that incentives, a quitting pal, and initial text or telephone support were statistically signifi cant in increasing the reported likelihood that women would quit. Confl icting narratives of women's emotional, social and material environments and the push and pull of incentives were voiced. For some, unrestricted shopping vouchers off ered rare opportunities for choice, reward for eff ort, and feeling valued amidst adversity. Women struggle on their own, even concealing behaviour, especially when people in personal networks smoke or formula feed. However layers of autonomy were revealed, with varying levels of resistance to the nanny state, and feeling judged, pressure, and stigma. How incentive interventions fi t with life's challenges were incorporated into a logic model.Interpretation Financial incentives can help some women, but whether they will address inequalities is unclear because of concerns about reach and resistance to being pushed and pulled.