Background: frailty is an especially problematic expression of population ageing. International guidelines recommend routine identification of frailty to provide evidence-based treatment, but currently available tools require additional resource.Objectives: to develop and validate an electronic frailty index (eFI) using routinely available primary care electronic health record data.Study design and setting: retrospective cohort study. Development and internal validation cohorts were established using a randomly split sample of the ResearchOne primary care database. External validation cohort established using THIN database.Participants: patients aged 65–95, registered with a ResearchOne or THIN practice on 14 October 2008.Predictors: we constructed the eFI using the cumulative deficit frailty model as our theoretical framework. The eFI score is calculated by the presence or absence of individual deficits as a proportion of the total possible. Categories of fit, mild, moderate and severe frailty were defined using population quartiles.Outcomes: outcomes were 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission.Statistical analysis: hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using bivariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Calibration was assessed using pseudo-R2 estimates.Results: we include data from a total of 931,541 patients. The eFI incorporates 36 deficits constructed using 2,171 CTV3 codes. One-year adjusted HR for mortality was 1.92 (95% CI 1.81–2.04) for mild frailty, 3.10 (95% CI 2.91–3.31) for moderate frailty and 4.52 (95% CI 4.16–4.91) for severe frailty. Corresponding estimates for hospitalisation were 1.93 (95% CI 1.86–2.01), 3.04 (95% CI 2.90–3.19) and 4.73 (95% CI 4.43–5.06) and for nursing home admission were 1.89 (95% CI 1.63–2.15), 3.19 (95% CI 2.73–3.73) and 4.76 (95% CI 3.92–5.77), with good to moderate discrimination but low calibration estimates.Conclusions: the eFI uses routine data to identify older people with mild, moderate and severe frailty, with robust predictive validity for outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission. Routine implementation of the eFI could enable delivery of evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group.

Bradford Scholars -how to deposit your paper Overview Copyright check• Check if your publisher allows submission to a repository.• Use the Sherpa RoMEO database if you are not sure about your publisher's position or email openaccess@bradford.ac.uk.

Background. Heart failure is a common long term condition affecting around 900 000 people in the UK and patients commonly present to primary care. The prognosis of patients with a code of heart failure in their primary care record is unknown.Objective. The study sought to determine the overall survival rates for patients with heart failure in a primary care population from the time of diagnosis.Methods. Survival analysis was carried out using UK primary care records from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2012. Patients age 45 or over with a first diagnostic label of heart failure were matched by age, sex and practice to people without heart failure. Outcome was death in the heart failure and no heart failure cohorts. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare survival. Age-specific survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years were determined for men and women with heart failure. Survival rates by year of diagnosis and case definition were also calculated.Results. During the study period, 54313 patients had a first diagnostic code of heart failure. Overall survival rates for the heart failure group were 81.3% (95%CI 80.9–81.6), 51.5% (95%CI 51.0–52.0) and 29.5% (95%CI 28.9–30.2) at 1, 5 and 10 years respectively and did not change over time.Conclusions. In a primary care population, the survival of patients diagnosed with heart failure did not improved over time. Further research is needed to explain these trends and to find strategies to improve outlook.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEGrowing evidence implicates iron in the aetiology of gastrointestinal cancer. Furthermore, studies demonstrate that iron chelators possess potent anti-tumour activity, although whether iron chelators show activity against oesophageal cancer is not known. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHThe effect of the iron chelators, deferoxamine (DFO) and deferasirox, on cellular iron metabolism, viability and proliferation was assessed in two oesophageal adenocarcinoma cell lines, OE33 and OE19, and the squamous oesophageal cell line, OE21. A murine xenograft model was employed to assess the effect of deferasirox on oesophageal tumour burden. The ability of chelators to overcome chemoresistance and to enhance the efficacy of standard chemotherapeutic agents (cisplatin, fluorouracil and epirubicin) was also assessed. KEY RESULTSDeferasirox and DFO effectively inhibited cellular iron acquisition and promoted intracellular iron mobilization. The resulting reduction in cellular iron levels was reflected by increased transferrin receptor 1 expression and reduced cellular viability and proliferation. Treating oesophageal tumour cell lines with an iron chelator in addition to a standard chemotherapeutic agent resulted in a reduction in cellular viability and proliferation compared with the chemotherapeutic agent alone. Both DFO and deferasirox were able to overcome cisplatin resistance. Furthermore, in human xenograft models, deferasirox was able to significantly suppress tumour growth, which was associated with decreased tumour iron levels. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSThe clinically established iron chelators, DFO and deferasirox, effectively deplete iron from oesophageal tumour cells, resulting in growth suppression. These data provide a platform for assessing the utility of these chelators in the treatment of oesophageal cancer patients.

Bradford Scholars -how to deposit your paper Overview Copyright check• Check if your publisher allows submission to a repository.• Use the Sherpa RoMEO database if you are not sure about your publisher's position or email openaccess@bradford.ac.uk.