Background:A previous study in Denmark suggested an increased melanoma risk associated with the use of flecainide. Objective:To study the association between flecainide use and the risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer in Spain and Denmark. Methods:We conducted a multi-database case-control study in (database/study period) Spain (SIDIAP/2005-2017 and BIFAP/2007-2017) and Denmark (Danish registries/2001-2018). We included incident cases of melanoma or non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) aged >= 18 with >= 2 years of previous data (>= 10 years for Denmark) before the skin cancer and matched them to controls (10:1 by age and sex). We excluded persons with immunosuppression or previous cancer. We defined ever-use as any prescription fill and high-use as a cumulative dose of at least 200 g (reference: never-use). We categorized a cumulative dose for a dose-response assessment. We used conditional logistic regression to compute ORs (95% CI) adjusted for photosensitizing, anti-neoplastic, disease-specific drugs and comorbidities. Results:The total numbers of melanoma/NMSC cases included were 7,809/64,230 in SIDIAP, 4,661/31,063 in BIFAP, and 27,978/152,821 in Denmark. In Denmark, high-use of flecainide was associated with increased adjusted ORs of skin cancer compared with never-use [melanoma: OR 1.97 (1.38-2.81); NMSC: OR 1.34 (1.15-1.56)]. In Spain, an association between high-use of flecainide and NMSC was also observed [BIFAP: OR 1.42 (1.04-1.93); SIDIAP: OR 1.19 (0.95-1.48)]. There was a non-significant dose-response pattern for melanoma in Denmark and no apparent dose-response pattern for NMSC in any of the three databases. We found similar results for ever-use of flecainide. Conclusion:Flecainide use was associated with an increased risk of melanoma (Denmark only) and NMSC (Denmark and Spain) but without substantial evidence of dose-response patterns. Further studies are needed to assess for possible unmeasured confounders.

(1) Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is associated with high mortality, especially in older people. This study aimed to characterize the evolution of combined multimorbidity and polypharmacy patterns in older people with different cardiovascular disease profiles. (2) Material and methods: This longitudinal study drew data from the Information System for Research in Primary Care in people aged 65 to 99 years with profiles of cardiovascular multimorbidity. Combined patterns of multimorbidity and polypharmacy were analysed using fuzzy c-means clustering techniques and hidden Markov models. The prevalence, observed/expected ratio, and exclusivity of chronic diseases and/or groups of these with the corresponding medication were described. (3) Results: The study included 114,516 people, mostly men (59.6%) with a mean age of 78.8 years and a high prevalence of polypharmacy (83.5%). The following patterns were identified: Mental, behavioural, digestive and cerebrovascular; Neuropathy, autoimmune and musculoskeletal; Musculoskeletal, mental, behavioural, genitourinary, digestive and dermatological; Non-specific; Multisystemic; Respiratory, cardiovascular, behavioural and genitourinary; Diabetes and ischemic cardiopathy; and Cardiac. The prevalence of overrepresented health problems and drugs remained stable over the years, although by study end, cohort survivors had more polypharmacy and multimorbidity. Most people followed the same pattern over time; the most frequent transitions were from Non-specific to Mental, behavioural, digestive and cerebrovascular and from Musculoskeletal, mental, behavioural, genitourinary, digestive and dermatological to Non-specific. (4) Conclusions: Eight combined multimorbidity and polypharmacy patterns, differentiated by sex, remained stable over follow-up. Understanding the behaviour of different diseases and drugs can help design individualised interventions in populations with clinical complexity.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compare rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the background (expected) rates in the general population. In addition, we compare the rates of the same adverse events among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 with background rates. Primary care and linked hospital data from Catalonia, Spain informed the study, with participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-23/06/2021), COVID-19 cases (01/09/2020-23/06/2021) or present in the database as of 01/01/2017. We included 2,021,366 BNT162b2 (1,327,031 with 2 doses), 592,408 ChAdOx1, 174,556 COVID-19 cases, and 4,573,494 background participants. Standardised incidence ratios for venous thromboembolism were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) and 0.92 (0.81-1.05) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, and 0.92 (0.71-1.18) after first dose ChAdOx1. The standardised incidence ratio for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 was 10.19 (9.43-11.02). Standardised incidence ratios for arterial thromboembolism were 1.02 (0.95-1.09) and 1.04 (0.97-1.12) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.06 (0.91-1.23) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.13 (3.83-4.45) for COVID-19. Standardised incidence ratios for thrombocytopenia were 1.49 (1.43-1.54) and 1.40 (1.35-1.45) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.28 (1.19-1.38) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.59 (4.41- 4.77) for COVID-19. While rates of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia were generally similar to background rates, the standardised incidence ratio for pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia after first-dose BNT162b2 was 1.70 (1.11-2.61). These findings suggest that the safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 are similar, with rates of adverse events seen after vaccination typically similar to background rates. Meanwhile, rates of adverse events are much increased for COVID-19 cases further underlining the importance of vaccination.
Population-based studies can provide information on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here the authors report the rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Catalonia, Spain and compare them with the background (expected) rates in the general population.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).
Population-based studies can provide information on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here the authors report the rates thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom and compare them with the background (expected) rates in the general population.