Search

Background: Cancer places a high burden on society and health-care systems. Cancer research requires high-quality data, which is resource-intensive to obtain. Using administrative datasets such as cancer registries could improve the efficiency of cancer studies if data were valid and timely. We aimed to compare the validity and timeliness of diagnostic cancer data on-site during the SYMPLIFY study to that obtained from the cancer registries of England and Wales., Methods: Cancer data were collected from 5461 participants across 44 hospital sites during a prospective observational study in England and Wales, SYMPLIFY (ISRCTN10226380). Linked cancer data were obtained from Digital Health and Care Wales (DHCW), the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit (WCISU), and the English National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD) and Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset (RCRD), regularly between April, 2022, and September, 2023. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the validity (via assessment of the proportion of completed data fields and concordance with SYMPLIFY sites), and timeliness of the data in all datasets, for all cancers diagnosed within 9 months of study enrolment. Data fields investigated were cancer site via International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code; cancer morphology via International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3) morphology histology code and broad morphological grouping; overall stage; and TNM classification., Findings: For data collected between April, 2022, and September, 2023, completeness at the last data cut available for each dataset ranged from 84% to 100% for ICD-O-3 morphology, from 43% to 100% for overall stage, and from 74% to 83% for TNM stage. The concordance between SYMPLIFY data and NCRD was 96% (95% CI 92-98) for ICD-10, 60% (53-66) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 83% (78-88) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, 73% (67-78) for stage, and 51% (44-59) for TNM; and with WCISU was 89% (95% CI 81-94) for ICD-10, 63% (53-73) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 80% (70-87) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, 83% (74-90) for overall stage, and 49% (38-61) for TNM stage. Concordance between SYMPLIFY and RCRD was 95% (95% CI 92-98) for ICD-10, 67% (60-74) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 85% (79-90) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, and 73% (65-80) for overall stage; and between SYMPLIFY and DHCW was 96% (91-99) for ICD-10, 74% (64-83) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 84% (75-91) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, and 87% (74-95) for stage. The SYMPLIFY dataset reached completion at 12 months post-enrolment in November, 2022, compared with 13 months for NCRD in December, 2023. RCRD and DHCW reached completion at 13 months and 15 months post-enrolment, in December, 2022, and February, 2023, respectively., Interpretation: We report similar completeness of data fields, concordance, and timeliness between on-site and centrally collected cancer outcomes data. Our findings suggest that central registry data can help alleviate the resource burden in clinical trials and improve cancer research. Cancer registries might need additional resources to provide data for registry-based trials at scale., Funding: GRAIL Bio UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BDN and MRM receive institutional research funding from GRAIL. BDN reports grants, honoraria, and consulting fees from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Cancer Research UK, Royal College of General Practitioners, and Multi-Cancer Early Detection Consortium. DH and DA report payment to their institution from National Health Service Wales Cancer Network for additional cancer registration officer time to expedite population-based cancer registration for this study. DH and DA report grants from Moondance Cancer Initiative. FDRN reports honoraria for occasional sessional payment for congress talks for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. RP reports funding from GRAIL and National Health Service England for the completion of this study, as well as grants from Medical Research Council, NIHR, and the Medical Science Division at the University of Oxford and is a statistical editor for BMJ and BMJ Medicine. HK, KNK, SH, KR, YL, and HN were all employees of GRAIL at the time of the study. HK reports a leadership position with GRAIL. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with a substantial risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and vascular events. The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), finerenone, offers cardiorenal protection for people with CKD and diabetes, but there is uncertainty if the steroidal MRA, spironolactone, provides the same protection. In this prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial, we assessed the effectiveness of 25 mg spironolactone in addition to usual care or usual care alone for reducing cardiovascular outcomes in stage 3b CKD among an older community cohort (mean age = 74.8 years and s.d. = 8.1). We recruited 1,434 adults from English primary care, of whom 1,372 (96%) were included in the primary analysis. The primary outcome was time from randomization until the first occurrence of death, hospitalization for heart disease, stroke, heart failure, transient ischemic attack or peripheral arterial disease, or first onset of any condition listed not present at baseline. Across 3 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 113 of 677 participants randomized to spironolactone (16.7%) and 111 of 695 participants randomized to usual care (16.0%) with no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.37). Two-thirds of participants randomized to spironolactone stopped treatment within 6 months, predominantly because they met prespecified safety stop criteria. The most common reason for stopping spironolactone was a decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate that met prespecified stop criteria (n = 239, 35.4%), followed by participants being withdrawn due to treatment side effects (n = 128, 18.9%) and hyperkalemia (n = 54, 8.0%). In conclusion, we found that spironolactone was frequently discontinued due to safety concerns, with no evidence that it reduced cardiovascular outcomes in people with stage 3b CKD. Spironolactone should not be used for people with stage 3b CKD without another explicit treatment indication. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: ISRCTN44522369 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation., Methods: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up., Interpretation: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat., Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England from Oct 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. On June 15, 2023, JSN-V-T completed one 3-h paid consultancy assignment for Merck Sharp & Dohme on a subject unrelated to COVID-19, and has given two paid lectures for Gilead who have manufactured COVID-19 treatments in 2022–23, and one paid lecture for AstraZeneca in 2022, who manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. JSN-V-T has consulted occasionally for Moderna (May 1, 2023 onwards) who manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. DML has received personal fees from Gilead for an educational video and from Merck for a roundtable discussion, speaker fees from Biotest, Takeda, and Astra Zeneca, and support to attend a conference from Octapharma. DML holds research grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol Myers Squibb, has received consultancy fees from GlaxoSmithKline paid to his institution, all outside the current work, and reports giving lectures for Biotest, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. JFS has participated in a Data and Safety Monitoring Committee for the sotrovimab paediatric programme for GlaxoSmithKline (fee paid to the institution). JB reports being the Principle Investigator on The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency commissioned study with GlaxoSmithKline to look at the evolution of variants in sotrovimab treated patients, and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, hVIVO, Moderna, and Symbios (donated to UCL). SK has been a speaker for Pfizer and ViiV Healthcare. KH reports a grant to Cardiff University (via University of Oxford), and was on the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment General Committee and Health Technology Assessment Funding Strategy Group until November, 2022, and is currently Deputy Chair of the Research Professors panel. BRS reports consulting fees were paid to his former employer (Berry Consultants) for tiral design and implementation. NPBT reports being on a single advisory board in July, 2021, with Merck & Co. OvH reports consulting fees from MindGap. AU reports honoria from Merck & Co, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca in relation to this disease area and manuscript. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Vaccines against COVID-19 and influenza can reduce the adverse outcomes caused by infections during pregnancy, but vaccine uptake among pregnant women has been suboptimal. We examined the COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake and disparities in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform vaccination interventions. We used data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre database in England and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in Wales. The uptake of at least one dose of vaccine was 40.2% for COVID-19 and 41.8% for influenza among eligible pregnant women. We observed disparities in COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake, with socioeconomically deprived and ethnic minority groups showing lower vaccination rates. The suboptimal uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, especially in those from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds and Black, mixed or other ethnic groups, underscores the necessity for interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and enhance acceptance in pregnant women., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with low blood pressure and frailty. The OPTiMISE trial showed that this deprescribing can be achieved with no differences in blood pressure control at 3 months compared with usual care. We aimed to examine effects of deprescribing on longer-term hospitalisation and mortality., Methods: This randomised controlled trial enrolled participants from 69 general practices across central and southern England. Participants aged 80 years or older, with systolic blood pressure less than 150 mm Hg and who were receiving two or more antihypertensive medications, were randomly assigned (1:1) to antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of one antihypertensive) or usual care. General practitioners and participants were aware of the treatment allocation following randomisation but individuals responsible for analysing the data were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. Participants were followed up via their primary and secondary care electronic health records at least 3 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was time to all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. Intention-to-treat analyses were done using Cox regression modelling. A per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome was also done, excluding participants from the intervention group who did not reduce treatment or who had medication reinstated during the initial trial 12-week follow-up period. This study is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT2016-004236-38) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97503221)., Findings: Between March 20, 2017, and Sept 30, 2018, a total of 569 participants were randomly assigned. Of these, 564 (99%; intervention=280; control=284) were followed up for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 3·7-4·3). Participants had a mean age of 84·8 years (SD 3·4) at baseline and 273 (48%) were women. Medication reduction was sustained in 109 participants at follow-up (51% of the 213 participants alive in the intervention group). Participants in the intervention group had a larger reduction in antihypertensives than the control group (adjusted mean difference -0·35 drugs [95% CI -0·52 to -0·18]). Overall, 202 (72%) participants in the intervention group and 218 (77%) participants in the control group experienced hospitalisation or mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·76 to 1·12]). There was some evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome in the per-protocol population was lower in the intervention group (aHR 0·80 [0·64 to 1·00])., Interpretation: Half of participants sustained medication reduction with no evidence of an increase in all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. These findings suggest that an antihypertensive deprescribing intervention might be safe for people aged 80 years or older with controlled blood pressure taking two or more antihypertensives., Funding: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JPS reports funding from the Wellcome Trust/Royal Society, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), British Heart Foundation, and Stroke Association; payment for consultancy from DoctorLink; is a Data Safety Monitoring Board member for the Hypertension Treatment in Nigeria Study sponsored by Northwestern University; and is Secretary and trustee for the British and Irish Hypertension Society. GAF is Board non-executive Director for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. FDRH reports honoraria for lectures from Pfizer/BMS, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca; and is chair of the European Primary Care Cardiovascular Society and International Primary Care Cardiovascular Society. SdL has received research grants to his university for investigator-led cardiometabolic research from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Seqirus; has been a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, and Seqirus; and has received medical writing support provided by AstraZeneca, GSK, and Pfizer. JM reports funding from an NIHR Senior Investigator Award and honoraria for lectures from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. RAP reports NIHR funding to his institution for other research related to medicines use and Medical Research Council funding to his institution unrelated to this project. L-MY reports NIHR funding to her institution for other research. RJM reports funding from the NIHR, British Heart Foundation, and Stroke Association; has received royalties, consulting fees (paid to his institution), and research equipment from Omron; has received royalties from Sensyne; and has received honoraria (paid to his institution) for lectures from the Finnish Hypertension Society and Canadian Hypertension Society., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Clinical guidelines include monitoring blood test abnormalities to identify patients at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. Noting blood test changes over time may improve cancer risk stratification by considering a patient's individual baseline and important changes within the normal range. We aimed to review the published literature to understand the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 15 May 2023 for studies assessing the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. We used descriptive summaries and narratively synthesised studies. We included 29 articles. Common blood tests were haemoglobin (24%, n = 7), C-reactive protein (17%, n = 5), and fasting blood glucose (17%, n = 5), and common cancers were pancreatic (29%, n = 8) and colorectal (17%, n = 5). Of the 30 blood tests studied, an increasing trend in eight (27%) was associated with eight cancer types, and a decreasing trend in 17 (57%) with 10 cancer types. No association was reported between trends in 11 (37%) tests and breast, bile duct, glioma, haematological combined, liver, prostate, or thyroid cancers. Our review highlights trends in blood tests that could facilitate the identification of individuals at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. For most possible combinations of tests and cancers, there was limited or no evidence.

Introduction: There is a lack of evidence that the benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) outweigh the harms. Following the completion of the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) pilot trial, the aim of the main SAFER trial is to establish whether population screening for AF reduces incidence of stroke risk., Methods and Analysis: Approximately 82 000 people aged 70 years and over and not on oral anticoagulation are being recruited from general practices in England. Patients on the palliative care register or residents in a nursing home are excluded. Eligible people are identified using electronic patient records from general practices and sent an invitation and consent form to participate by post. Consenting participants are randomised at a ratio of 2:1 (control:intervention) with clustering by household. Those randomised to the intervention arm are sent an information leaflet inviting them to participate in screening, which involves use of a handheld single-lead ECG four times a day for 3 weeks. ECG traces identified by an algorithm as possible AF are reviewed by cardiologists. Participants with AF are seen by a general practitioner for consideration of anticoagulation. The primary outcome is stroke. Major secondary outcomes are: death, major bleeding and cardiovascular events. Follow-up will be via electronic health records for an average of 4 years. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat using time-to-event modelling. Results from this trial will be combined with follow-up data from the cluster-randomised pilot trial by fixed-effects meta-analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: The London-Central National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will include public-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN72104369., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JM has performed consultancy work for BMS/Pfizer and Omron. FDRH reports occasional consultancy for BMS/Pfizer, Bayer and BI over the past 5 years. NA is a member of the UK National Screening Committee. MC and MS are employed by AstraZeneca, but at the time of involvement with the trial were employed by universities (King's College London and University of Leicester, respectively), for which they still hold honorary contracts. RJM’s employer, the University of Oxford, receives consultancy and licensing payments from Omron and Sensyne for BP telemonitoring interventions. GYHL is a consultant and speaker for BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo and Anthos. No fees are received personally. SJG has received honoraria from AstraZeneca for lectures at postgraduate educational meetings for primary care teams about type 2 diabetes. BF has received speaker fees, honoraria and non-financial support from BMS and Pfizer Alliance; grants to the institution for investigator-initiated studies from BMS and Pfizer Alliance; and loan devices for investigator-initiated studies from Alivecor, all were unrelated to the present trial but related to screening for AF., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations., Methods: Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity., Results: Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1)., Conclusions: Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for the development of COVID-19 vaccines. KS, LC, MO, ST, SV, TM, TNT, and WM are employees of AstraZeneca and may own stock/shares. AJP was a member of the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization until January 2022 and remains Chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) but does not participate in the JCVI COVID-19 committee. AJP also reports providing advice to Shionogi on COVID-19, and funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), AstraZeneca, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, the Medical Research Council, the Serum Institute of India, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI); and being a contributor to the intellectual property licensed by Oxford University Innovation to AstraZeneca. DAC reports consulting fees from Oxford University Consulting, Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, NIHR, Hong Kong ITC, AstraZeneca, and Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK); and patents held by Oxford University Innovation. JD is an employee at Momentum data and may own stocks/shares. FDRH acknowledges support as Director of the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford Thames Valley and Theme Lead of the NIHR Oxford University Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. He also reports fees or expenses for speaking or consultancy from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Novartis. GJ reports ownership of GSK stocks/shares and honoraria form AstraZeneca. SdeL reports advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, and Seqirus (fees paid to University); and receiving university research grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Takeda. ST reports ownership of GSK stocks/shares. UH is an employee at Oxford University and reports membership on a Janssen advisory committee, funding from Seqirus for podcasts, and research funding from Seqirus and AstraZeneca. WH resorts partial salary funding from AstraZeneca-sponsored research grants. AD, AF, DK, KST, MF, MJ, RB, RW, SNA, and XF declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation have a high mortality rate that is only partially attributable to vascular outcomes. The competing risk of death may affect the expected anticoagulant benefit. We determined if competing risks materially affect the guideline-endorsed estimate of anticoagulant benefit., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or either placebo or antiplatelets. For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of VKAs to prevent stroke or systemic embolism using 2 methods-first using a guideline-endorsed model (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc) and then again using a competing risk model that uses the same inputs as CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc but accounts for the competing risk of death and allows for nonlinear growth in benefit. We compared the absolute and relative differences in estimated benefit and whether the differences varied by life expectancy., Results: A total of 7933 participants (median age, 73 years, 36% women) had a median life expectancy of 8 years (interquartile range, 6-12), determined by comorbidity-adjusted life tables and 43% were randomized to VKAs. The CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc model estimated a larger ARR than the competing risk model (median ARR at 3 years, 6.9% [interquartile range, 4.7%-10.0%] versus 5.2% [interquartile range, 3.5%-7.4%]; P <0.001). ARR differences varied by life expectancies: for those with life expectancies in the highest decile, 3-year ARR difference (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc model - competing risk model 3-year risk) was -1.3% (95% CI, -1.3% to -1.2%); for those with life expectancies in the lowest decile, 3-year ARR difference was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-5.0%)., Conclusions: VKA anticoagulants were exceptionally effective at reducing stroke risk. However, VKA benefits were misestimated with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc, which does not account for the competing risk of death nor decelerating treatment benefit over time. Overestimation was most pronounced when life expectancy was low and when the benefit was estimated over a multiyear horizon., Competing Interests: Disclosures M. Ezekowitz is supported by the Sharpe Strumia Foundation based at Bryn Mawr Hospital. Drs Shah, Jeon, Boscardin, and Covinsky reported funding from the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health (NIH) related to the conduct of this study (noted below). Dr Fang reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/NIH during the conduct of the study (K24HL141354) and grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr Singer was supported, in part, by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman Fund of Massachusetts General Hospital. He has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Medtronic, and Pfizer. Professor Hobbs is, in part, supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration and Medtech and In vitro diagnostics Co-operatives) and has received occasional consultancy fees from Bayer, BMS Pfizer, Novartis, and AZ unconnected to this study. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the article; and decision to submit the article for publication.

Introduction: In the phase 3 TACKLE study, outpatient treatment with AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) was well tolerated and significantly reduced progression to severe disease or death through day 29 in adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the primary analysis. Here, we report data from the final analysis of the TACKLE study, performed after approximately 15 months' follow-up., Methods: Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 and dosed within 7 days of symptom onset with 600 mg intramuscular AZD7442 (n = 456; 300 mg tixagevimab/300 mg cilgavimab) or placebo (n = 454)., Results: Severe COVID-19 or death through day 29 occurred in 4.4% and 8.8% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 50.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.4, 71.3; p = 0.0096]; among participants dosed within 5 days of symptom onset, the RRR was 66.9% (95% CI 31.1, 84.1; p = 0.002). Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 occurred in 5.0% of participants receiving AZD7442 versus 9.7% receiving placebo, an RRR of 49.2% (95% CI 14.7, 69.8; p = 0.009). Adverse events occurred in 55.5% and 55.9% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Serious adverse events occurred in 10.2% and 14.4% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and deaths occurred in 1.8% of participants in both groups. Serum concentration-time profiles recorded over 457 days were similar for AZD7442, tixagevimab, and cilgavimab, and were consistent with the extended half-life reported for AZD7442 (approx. 90 days)., Conclusions: AZD7442 reduced the risk of progression to severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, was well tolerated through 15 months, and exhibited predictable pharmacokinetics in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. These data support the long-term safety of using long-acting monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID-19., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04723394 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Effective disease surveillance, including that for COVID-19, is compromised without a standardised method for categorising the immunosuppressed as a clinical risk group., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether excess COVID-associated mortality compared to the immunocompetent could meaningfully subdivide the immunosuppressed. Our study adhered to UK Immunisation against infectious disease (Green Book) criteria for defining and categorising immunosuppression. Using OVID (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Transplant Library, and Global Health), PubMed, and Google Scholar, we examined relevant literature between the entirety of 2020 and 2022. We selected for cohort studies that provided mortality data for immunosuppressed subgroups and immunocompetent comparators. Meta-analyses, grey literature and any original works that failed to provide comparator data or reported all-cause or paediatric outcomes were excluded. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of COVID-19 mortality were meta-analysed by immunosuppressed category and subcategory. Subgroup analyses differentiated estimates by effect measure, country income, study setting, level of adjustment, use of matching and publication year. Study screening, extraction and bias assessment were performed blinded and independently by two researchers; conflicts were resolved with the oversight of a third researcher. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022360755., Findings: We identified 99 unique studies, incorporating data from 1,542,097 and 56,248,181 unique immunosuppressed and immunocompetent patients with COVID-19 infection, respectively. Compared to immunocompetent people (pooled OR, 95%CI), solid organ transplants (2.12, 1.50-2.99) and malignancy (2.02, 1.69-2.42) patients had a very high risk of COVID-19 mortality. Patients with rheumatological conditions (1.28, 1.13-1.45) and HIV (1.20, 1.05-1.36) had just slightly higher risks than the immunocompetent baseline. Case type, setting income and mortality data matching and adjustment were significant modifiers of excess immunosuppressed mortality for some immunosuppressed subgroups., Interpretation: Excess COVID-associated mortality among the immunosuppressed compared to the immunocompetent was seen to vary significantly across subgroups. This novel means of subdivision has prospective benefit for targeting patient triage, shielding and vaccination policies during periods of high disease transmission., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors of this manuscript are all either directly employed by or affiliated with the Royal College of General Practitioners’ Research and Surveillance Centre (Oxford-RCGP RSC), the UK primary care sentinel network. This work originated as a direct response to the limitations of existing disease surveillance, both within the RSC and comparable networks, to monitor outcomes within the immunosuppressed with high resolution and fidelity. The findings of this work will now be validated within RSC data flows and amongst RSC collaborator groups. However, none of these stated actors or collaborators had any influence on the approach, analysis, interpretation or write-up of this work., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Limited evidence exists for the diagnostic performance of point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in community healthcare. We carried out a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of the LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A or B assay in primary care., Methods: Total of 913 adults and children with symptoms of current SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from 18 UK primary care practices during a period when Omicron was the predominant COVID variant of concern (June 2022 to December 2022). Trained health care staff performed the index test, with diagnostic accuracy parameters estimated for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza against real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rtRT-PCR)., Results: 151/887 participants were SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR positive, 109 positive for Influenza A, 6 for Influenza B. Index test sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 80.8% (122 of the 151, 95% CI, 73.6-86.7%) and specificity 98.9% (728 of the 736, 95% CI, 97.9-99.5%). For influenza A, sensitivity was 61.5% (67 of the 109, 95% CI, 51.7-70.6%) and specificity 99.4% (771 of the 776, 95% CI, 98.5-99.8%). Sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza dropped sharply at rtRT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) > 30., Discussions: The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B assay had moderate sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in primary care, with lower performance with high rtRT-PCR Ct. Negative results in this patient group cannot definitively rule out SARS-CoV-2 or influenza., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: There are few data on the feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) using hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) devices outside a specialist setting or in people over the age of 75. We investigated the feasibility of screening when conducted without face-to-face contact ('remote') or via in-person appointments in primary care and explored impact of age on screening outcomes., Methods and Results: People aged ≥65 years from 13 general practices in England participated in screening during 2019-20. This involved attending a practice nurse appointment (10 practices) or receiving an ECG device by post (three practices). Participants were asked to use a hand-held ECG for 1-4 weeks. Screening outcomes included uptake, quality of ECGs, AF detection rates, and uptake of anticoagulation if AF was detected. Screening was carried out by 2141 (87.5%) of people invited to practice nurse-led screening and by 288 (90.0%) invited to remote screening. At least 56 interpretable ECGs were provided by 98.0% of participants who participated for 3 weeks, with no significant differences by setting or age, except people aged 85 or over (91.1%). Overall, 2.6% (64/2429) screened participants had AF, with detection rising with age (9.2% in people aged 85 or over). A total of 53/64 (82.8%) people with AF commenced anticoagulation. Uptake of anticoagulation did not vary by age., Conclusion: Population screening for paroxysmal AF is feasible in general practice and without face-to-face contact for all ages over 64 years, including people aged 85 and over., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All authors are undertaking the SAFER study named in the paper. J.M. has performed consultancy work for BMS/Pfizer and Omron. F.D.R.H. reports occasional consultancy for BMS/Pfizer, Bayer, and BI over the last 5 years. G.Y.H.L. is a consultant and speaker for BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Anthos. No fees are received personally. S.J.G. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca for lecturing at postgraduate educational meetings for primary care teams about type 2 diabetes. B.F. has received speaker fees, honoraria, and non-financial support from BMS and Pfizer Alliance and loan devices for investigator-initiated studies from AliveCor: all were unrelated to the present study but related to screening for AF. P.C. has performed consultancy work for Cambridge University Technical Services and has received honoraria from IOP Publishing and Emory University (the latter not received personally). All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The emergence of the COVID-19 vaccination has been critical in changing the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure protection remains high in vulnerable groups booster vaccinations in the UK have been targeted based on age and clinical vulnerabilities. We undertook a national retrospective cohort study using data from the 2021 Census linked to electronic health records. We fitted cause-specific Cox models to examine the association between health conditions and the risk of COVID-19 death and all-other-cause death for adults aged 50-100-years in England vaccinated with a booster in autumn 2022. Here we show, having learning disabilities or Down Syndrome (hazard ratio=5.07;95% confidence interval=3.69-6.98), pulmonary hypertension or fibrosis (2.88;2.43-3.40), motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia or Huntington's disease (2.94, 1.82-4.74), cancer of blood and bone marrow (3.11;2.72-3.56), Parkinson's disease (2.74;2.34-3.20), lung or oral cancer (2.57;2.04 to 3.24), dementia (2.64;2.46 to 2.83) or liver cirrhosis (2.65;1.95 to 3.59) was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death. Individuals with cancer of the blood or bone marrow, chronic kidney disease, cystic fibrosis, pulmonary hypotension or fibrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 death relative to other causes of death compared with individuals who did not have diagnoses. Policy makers should continue to priorities vulnerable groups for subsequent COVID-19 booster doses to minimise the risk of COVID-19 death., (© 2024. Crown.)

Background: UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose., Methods: We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations., Findings: Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32-1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; 10.43 (8.06-13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0-29.9; 2.94 (2.51-3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15-10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23-1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21-1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease., Interpretation: Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics., Funding: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh., Competing Interests: AS and CR are members of the Scottish Government's CMO COVID-19 Advisory Group. AS and CR are members of NERVTAG's risk stratification subgroup. CR is a member of SPI-M. AS is a member of AstraZeneca's Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Advisory Group and the Scottish Government's Standing Committee on Pandemics. All roles are unremunerated. RAL is a member of the Welsh Government COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group. All other co-authors report no conflict of interests. SdeL is Director of the RSC, through his university he has received vaccine related research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus, MSD and Takeda, and been member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Seqirus., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Introduction: AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) comprises neutralising monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to distinct non-overlapping epitopes on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein. Viral evolution during mAb therapy can select for variants with reduced neutralisation susceptibility. We examined treatment-emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants during TACKLE (NCT04723394), a phase 3 study of AZD7442 for early outpatient treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Non-hospitalised adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomised and dosed ≤ 7 days from symptom onset with AZD7442 (n = 452) or placebo (n = 451). Next-generation sequencing of the spike gene was performed on SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction-positive nasopharyngeal swabs at baseline and study days 3, 6, and 15 post dosing. SARS-CoV-2 lineages were assigned using spike nucleotide sequences. Amino acid substitutions were analysed at allele fractions (AF; % of sequence reads represented by substitution) ≥ 25% and 3% to 25%. In vitro susceptibility to tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and AZD7442 was evaluated for all identified treatment-emergent variants using a pseudotyped microneutralisation assay., Results: Longitudinal spike sequences were available for 461 participants (AZD7442, n = 235; placebo, n = 226) and showed that treatment-emergent variants at any time were rare, with 5 (2.1%) AZD7442 participants presenting ≥ 1 substitution in tixagevimab/cilgavimab binding sites at AF ≥ 25%. At AF 3% to 25%, treatment-emergent variants were observed in 15 (6.4%) AZD7442 and 12 (5.3%) placebo participants. All treatment-emergent variants showed in vitro susceptibility to AZD7442., Conclusion: These data indicate that AZD7442 creates a high genetic barrier for resistance and is a feasible option for COVID-19 treatment., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To describe the prevalence of potentially clinically relevant gut pathogens and associations with the carriage of resistant organisms in UK care home residents., Methods: Stool samples were collected pre-randomisation from care home residents participating in a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Cultivable clinically relevant bacteria were analysed. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by agar dilution (amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, gentamicin, trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin). We also aimed to detect resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, and vancomycin., Results: Stool samples were available for 159/310 residents participating in the trial (51%) from 23 care homes between 2016 and 2018. In total, 402 bacterial isolates were cultured from 158 stool samples and 29 different species were cultured. The five most common species were Escherichia coli (155/158, 98%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (40/158, 25%), Enterococcus faecalis (35/158, 22%), Enterococcus faecium (30/158, 19%), and Proteus mirabilis (25/158, 16%). Enterobacterales isolates were cultured from 157 samples (99%), and resistance to at least one of the tested antimicrobials was found in 119 of these (76%). There were high levels of variation in outcomes by care home., Discussion: We demonstrated that care home residents harbour significant levels of antimicrobial-resistant organisms in their stool. This work emphasises the importance of both enhanced infection control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programmes to support the appropriate use of antimicrobials in this setting., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This short communication makes the case for targeted vaccine research when attempting to counter hesitancy, especially amongst vulnerable or rarefied patient groups. Far from disincentivizing vaccination, the freedom to research and publicize the limitations of these technologies for certain groups and personalizing dosing, pacing, adjuvants, and time-sensitive alternatives in response is essential for optimizing health outcomes while neutralizing the vaccine research landscape itself. Vaccine evangelism only arouses suspicion when it is not tempered by rigorous research into differential vaccine benefit-risk in this way. That said, the long-standing politicization of vaccination-a topic vulnerable to misinterpretation and media sensationalism-along with the commercial incentives associated with universal adoption makes more comparative and critical research difficult to fund and promote in practice. Likewise, a prescriptive approach to vaccination does little to address the issues of vaccine inequality that contribute to both hesitancy and conspiracy globally and will likely prove financially prohibitive in certain markets. These obstacles are not insurmountable, however, provided that comparative research is centrally subsidized, regulations ensure that vaccine development trials explore differentiated outcomes, especially amongst high-risk or rare groups, and findings are used to prioritize global vaccine allocation to those that stand to benefit most from them., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Regular monitoring is required to ensure that patients who have, or are at risk of, chronic kidney disease (CKD) receive appropriate management. Guidelines recommend regular testing of estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and albuminuria. However, evidence suggests that albuminuria testing rates, specifically urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), are suboptimal., Aim: To assess published evidence relating to the drivers of non-adherence to albuminuria testing guidelines and the impact of not identifying CKD across the course of progression., Materials and Methods: A systematic review of five bibliographic databases was conducted, supplemented by hand searches of relevant conference abstracts., Results: One study was identified that reported drivers of non-adherence to albuminuria testing guidelines. The largest barrier was the perception that testing does not impact patient management. Thirteen studies were identified that evaluated the impact of not identifying CKD patients. All included studies analyzed the effect of not identifying worsening CKD severity leading to late referral (LR). 12/13 studies reported only on clinical impact, and 1/13 reported on clinical and economic impact. LR led to higher costs and worse outcomes than early referral, including higher rates of mortality and worsened kidney replacement therapy preparation., Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates a gap in evidence exploring the drivers of non-adherence to albuminuria testing guidelines and the impact of not identifying patients in the early stages of CKD. Guideline-recommended testing allows timely identification, referral, and treatment for patients with, or at risk of, CKD, providing the best chance of avoiding the worsened outcomes identified in this review.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against hospitalisation and death following COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates against severe endpoints among individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of critical disease are limited., Methods: We used English primary care medical record data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre sentinel network (N > 18 million). Data were linked to the National Immunisation Management Service database, Second Generation Surveillance System for virology test data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. We estimated adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against COVID-19 infection followed by hospitalisation and death among individuals in specific clinical risk groups using a cohort design during the delta-dominant period. We also report mortality statistics and results from our antibody surveillance in this population., Findings: aVE against severe endpoints was high, 14-69d following a third dose aVE was 96.4% (95.1%-97.4%) and 97.9% (97.2%-98.4%) for clinically vulnerable people given a Vaxzevria and Comirnaty primary course respectively. Lower aVE was observed in the immunosuppressed group: 88.6% (79.1%-93.8%) and 91.9% (85.9%-95.4%) for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty respectively. Antibody levels were significantly lower among the immunosuppressed group than those not in this risk group across all vaccination types and doses. The standardised case fatality rate within 28 days of a positive test was 3.9/1000 in people not in risk groups, compared to 12.8/1000 in clinical risk groups. Waning aVE with time since 2nd dose was also demonstrated, for example, Comirnaty aVE against hospitalisation reduced from 96.0% (95.1-96.7%) 14-69days post-dose 2-82.9% (81.4-84.2%) 182days+ post-dose 2., Interpretation: In all clinical risk groups high levels of vaccine effectiveness against severe endpoints were seen. Reduced vaccine effectiveness was noted among the immunosuppressed group., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Simon de Lusignan is the Director of the Oxford-RCGP RSC and has received funding through his University for studies from Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, GSK, MSD. Seqirus and Takeda; and been member of advisory boards for Astra-Zeneca, Seqirus and Sanofi. Ezra Linley reports that the UKHSA Vaccine Evaluation Unit performs contract research on behalf of GSK, Sanofi and Pfizer which is outside the submitted work. FDRH is part funded by the NIHR ARC OTV and has received occasional research and consultancy funding from AZ and Pfizer but not related to vaccines., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We assessed effects of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) on deaths from any cause or hospitalizations due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptom severity and longer-term safety in the TACKLE adult outpatient treatment study., Methods: Participants received 600 mg AZD7442 (n = 452) or placebo (n = 451) ≤ 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset., Results: Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 (key secondary endpoint) occurred in 20/399 (5.0%) participants receiving AZD7442 versus 40/407 (9.8%) receiving placebo [relative risk reduction (RRR) 49.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.5, 69.7; p = 0.009] or 50.7% (95% CI 17.5, 70.5; p = 0.006) after excluding participants unblinded before day 169 for consideration of vaccination). AZD7442 reduced progression of COVID-19 symptoms versus placebo through to day 29 (RRR 12.5%; 95% CI 0.5, 23.0) and improved most symptoms within 1-2 weeks. Over median safety follow-up of 170 days, adverse events occurred in 174 (38.5%) and 196 (43.5%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively. Cardiac serious adverse events occurred in two (0.4%) and three (0.7%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively., Conclusions: AZD7442 was well tolerated and reduced hospitalization and mortality through 6 months, and symptom burden through 29 days, in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. ( https://beta., Clinicaltrials: gov/study/NCT04723394 )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Point-of-care lateral flow device antigen testing has been used extensively to identify individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in routine community care., Methods: Adults and children with symptoms consistent with suspected current COVID-19 infection were prospectively recruited from 19 UK general practices and two COVID-19 testing centres between October 2020 and October 2021. Participants were tested by trained healthcare workers using at least one of two index POCTs (Roche-branded SD Biosensor Standard™ Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and/or BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2). The reference standard was laboratory triplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) using a combined nasal/oropharyngeal swab. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold and in pre-specified subgroups., Results: Of 663 participants included in the primary analysis, 39.2% (260/663, 95% CI 35.5% to 43.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The SD Biosensor POCT had sensitivity 84.0% (178/212, 78.3% to 88.6%) and specificity 98.5% (328/333, 96.5% to 99.5%), and the BD Veritor POCT had sensitivity 76.5% (127/166, 69.3% to 82.7%) and specificity 98.8% (249/252, 96.6% to 99.8%) compared with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of both devices dropped substantially at cycle thresholds ≥30 and in participants more than 7 days after onset of symptoms., Conclusions: Both POCTs assessed exceed the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency target product profile's minimum acceptable specificity of 95%. Confidence intervals for both tests include the minimum acceptable sensitivity of 80%. In symptomatic patients, negative results on these two POCTs do not preclude the possibility of infection. Tests should not be expected to reliably detect disease more than a week after symptom onset, when viral load may be reduced., Registration: ISRCTN142269., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: The authorship declares funding support for this study from the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division Benefactors Urgent COVID-19 Fund, the National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research, and Urgent Public Health funding for the CONDOR Platform from the NIHR and Asthma+Lung UK. The RAPTOR-C19 study team received analysers and assays free of charge from Becton Dickinson for evaluation in this study. GNH declares funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) paid to the University of Oxford. KD declares grant funding from Alere Inc and Cepheid Inc paid to her institution for unrelated research. TRF declares NIHR support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC for diagnostic evaluation research. AJW declares grant funding received by the University of Oxford through a Wellcome Trust Enriching Engagement grant which has supported unrelated patient participation work carried out by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research Surveillance Centre (based at the University of Oxford) for surveillance work. GE declares funding support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC recieved by the University of Oxford. AM declares the support of a Wellcome Trust Doctoral Research Fellowship and an NIHR In-practice Fellowship unrelated to this research. PJT declares support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC for diagnostic evaluation research. PJT has provided expert support to the Longitude Prize AMR competition administration which is unrelated to this project and for which the University of Oxford received an honorarium. RB declares grant funding for this project from the NIHR and Asthma+Lung UK, with additional funding from the Department of Health and Social Care paid to his host institution. RB declares grants from Siemens Healthineers, Abbott Point-of-Care and Ancon, all paid to his institution for unrelated research. He declares consulting fees received by his institution from Roche, Siemens, Aptamer Group, LumiraDx, Beckman Coulter and Radiometer, with personal fees received from Psyros Diagnostics. RB has received support for attending meetings / travel from Roche and EMCREG International. RB has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for the unrelated FORCE Trial, REWIRE Trial, TARGET-CTA, and Magnetocardiography study (MAGNETIC - sponsored by Creavo). RB is the Deputy National Specialty Lead for Trauma & Emergency Care, National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network. RB declares receipt of donated reagents for research not detailed in this paper from Roche, LumiraDx, BD, iXensor, Abbott Point-of-Care, Randox, Avacta, Menarini, loan of analysers from Randox and Menarini, and assays run free of charge for research purposes by Chronomics, My110, and Ancon. JJL declares funding from an NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship which is unrelated to this research. LM declares support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC and other NIHR grants to the University of Oxford in support of this work. EL declares unrelated project funding received by the UKHSA Vaccine Evaluation Unit for contract research from GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi. MZ declares her unpaid activities as the Chair of the charitable organisation ISIRV and her membership of the UK SAGE, NERVTAG and JCVI groups. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Nicholson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia was a matter of concern post first and second doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, it is important to investigate the risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events following a second dose of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines., Methods: We conducted a large-scale self-controlled case series analysis, using routine primary care data linked to hospital data, among 12.3 million individuals (16 years old and above) in England. We used the nationally representative Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) sentinel network database with baseline and risk periods between 8th December 2020 and 11th June 2022. We included individuals who received two vaccine (primary) doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and two vaccine doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our analyses. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis for each outcome using a conditional Poisson regression model with an offset for the length of risk period. We reported the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic (including arterial and venous events) and haemorrhagic events, in the period of 0-27 days after receiving a second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines compared to the baseline period (14 or more days prior to first dose, 28 or more days after the second dose and the time between 28 or more days after the first and 14 or more days prior to the second dose). We adjusted for a range of potential confounders, including age, sex, comorbidities and deprivation., Findings: Between December 8, 2020 and February 11, 2022, 6,306,306 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 and 6,046,785 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of ChAdOx1. Compared to the baseline, our analysis show no increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.770) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-0.98); and similarly there was no increased risk for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.41-1.85) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 1.73, 95% CI: 0.82-3.68). We additionally report no difference in IRR for pulmonary embolus, and deep vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, including idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), and haemorrhagic events post second dose for both BNT162b2., Interpretation: Reassuringly, we found no associations between increased risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events post vaccination with second dose for either of these vaccines., Funding: Data and Connectivity: COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance study., Competing Interests: SdeL is Director of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). SdeL has received funding for vaccine related research from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus and Takeda, and been members of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Seqirus all through his university. The AstraZeneca studies include ATTEST a study of Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (SdeL is PI and MJ and FDRH Co–I). JMOM has previously worked on vaccine related project funded by AstraZeneca. GJ has previously presented to healthcare professionals on heart failure treatment which was funded by AstraZeneca. FDRH has previously received consultation fees on MAbs and vaccines from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. FDRH has previously received fees for presenting at Cardio-vascular diseases and COVID-19 related events organised by AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb. AS and CR are members of the Scottish Government's CMO COVID-19 Advisory Group and its Standing Committee on Pandemics. AS was a member of AstraZeneca's Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce and all of his roles are unremunerated. CR is a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group. CR also received support from Public Health Scotland, MRC and CSO. VTB is member of various NHSE advisory boards on issues related to NHS workforce and workload, UK Health Alliance on Climate Change on behalf of RCGP and Our Future Health advisory board on behalf of RCGP. VTB held leadership positions as RCGP Vice Chair, BMA member, FSEM member, FSRH member, SAPC member and exec member (from July 2022), Founding participant of Health Foundation Q initiative, Member of the Allocations Steering Group-NHS England and Improvement, Member of NIHR Primary Care Strategy group, Council member and Senior Founding Fellow of Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management, NED Turning Point. VTB has previously received expenses for RCGP events, Nuffield Trust events and HSJ events. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Aim: To explore the implications for dentists and family doctors of the association between periodontal and systemic diseases and the role of dentists and family doctors in managing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and promoting healthy lifestyles., Materials and Methods: The consensus reports of the previous Focused Workshops on the associations between periodontitis and diabetes (2017) and periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases (2019) formed the technical reviews to underpin discussions on both topics. For the association with respiratory diseases, a systematic review was specifically commissioned for the Workshop discussions. Working groups prepared proposals independently, and then the proposals were discussed and approved at plenary meetings., Results: Periodontitis is independently associated with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea and COVID-19 complications. Dentists and family doctors should collaborate in managing NCDs, implementing strategies for early detection of periodontitis in primary care centres and of cardiovascular diseases or diabetes in dental settings. Family doctors should be informed about periodontal diseases and their consequences, and oral health professionals (OHPs) should be informed about the relevance of NCDs and the associated risk factors., Conclusions: Closer collaboration between OHPs and family doctors is important in the early detection and management of NCDs and in promoting healthy lifestyles. Pathways for early case detection of periodontitis in family medicine practices and of NCDs in dental practices should be developed and evaluated., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Periodontology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Antihypertensives are effective at reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but limited data exist quantifying their association with serious adverse events, particularly in older people with frailty. This study aimed to examine this association using nationally representative electronic health record data., Methods and Findings: This was a retrospective cohort study utilising linked data from 1,256 general practices across England held within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1998 and 2018. Included patients were aged 40+ years, with a systolic blood pressure reading between 130 and 179 mm Hg, and not previously prescribed antihypertensive treatment. The main exposure was defined as a first prescription of antihypertensive treatment. The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death within 10 years from falls. Secondary outcomes were hypotension, syncope, fractures, acute kidney injury, electrolyte abnormalities, and primary care attendance with gout. The association between treatment and these serious adverse events was examined by Cox regression adjusted for propensity score. This propensity score was generated from a multivariable logistic regression model with patient characteristics, medical history and medication prescriptions as covariates, and new antihypertensive treatment as the outcome. Subgroup analyses were undertaken by age and frailty. Of 3,834,056 patients followed for a median of 7.1 years, 484,187 (12.6%) were prescribed new antihypertensive treatment in the 12 months before the index date (baseline). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation or death from falls (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.26), hypotension (aHR 1.32, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35), syncope (aHR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.22), acute kidney injury (aHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.47), electrolyte abnormalities (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48), and primary care attendance with gout (aHR 1.35, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.37). The absolute risk of serious adverse events with treatment was very low, with 6 fall events per 10,000 patients treated per year. In older patients (80 to 89 years) and those with severe frailty, this absolute risk was increased, with 61 and 84 fall events per 10,000 patients treated per year (respectively). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses using different approaches to address confounding and taking into account the competing risk of death. A strength of this analysis is that it provides evidence regarding the association between antihypertensive treatment and serious adverse events, in a population of patients more representative than those enrolled in previous randomised controlled trials. Although treatment effect estimates fell within the 95% CIs of those from such trials, these analyses were observational in nature and so bias from unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out., Conclusions: Antihypertensive treatment was associated with serious adverse events. Overall, the absolute risk of this harm was low, with the exception of older patients and those with moderate to severe frailty, where the risks were similar to the likelihood of benefit from treatment. In these populations, physicians may want to consider alternative approaches to management of blood pressure and refrain from prescribing new treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Sheppard et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Behavioral weight management programs (BWMPs) enhance weight loss in the short term, but longer term cardiometabolic effects are uncertain as weight is commonly regained. We assessed the impact of weight regain after BWMPs on cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease., Methods: Trial registries, 11 databases, and forward-citation searching (latest search, December 19) were used to identify articles published in English, from any geographical region. Randomized trials of BWMPs in adults with overweight/obesity reporting cardiometabolic outcomes at ≥12 months at and after program end were included. Differences between more intensive interventions and comparator groups were synthesized using mixed-effects, meta-regression, and time-to-event models to assess the impact of weight regain on cardiovascular disease incidence and risk., Results: One hundred twenty-four trials reporting on ≥1 cardiometabolic outcomes with a median follow-up of 28 (range, 11-360) months after program end were included. Median baseline participant body mass index was 33 kg/m 2 ; median age was 51 years. Eight and 15 study arms (7889 and 4202 participants, respectively) examined the incidence of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, respectively, with imprecise evidence of a lower incidence for at least 5 years. Weight regain in BWMPs relative to comparators reduced these differences. One and 5 years after program end, total cholesterol/HDL (high-density lipoprotein) ratio was 1.5 points lower at both times (82 studies; 19 003 participants), systolic blood pressure was 1.5 mm mercury and 0.4 mm lower (84 studies; 30 836 participants), and HbA1c (%) 0.38 lower at both times (94 studies; 28 083 participants). Of the included studies, 22% were judged at high risk of bias; removing these did not meaningfully change results., Conclusions: Despite weight regain, BWMPs reduce cardiometabolic risk factors with effects lasting at least 5 years after program end and dwindling with weight regain. Evidence that they reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease or diabetes is less certain. Few studies followed participants for ≥5 years., Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42018105744.

Background: Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been shown to provide protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and death. However, some evidence suggests that notable waning in effectiveness against these outcomes occurs within months of vaccination. We undertook a pooled analysis across the four nations of the UK to investigate waning in vaccine effectiveness (VE) and relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against severe COVID-19 outcomes., Methods: We carried out a target trial design for first/second doses of ChAdOx1(Oxford-AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) with a composite outcome of COVID-19 hospitalization or death over the period 8 December 2020 to 30 June 2021. Exposure groups were matched by age, local authority area and propensity for vaccination. We pooled event counts across the four UK nations., Results: For Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1 and Dose 1 of BNT162b2, VE/rVE reached zero by approximately Days 60-80 and then went negative. By Day 70, VE/rVE was -25% (95% CI: -80 to 14) and 10% (95% CI: -32 to 39) for Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1, respectively, and 42% (95% CI: 9 to 64) and 53% (95% CI: 26 to 70) for Doses 1 and 2 of BNT162b2, respectively. rVE for Dose 2 of BNT162b2 remained above zero throughout and reached 46% (95% CI: 13 to 67) after 98 days of follow-up., Conclusions: We found strong evidence of waning in VE/rVE for Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1, as well as Dose 1 of BNT162b2. This evidence may be used to inform policies on timings of additional doses of vaccine., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

Despite marked progress in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF), detecting AF remains difficult and AF-related complications cause unacceptable morbidity and mortality even on optimal current therapy. This document summarizes the key outcomes of the 8th AFNET/EHRA Consensus Conference of the Atrial Fibrillation NETwork (AFNET) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eighty-three international experts met in Hamburg for 2 days in October 2021. Results of the interdisciplinary, hybrid discussions in breakout groups and the plenary based on recently published and unpublished observations are summarized in this consensus paper to support improved care for patients with AF by guiding prevention, individualized management, and research strategies. The main outcomes are (i) new evidence supports a simple, scalable, and pragmatic population-based AF screening pathway; (ii) rhythm management is evolving from therapy aimed at improving symptoms to an integrated domain in the prevention of AF-related outcomes, especially in patients with recently diagnosed AF; (iii) improved characterization of atrial cardiomyopathy may help to identify patients in need for therapy; (iv) standardized assessment of cognitive function in patients with AF could lead to improvement in patient outcomes; and (v) artificial intelligence (AI) can support all of the above aims, but requires advanced interdisciplinary knowledge and collaboration as well as a better medico-legal framework. Implementation of new evidence-based approaches to AF screening and rhythm management can improve outcomes in patients with AF. Additional benefits are possible with further efforts to identify and target atrial cardiomyopathy and cognitive impairment, which can be facilitated by AI., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: RBS has received lecture fees and advisory board fees from BMS/Pfizer outside this work and has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No 648131, from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No 847770 (AFFECT-EU) and German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK e.V.) (8121710103); German Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF 01ZX1408A) and ERACoSysMed3 (031L0239).EAM is employee of Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH producing and marketing an oral anticoagulant (edoxaban). EA has received consulting / speaker fees for Biosense Webster. GB has received speaker's fees of small amount from Boston, Bayer, Daiichi, Boehringer. SB is consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Microport, and Zoll. JC has received consulting fees / honoraria fees from Acesion, Allergan, Alta Thera, Arca, lncarda, Menarini, Milestone, Sanofi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Lilly, Medtronic, Johnson and Johnson. BC has received in kind contribution for research Support from iRhythm. WC has received advisory board fees for Roche Diagnostics AG. MDM is employee of Medtronic. SZB has received fees as member of Advisory Board in Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer. DD has received fees from Abbott, Astra Zenica, Bayer, Bosten Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, Medtonic, Zoll. LE has received lecture Honoria from Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichy Sankyo, Bayer, MMS, Pfizer, Sanofi and received research grants from DFG and DGK. CE is employee of Preventicus GmbH. LF has received institutional research grants and non-financial support from European Union, DFG, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council (UK), NIHR, and several biomedical companies. The Institute of Cardiovascular Research, University of Birmingham, has received an Accelerator Award by the British Heart Foundation M/18/2/34218. LF is listed as inventor of two patents held by University of Birmingham (Atrial Fibrillation Therapy WO 2015140571, Markers for Atrial Fibrillation WO 2016012783). BF receiving fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Omron. (largely speaker fees and travel support for speaking at session or official satellites of large international/continental society meetings) and investigator-initiated research grants to the institution from Bristol-Myers and Squibb and Pfizer Alliance and Ownership / Employee of Nil. LG and AZ are employees of Roche Diagnostics International Ltd. AG has received funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zenica, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, Viola, Medtonic, Berlin Charitè. JHS has received Advisory board fees in Medtronic and Speaker fee from Medtronic. KGH has received fees from Abbott, Alexion, AMARIN, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pfizer, Premier Research, SUN Pharma and W. L. Gare & Associates and Research Grants from Bayer Vital, Sanofi-Aventis. JSH received fees from Boston Scientific, Servier, Bayer, Myokardia, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Abbott. HH has received lecture and consultancy fees from Abbott, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers-Squibb- Pfizer, Medscape, Daiichi Sankyo, Springer Healthcare Ltd and receive un conditional research grants through the Univerity of Antwerp and/or University of Hasselt from Abbott, Bayer, Biotronik, Biosense-Webster, Fibrickeck/Qompium, Medtronic, Bristol-Myers-Squibb- Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo and Boehringer Ingelheim. RH has received speacker fees from BI, Bayer and Bristol-Myers-Squibb- Pfizer and AZ. TH is CEO of Preventicus GmbH. DK has received funding from Bayer, AtriCure, Protherics Medicines Development and Myokardia and Research grant from rants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR CDF-2015-08-074 RATE-AF; NIHR HTA-130280 DaRe2THINK; NIHR EME- 132974 D2T-NV), the British Heart Foundation (PG/17/55/33087 and AA/18/2/34218), EU/EFPIA IMI (BigData@Heart 116074),the European Society of Cardiology supported by educationalgrants from Boehringer Ingelheim/BMS-Pfizer Alliance/Bayer/Daiichi Sankyo/Boston Scientific, the NIHR/the University of Ox- ford Biomedical Research Centre, and British Heart Foundation/ the University of Birmingham Accelerator Award (STEEER-AF NCT04396418), Amomed Pharma, and IRCCS San Raffaele/Menarini (beta-blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group NCT0083244). MK is employee of Bristol-Myers and Squibb. CL has received fees from medtonic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik and Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer and research grants from Rennes Univerity, Metronik, Biotonik and Boston Scientific. DL has received research grant for EHRA-PATHS, NovoNordisk Young Investigator Award. MLL has received lecture fees from Bristol-Myers and Squibb and research grant from H2020 AFFECT-EU (grant No. 847770). SM has received research grant from Daiichi Sankyo (EPDAURUS IIT) and Bristol-Myers and Squibb (APPROACH ACS AF IIT). JLM has received Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Microport and received research grants from Medtronic, Abbott, Microport, Biosense. RM is employee of Medtronic. LM is Stockholder for Galgomedical and Corify and receiving consuting fees from Abbott, Biosense-Webster, Bosten Scientific, Medtronik and receiving research grants from Abbott, Biosense-Webster, Bosten Scientific, Medtronik. LN has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer. GP is employee of Bayer AG. HP has received consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense-Webster, Bosten Scientific, Medtronik and receiving research grants from Abbott, Bayer, Biosense-Webster, Bosten Scientific, Medtronik, Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer. MR has received consulting fees for Medtonic, Arca BiopharmaInc, Roche and received research grants from Dutch Heart Foundation: RACE V, RED-CVD, CVON-AI, DECISION studies; grant from SJM/Abbott to institution: VIP-HF study; Grant for Medtronic to institution: Cryoballoon AF registry/biobank study. The other authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.LR has received research grants from Canadian Insititute of Health research and Byer Inc. U.S. received consultancy fees or honoraria from Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI, Switzerland), Roche Diagnostics (Switzerland), EP Solutions Inc. (Switzerland), Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, (United Kingdom), Bayer Healthcare (Germany). U.S. is co-founder and shareholder of YourRhythmics BV, a spin-off company of the University Maastricht and Research grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation (CVON RACE V, CVON2014–09) European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program granted to MS under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement #813716 (TRAIN-HEART Innovative Training Network), and various other programs of the European Union granted to US (ITN Network Personalize AF: Personalized Therapies for Atrial Fibrillation: a translational network – grant #860974; CATCH ME: Characterizing Atrial fibrillation by Translating its Causes into Health Modifiers in the Elderly – grant #633196; MAESTRIA: Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence Early Detection Stroke Atrial Fibrillation – grant #965286; REPAIR: Restoring cardiac mechanical function by polymeric artificial muscular tissue – grant #952166). DS has received consultation fees from Biosense Webster, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Consultant with stock option: SentiAR, Arga Medtech. RS is employee of Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH. DS has received consultation fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott and Research grant from Biosense Webster. ES has received lecture fees from Bayer, Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Sanofi. DT has received lecture fees from Bayer Vital, Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtonic, Zoll CMS, Sanofi, St. Jude Medical and research grant from Daiichi Sankyo. MTH is employee/owner of American Foundation of women's Health /StopAfib.org and employee/owner of True Hills Inc.. BV is employee of Bayer AG. RW has received consultation fees from Boston Scientific, Biotronic, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Adagio Medical and Research grant from Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer, Boston Scientific. CW has received consulation fees from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Novartis and research grant from BMBF, AFNET, DZHK, Biotronik. MW is employee and shareholder of Sanofi. SW has received Consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and research grant from Boston Scientific. HW is employee and stockholder of Pfizer Germany. MDZ has received advisory and speaker fee from Bristol-Myers and Squibb- Pfizer. PK reports grants and non-financial support from BMBF (German Ministry of Education and Research), grants from Sanofi and Abbott, grants and non-financial support from EHRA (European Heart Rhythm Association), and grants from German Heart Foundation and DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), during the conduct of the study, and grants from European Union, British Heart Foundation, Leducq Foundation, Medical Research Council (UK), and non-financial support from German Centre for Heart Research, outside the submitted work; in addition, P.K. has a patent Atrial Fibrillation Therapy WO 2015140571 issued to University of Birmingham and a patent Markers for Atrial Fibrillation WO 2016012783 issued to University of Birmingham., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: We used data from a recent systematic review to investigate weight regain after behavioural weight management programmes (BWMPs, sometimes referred to as lifestyle modification programmes) and its impact on quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness., Materials and Methods: Trial registries, databases and forward-citation searching (latest search December 2019) were used to identify randomized trials of BWMPs in adults with overweight/obesity reporting outcomes at ≥12 months, and after programme end. Two independent reviewers screened records. One reviewer extracted data and a second checked them. The differences between intervention and control groups were synthesized using mixed-effect, meta-regression and time-to-event models. We examined associations between weight difference and difference in quality-of-life. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from a health sector perspective., Results: In total, 155 trials (n > 150 000) contributed to analyses. The longest follow-up was 23 years post-programme. At programme end, intervention groups achieved -2.8 kg (95%CI -3.2 to -2.4) greater weight loss than controls. Weight regain after programme end was 0.12-0.32 kg/year greater in intervention relative to control groups, with a between-group difference evident for at least 5 years. Quality-of-life increased in intervention groups relative to control at programme end and thereafter returned to control as the difference in weight between groups diminished. BWMPs with this initial weight loss and subsequent regain would be cost-effective if delivered for under £560 (£8.80-£3900) per person., Conclusions: Modest rates of weight regain, with persistent benefits for several years, should encourage health care practitioners and policymakers to offer obesity treatments that cost less than our suggested thresholds as a cost-effective intervention to improve long-term weight management., Registration: The review is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42018105744., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: Heart failure (HF) impairs all aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but little is known about the effect of developing HF on HRQoL over time. We aimed to report changes in HRQoL over a 13-year period., Methods and Results: HRQoL was measured in the Echocardiographic Heart of England Screening (ECHOES) study and the ECHOES-X follow-up study (N = 1618) using the SF-36 questionnaire (Version 1). Mixed modelling compared changes in HRQoL across diagnostic groups, adjusting for potential predictors and design variables. Patients who had developed HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) at rescreening had significantly greater reduction in physical functioning (PF) and role physical (RP) scores compared with those without HF; adjusted mean difference in PF: HFrEF -16.1, [95% confidence interval (CI) -22.2 to -10.1]; HFpEF -14.6, (95% CI -21.2 to -8.1); in RP: HFrEF -20.7, (95% CI -31.8 to -9.7); HFpEF -19.3, (95% CI -31.0 to -7.6). Changes in HRQoL of those with a HF diagnosis at baseline and rescreen, with exception of role emotion, were similar to those without HF but started from a much lower baseline score., Conclusions: People with a new diagnosis of HF at rescreening had a significant reduction in HRQoL. Conversely, for those with HF detected on initial screening, little change was observed in HRQoL scores on rescreening. Further research is required to understand the development of HF over time and to test interventions designed to prevent decline in HRQoL, potentially through earlier diagnosis and treatment optimization., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population., Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir., Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community., Funding: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England from October, 2017, to March, 2022, and reports lecture fees from Gilead and fees for participation on an advisory board for F Hoffmann-La Roche. KH is a member of the Health Technology Assessment General Committee and Funding Strategy Group, and Research Professors Funding Committee at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), received a grant from AstraZeneca (paid to their institution) to support a trial of Evusheld for the prevention of COVID-19 in high-risk individuals, and is an independent member of the independent data monitoring committee for the OCTAVE-DUO trial of vaccines in individuals at high risk of COVID-19. DML has received grants or contracts from LifeArc, the UK Medical Research Council, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, and Blood Cancer UK, personal fees or honoraria from Biotest UK, Gilead, and Merck, consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to their institution), and conference support from Octapharma. DBR has received consulting fees from OMASS Therapeutics and has a leadership and fiduciary role in the Heal-COVID trial TMG. BRS, JM, MAD, CTS, NSB, and MF report grant money paid to their employer from the University of Oxford for the statistical design and analyses of the PANORAMIC trial. JM has also participated on data and safety monitoring boards as part of his employment with Berry Consultants. ML is a member of the data monitoring and ethics committee of RAPIS-TEST (NIHR efficacy and mechanism evaluation). SK reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, Vir, Merck, the UK Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all paid to his institution), speaker's honoraria from ViiV, and donations of drugs for clinical studies from ViiV Healthcare, Toyama, and GlaxoSmithKline. JFS has participated on a data safety monitoring board for GlaxoSmithKline. MA has received grants from the Blood and Transplant Research Unit, Janssen, Pfizer, Prenetics, Dunhill Medical Trust, the BMA Trust (Kathleen Harper Fund), and Antibiotic Research UK (all of which were paid to their institution), and consultancy fees from Prenetics and OxDx. MA reports a planned patent for Ramanomics, has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Prenetics, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the E3 Initiative. NPBT has received payment for participation on an advisory board from MSD (before any knowledge or planning of this trial). OvH has received consulting fees from MindGap (fees paid to Oxford University lnnovation), has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for the CHICO trial, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. AU has received consulting fees and payment or honoraria from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, and Gilead. NF has received consulting fees from Abbott Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline, is a member of the PRINCIPLE trial data safety monitoring board and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment General Funding Committee, and has stocks in Synairgen. JB has received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to her institution). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Simple blood tests can play an important role in identifying patients for cancer investigation. The current evidence base is limited almost entirely to tests used in isolation. However, recent evidence suggests combining multiple types of blood tests and investigating trends in blood test results over time could be more useful to select patients for further cancer investigation. Such trends could increase cancer yield and reduce unnecessary referrals. We aim to explore whether trends in blood test results are more useful than symptoms or single blood test results in selecting primary care patients for cancer investigation. We aim to develop clinical prediction models that incorporate trends in blood tests to identify the risk of cancer., Methods: Primary care electronic health record data from the English Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum primary care database will be accessed and linked to cancer registrations and secondary care datasets. Using a cohort study design, we will describe patterns in blood testing (aim 1) and explore associations between covariates and trends in blood tests with cancer using mixed-effects, Cox, and dynamic models (aim 2). To build the predictive models for the risk of cancer, we will use dynamic risk modelling (such as multivariate joint modelling) and machine learning, incorporating simultaneous trends in multiple blood tests, together with other covariates (aim 3). Model performance will be assessed using various performance measures, including c-statistic and calibration plots., Discussion: These models will form decision rules to help general practitioners find patients who need a referral for further investigation of cancer. This could increase cancer yield, reduce unnecessary referrals, and give more patients the opportunity for treatment and improved outcomes., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aim: To estimate the health economic impact of undertaking urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) testing versus no UACR testing in early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Methods: An economic model, taking a UK healthcare system perspective, estimated the impact of UACR testing on additional costs, clinical benefits measured as prevented dialyses and cardiovascular-related deaths, life years gained (LYg), LYg before kidney failure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sixteen of the 18 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) heatmap categories were considered separately, and grouped in health states according to CKD risk. Results were derived for current standard-of-care and emerging CKD therapies., Results: The cohort that adhered to both UACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) testing guidelines in early stages of CKD ( n  = 1000) was associated with approximately 500 LYg before kidney failure onset; costing approximately £2.5 M. ICERs across the KDIGO heatmap categories were approximately £5,000., Limitations: This model used data from a comprehensive meta-analysis that was initiated more than 10 years ago (2009). While this was the most comprehensive source identified, recent changes in the treatment landscape, patient population and social determinants of CKD will not be captured. Furthermore, a narrow approach was taken, aligning included costs with UK NHS reference materials. This means that some direct and indirect drivers of costs in late-stage disease have been excluded., Conclusions: UACR testing in the early stages of CKD is cost effective in T2D patients. Emerging therapies with the potential to slow CKD progression, mean that optimal monitoring through UACR/eGFR testing will become increasingly important for accurate identification and timely treatment initiation, particularly for the highest-risk A3 category.

Background: The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) is one of Europe's oldest sentinel systems, working with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and its predecessor bodies for 55 years. Its surveillance report now runs twice weekly, supplemented by online observatories. In addition to conducting sentinel surveillance from a nationally representative group of practices, the RSC is now also providing data for syndromic surveillance., Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the cohort profile at the start of the 2021-2022 surveillance season and recent changes to our surveillance practice., Methods: The RSC's pseudonymized primary care data, linked to hospital and other data, are held in the Oxford-RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, a Trusted Research Environment. We describe the RSC's cohort profile as of September 2021, divided into a Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC)-collecting virological and serological specimens-and a larger group of syndromic surveillance general practices (SSGPs). We report changes to our sampling strategy that brings the RSC into alignment with European Centre for Disease Control guidance and then compare our cohort's sociodemographic characteristics with Office for National Statistics data. We further describe influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coverage for the 2020-2021 season (week 40 of 2020 to week 39 of 2021), with the latter differentiated by vaccine brand. Finally, we report COVID-19-related outcomes in terms of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death., Results: As a response to COVID-19, the RSC grew from just over 500 PCSC practices in 2019 to 1879 practices in 2021 (PCSC, n=938; SSGP, n=1203). This represents 28.6% of English general practices and 30.59% (17,299,780/56,550,136) of the population. In the reporting period, the PCSC collected >8000 virology and >23,000 serology samples. The RSC population was broadly representative of the national population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, National Health Service Region, socioeconomic status, obesity, and smoking habit. The RSC captured vaccine coverage data for influenza (n=5.4 million) and COVID-19, reporting dose one (n=11.9 million), two (n=11 million), and three (n=0.4 million) for the latter as well as brand-specific uptake data (AstraZeneca vaccine, n=11.6 million; Pfizer, n=10.8 million; and Moderna, n=0.7 million). The median (IQR) number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and ICU admissions was 1181 (559-1559) and 115 (50-174) per week, respectively., Conclusions: The RSC is broadly representative of the national population; its PCSC is geographically representative and its SSGPs are newly supporting UKHSA syndromic surveillance efforts. The network captures vaccine coverage and has expanded from reporting primary care attendances to providing data on onward hospital outcomes and deaths. The challenge remains to increase virological and serological sampling to monitor the effectiveness and waning of all vaccines available in a timely manner., (©Meredith Leston, William H Elson, Conall Watson, Anissa Lakhani, Carole Aspden, Clare R Bankhead, Ray Borrow, Elizabeth Button, Rachel Byford, Alex J Elliot, Xuejuan Fan, Uy Hoang, Ezra Linley, Jack Macartney, Brian D Nicholson, Cecilia Okusi, Mary Ramsay, Gillian Smith, Sue Smith, Mark Thomas, Dan Todkill, Ruby SM Tsang, William Victor, Alice J Williams, John Williams, Maria Zambon, Gary Howsam, Gayatri Amirthalingam, Jamie Lopez-Bernal, F D Richard Hobbs, Simon de Lusignan. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 19.12.2022.)

Analysis of urine samples using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) has previously revealed high rates of non-adherence to antihypertensive medication. It is unclear whether these rates represent those in the general population. This study aimed to investigate whether it is feasible to collect urine samples in a primary care setting and analyse them using LC-MS/MS to detect non-adherence to antihypertensive medication. This study used a prospective, observational cohort design. Consecutive patients were recruited opportunistically from five general practices in UK primary care. They were aged ≥65 years with hypertension and had at least one antihypertensive prescription. Participants were asked to provide a urine sample for analysis of medication adherence. Samples were sent to a laboratory via post and analysed using LC-MS/MS. Predictors of adherence to medication were explored with multivariable logistic regression. Of 349 consecutive patients approached for the study, 214 (61.3%) gave informed consent and 191 (54.7%) provided a valid urine sample for analysis. Participants were aged 76.2 ± 6.6 years and taking a median of 2 antihypertensive medications (IQR 1-3). A total of 27/191 participants (14.2%) reported not taking all of their medications on the day of urine sample collection. However, LC-MS/MS analysis of samples revealed only 4/27 (9/191 in total; 4.7%) were non-adherent to some of their medications. Patients prescribed more antihypertensive medications were less likely to be adherent (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.09-0.65). Biochemical testing for antihypertensive medication adherence is feasible in routine primary care, although non-adherence to medication is generally low, and therefore widespread testing is not indicated., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding., Methods: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96., Findings: Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9-6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41-2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62-4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14-0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55-3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients)., Interpretation: H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CH reports research funding from the Cancer Research UK AsCaP Catalyst Collaboration (A24991), and consulting fees from Kallyope. CH and JD report research funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme for the ALL-HEART (11/36/41) and ATTACK (16/31/127) studies. FDRH reports part-funding from the NIHR School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Health Research and Care (CLARHC) Oxford, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), and the NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. GR chairs and has received funding from the CanTest Collaborative, a Cancer Research UK Catalyst programme of research (C8640/A23385). AA is National Clinical Director for Prescribing (National Health Service England). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is an important measure of disease burden and general health perception. The relationship between early chronic kidney disease (CKD) and QoL remains poorly understood. The Oxford Renal Study (OxRen) cohort comprises 1063 adults aged ≥60 years from UK primary care practices screened for early CKD, grouped according to existing or screen-detected CKD diagnoses, or biochemistry results indicative of reduced renal function (referred to as transient estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction)., Objectives: This study aimed to compare QoL in participants known to have CKD at recruitment to those identified as having CKD through a screening programme., Methods: Health profile data and multi-attribute utility scores were reported for two generic questionnaires: 5-level EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A). QoL was compared between patients with existing and screen-detected CKD; those with transient eGFR reduction served as the reference group in univariable and multivariable linear regression., Results: Mean and standard deviation utility scores were not significantly different between the subgroups for EQ-5D-5L (screen-detected:0.785±0.156, n = 480, transient:0.779±0.157, n = 261, existing CKD:0.763±0.171, n = 322, p = 0.216) or ICECAP-A (screen-detected:0.909±0.094, transient:0.904±0.110, existing CKD:0.894±0.115, p = 0.200). Age, smoking status, and number of comorbidities were identified as independent predictors of QoL in this cohort., Conclusion: QoL of participants with existing CKD diagnoses was not significantly different from those with screen-detected CKD or transient eGFR reduction and was similar to UK mean scores for the same age, suggesting that patient burden of early CKD is minor. Moreover, CKD-related comorbidities contribute more significantly to disease burden in earlier stages of CKD than renal function per se. Larger prospective studies are required to define the relationship between QoL and CKD progression more precisely. These data also confirm the essentially asymptomatic nature of CKD, implying that routine screening or case finding are required to diagnose it., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FDRH reports fees or grants from Novartis, fees or other from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer outside the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.