Search

Background COVID-19 vaccines approved in the UK are highly effective in general population cohorts, however, data on effectiveness amongst individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of severe disease are limited. Methods We used GP electronic health record data, sentinel virology swabbing and antibody testing within a cohort of 712 general practices across England to estimate vaccine antibody response and vaccine effectiveness against medically attended COVID-19 amongst individuals in clinical risk groups using cohort and test-negative case control designs. Findings There was no reduction in S-antibody positivity in most clinical risk groups, however reduced S-antibody positivity and response was significant in the immunosuppressed group. Reduced vaccine effectiveness against clinical disease was also noted in the immunosuppressed group; after a second dose, effectiveness was moderate (Pfizer: 59.6%, 95%CI 18.0-80.1%; AstraZeneca 60.0%, 95%CI -63.6-90.2%). Interpretation In most clinical risk groups, immune response to primary vaccination was maintained and high levels of vaccine effectiveness were seen. Reduced antibody response and vaccine effectiveness were seen after 1 dose of vaccine amongst a broad immunosuppressed group, and second dose vaccine effectiveness was moderate. These findings support maximising coverage in immunosuppressed individuals and the policy of prioritisation of this group for third doses., 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., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Polypharmacy is inevitable and appropriate for many conditions, but in some cases, it can be problematic resulting in an increased risk of harm and reduced quality of life. There has been an increasing interest to reduce cardioprotective medications in older adults to potentially reduce the risk of harm due to treatment; however, there is no evidence on safety and efficacy to support this practice currently. This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review on the safety and efficacy of reducing cardioprotective medication in older populations., Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched from their inception onwards for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies on interventions (prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control) conducted in older adults (75 years or older) examining reduction of cardioprotective medications will be included. The primary outcome of this study will be all-cause hospitalisation. Secondary outcome variables of interest are all-cause hospitalisation, mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events, falls, fractures, cognitive functioning, bleeding events, renal functioning, medication burden, drug reinstatement, time-in-hospital, and frailty status. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach; the risk of bias will be assessed by the RoB-II tool for randomised controlled studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Where sufficient data are available, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis by combining the outcomes of the included studies. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression are planned to assess the potential harms and risks of different drug classes and the impacts in different patient populations (e.g. sex, cognitive status, renal status, and age)., Discussion: The study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles identified using our search strategy on the safety and efficacy of cardioprotective medication reduction in the older population. The findings will be crucial to inform clinicians on potential health outcomes of reducing cardiovascular medication in the elderly., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020208223.

Objective: To explore the role of the novel cardiac output response to stress (CORS), test in the current diagnostic pathway for heart failure and the opportunities and challenges to potential implementation in primary care., Design: Qualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data from the interviews were analysed thematically using an inductive approach., Setting: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK., Participants: Fourteen healthcare professionals (six males, eight females) from primary (general practitioners (GPs), nurses, healthcare assistant, practice managers) and secondary care (consultant cardiologists)., Results: Four themes relating to opportunities and challenges surrounding the implementation of the new diagnostic technology were identified. These reflected that the adoption of CORS test would be an advantage to primary care but the test had barriers to implementation which include: establishment of clinical utility, suitability for immobile patients and cost implication to GP practices., Conclusion: The development of a simple non-invasive clinical test to accelerate the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care maybe helpful to reduce unnecessary referrals to secondary care. The CORS test has the potential to serve this purpose; however, factors such as cost effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy and seamless implementation in primary care have to be fully explored., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

In 2016, a new version of the European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Prevention was released, representing a partnership between the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and nine European societies, including Wonca-Europe. The ESC guidelines underscore the importance of a lifetime approach to cardiovascular (CV) risk since both CV risk and prevention are dynamic and continuous as patients' age and/or accumulate co-morbidities. Healthy people of all ages should be encouraged to adopt a healthy lifestyle, as well as improved lifestyle and reduced risk factor levels are paramount in patients at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and in those with established CVD. Healthcare professionals, and especially general practitioners, play an important role in helping patients achieve this and should set a personal example of healthy lifestyle behaviour. The ESC guidelines are based on 'to do' and 'not to do' messages. Of note, what remains uncertain is stated at the end of each dedicated chapter, confirming that guidelines are not absolute rules, and should be interpreted in the light of the healthcare worker's knowledge and experience, patient preferences and the local social, cultural and economic situation.

Aims: Primary care physicians lack access to an objective cardiac function test. This study for the first time describes a novel cardiac output response to stress (CORS) test developed to improve diagnosis and monitoring of heart failure in primary care and investigates its reproducibility., Methods and Results: Prospective observational study recruited 32 consecutive primary care patients (age, 63 ± 9 years; female, n = 18). Cardiac output was measured continuously using the bioreactance method in supine and standing positions and during two 3 min stages of a step-exercise protocol (10 and 15 steps per minute) using a 15 cm height bench. The CORS test was performed on two occasions, i.e. Test 1 and Test 2. There was no significant difference between repeated measures of cardiac output and stroke volume at supine standing and Stage 1 and Stage 2 step exercises (all P > 0.3). There was a significant positive relationship between Test 1 and Test 2 cardiac outputs (r = 0.92, P = 0.01 with coefficient of variation of 7.1%). The mean difference in cardiac output (with upper and lower limits of agreement) between Test 1 and Test 2 was 0.1 (-1.9 to 2.1) L/min, combining supine, standing, and step-exercise data., Conclusions: The CORS, as a novel test for objective evaluation of cardiac function, demonstrates acceptable reproducibility and can potentially be implemented in primary care., (© 2018 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)