Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial.

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Two-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine protection against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths over time: a retrospective, population-based cohort study in Scotland and Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. METHODS: We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 16 208 600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 13 836 390 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45-3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07-9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions-in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53-6·09])-and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90-4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·58]). INTERPRETATION: Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. FUNDING: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.

Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19-EAVE II-database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1-adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85-94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75-94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72-89 at 28-34 days post-vaccination). INTERPRETATION: Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK.

External validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality in adults: national validation cohort study in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: The QCovid algorithm is a risk prediction tool that can be used to stratify individuals by risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. Version 1 of the algorithm was trained using data covering 10.5 million patients in England in the period 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. We carried out an external validation of version 1 of the QCovid algorithm in Scotland. METHODS: We established a national COVID-19 data platform using individual level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithm in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in our dataset for two time periods matching the original study: 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, and 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Our dataset comprised 5 384 819 individuals, representing 99% of the estimated population (5 463 300) resident in Scotland in 2020. The algorithm showed good calibration in the first period, but systematic overestimation of risk in the second period, prior to temporal recalibration. Harrell's C for deaths in females and males in the first period was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.93), respectively. Harrell's C for hospitalisations in females and males in the first period was 0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.82) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Version 1 of the QCovid algorithm showed high levels of discrimination in predicting the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in adults resident in Scotland for the original two time periods studied, but is likely to need ongoing recalibration prospectively.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging.

The EarlyCDT-Lung test is a high-specificity blood-based autoantibody biomarker that could contribute to predicting lung cancer risk. We report on the results of a phase IV biomarker evaluation of whether using the EarlyCDT-Lung test and any subsequent computed tomography (CT) scanning to identify those at high risk of lung cancer reduces the incidence of patients with stage III/IV/unspecified lung cancer at diagnosis compared with the standard clinical practice at the time the study began.The Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) trial was a randomised controlled trial of 12 208 participants at risk of developing lung cancer in Scotland in the UK. The intervention arm received the EarlyCDT-Lung test and, if test-positive, low-dose CT scanning 6-monthly for up to 2 years. EarlyCDT-Lung test-negative and control arm participants received standard clinical care. Outcomes were assessed at 2 years post-randomisation using validated data on cancer occurrence, cancer staging, mortality and comorbidities.At 2 years, 127 lung cancers were detected in the study population (1.0%). In the intervention arm, 33 out of 56 (58.9%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage III/IV compared with 52 out of 71 (73.2%) in the control arm. The hazard ratio for stage III/IV presentation was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99). There were nonsignificant differences in lung cancer and all-cause mortality after 2 years.ECLS compared EarlyCDT-Lung plus CT screening to standard clinical care (symptomatic presentation) and was not designed to assess the incremental contribution of the EarlyCDT-Lung test. The observation of a stage shift towards earlier-stage lung cancer diagnosis merits further investigations to evaluate whether the EarlyCDT-Lung test adds anything to the emerging standard of low-dose CT.

Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in People With Asthma: A National Test-Negative Design Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Influenza infection is a trigger of asthma attacks. Influenza vaccination can potentially reduce the incidence of influenza in people with asthma, but uptake remains persistently low, partially reflecting concerns about vaccine effectiveness (VE). METHODS: We conducted a test-negative designed case-control study to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in people with asthma in Scotland over 6 seasons (2010/2011 to 2015/2016). We used individual patient-level data from 223 practices, which yielded 1 830 772 patient-years of data that were linked with virological (n = 5910 swabs) data. RESULTS: Vaccination was associated with an overall 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.8-62.7) risk reduction of laboratory-confirmed influenza infections in people with asthma over 6 seasons. There were substantial variations in VE between seasons, influenza strains, and age groups. The highest VE (76.1%; 95% CI, 55.6-87.1) was found in the 2010/2011 season, when the A(H1N1) strain dominated and there was a good antigenic vaccine match. High protection was observed against the A(H1N1) (eg, 2010/2011; 70.7%; 95% CI, 32.5-87.3) and B strains (eg, 2010/2011; 83.2%; 95% CI, 44.3-94.9), but there was lower protection for the A(H3N2) strain (eg, 2014/2015; 26.4%; 95% CI, -12.0 to 51.6). The highest VE against all viral strains was observed in adults aged 18-54 years (57.0%; 95% CI, 42.3-68.0). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination gave meaningful protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza in people with asthma across all seasons. Strategies to boost influenza vaccine uptake have the potential to substantially reduce influenza-triggered asthma attacks.

Randomized trial of switching from prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prescribed celecoxib: the Standard care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT).

BACKGROUND: Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and conventional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) effects. We compared the CV safety of switching to celecoxib vs. continuing nsNSAID therapy in a European setting. METHOD: Patients aged 60 years and over with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established CV disease and taking chronic prescribed nsNSAIDs, were randomized to switch to celecoxib or to continue their previous nsNSAID. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for non-fatal myocardial infarction or other biomarker positive acute coronary syndrome, non-fatal stroke or CV death analysed using a Cox model with a pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 1.4 for the hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: In total, 7297 participants were randomized. During a median 3-year follow-up, fewer subjects than expected developed an on-treatment (OT) primary CV event and the rate was similar for celecoxib, 0.95 per 100 patient-years, and nsNSAIDs, 0.86 per 100 patient-years (HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.55; P = 0.50). Comparable intention-to-treat (ITT) rates were 1.14 per 100 patient-years with celecoxib and 1.10 per 100 patient-years with nsNSAIDs (HR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.33; P = 0.75). Pre-specified non-inferiority was achieved in the ITT analysis. The upper bound of the 95% confidence limit for the absolute increase in OT risk associated with celecoxib treatment was two primary events per 1000 patient-years exposure. There were only 15 adjudicated secondary upper gastrointestinal complication endpoints (0.078/100 patient-years on celecoxib vs. 0.053 on nsNSAIDs OT, 0.078 vs. 0.053 ITT). More gastrointestinal serious adverse reactions and haematological adverse reactions were reported on nsNSAIDs than celecoxib, but more patients withdrew from celecoxib than nsNSAIDs (50.9% patients vs. 30.2%; P < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In subjects 60 years and over, free from CV disease and taking prescribed chronic nsNSAIDs, CV events were infrequent and similar on celecoxib and nsNSAIDs. There was no advantage of a strategy of switching prescribed nsNSAIDs to prescribed celecoxib. This study excluded an increased risk of the primary endpoint of more than two events per 1000 patient-years associated with switching to prescribed celecoxib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00447759; Unique identifier: NCT00447759.

Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in persons with asthma and its impact on asthma outcomes, which may contribute to the suboptimal vaccination rates in persons with asthma. This systematic review and meta-analysis involved searching 12 international databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high-quality quasi-experimental and epidemiological studies (1970-2016). The risk of bias was low for 3 included RCTs. The quality of 3 included observational studies was moderate. The quality of evidence was very low for all study outcomes. Pooled vaccine effectiveness in 1825 persons with asthma from 2 test-negative design case-control studies was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31%-56%) for laboratory-confirmed influenza. Pooled efficacy of live vaccines in reducing influenza was 81% (95% CI, 33%- 94%). Live vaccine reduced febrile illness by 72% (95% CI, 20%-90%). Influenza vaccine prevented 59%-78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits and/or hospitalizations. For persons with asthma, influenza vaccination may be effective in both reducing influenza infection and asthma attacks.

Prevalence and risk factors for long COVID among adults in Scotland using electronic health records: a national, retrospective, observational cohort study.

Background: Long COVID is a debilitating multisystem condition. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of long COVID in the adult population of Scotland, and to identify risk factors associated with its development. Methods: In this national, retrospective, observational cohort study, we analysed electronic health records (EHRs) for all adults (≥18 years) registered with a general medical practice and resident in Scotland between March 1, 2020, and October 26, 2022 (98-99% of the population). We linked data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory testing and prescribing. Four outcome measures were used to identify long COVID: clinical codes, free text in primary care records, free text on sick notes, and a novel operational definition. The operational definition was developed using Poisson regression to identify clinical encounters indicative of long COVID from a sample of negative and positive COVID-19 cases matched on time-varying propensity to test positive for SARS-CoV-2. Possible risk factors for long COVID were identified by stratifying descriptive statistics by long COVID status. Findings: Of 4,676,390 participants, 81,219 (1.7%) were identified as having long COVID. Clinical codes identified the fewest cases (n = 1,092, 0.02%), followed by free text (n = 8,368, 0.2%), sick notes (n = 14,469, 0.3%), and the operational definition (n = 64,193, 1.4%). There was limited overlap in cases identified by the measures; however, temporal trends and patient characteristics were consistent across measures. Compared with the general population, a higher proportion of people with long COVID were female (65.1% versus 50.4%), aged 38-67 (63.7% versus 48.9%), overweight or obese (45.7% versus 29.4%), had one or more comorbidities (52.7% versus 36.0%), were immunosuppressed (6.9% versus 3.2%), shielding (7.9% versus 3.4%), or hospitalised within 28 days of testing positive (8.8% versus 3.3%%), and had tested positive before Omicron became the dominant variant (44.9% versus 35.9%). The operational definition identified long COVID cases with combinations of clinical encounters (from four symptoms, six investigation types, and seven management strategies) recorded in EHRs within 4-26 weeks of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. These combinations were significantly (p < 0.0001) more prevalent in positive COVID-19 patients than in matched negative controls. In a case-crossover analysis, 16.4% of those identified by the operational definition had similar healthcare patterns recorded before testing positive. Interpretation: The prevalence of long COVID presenting in general practice was estimated to be 0.02-1.7%, depending on the measure used. Due to challenges in diagnosing long COVID and inconsistent recording of information in EHRs, the true prevalence of long COVID is likely to be higher. The operational definition provided a novel approach but relied on a restricted set of symptoms and may misclassify individuals with pre-existing health conditions. Further research is needed to refine and validate this approach. Funding: Chief Scientist Office (Scotland), Medical Research Council, and BREATHE.

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol. Objective: To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Design: Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial. Setting: Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices. Participants: Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Interventions: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Results: From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a 'within trial' cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective. Limitations: The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis. Conclusions: The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Future work: The effects of allopurinol on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease and co-existing hyperuricaemia or clinical gout could be explored in future studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2013-003559-39) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN 32017426). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The purpose of the ALL-HEART study was to determine whether giving allopurinol to people with ischaemic heart disease (also commonly known as coronary heart disease) would reduce their risk of having a heart attack, stroke or of dying from cardiovascular disease. Allopurinol is a medication usually given to patients with gout to prevent acute gout flares. It is not currently used to treat ischaemic heart disease. We randomly allocated people aged over 60 years with ischaemic heart disease to take up to 600 mg of allopurinol daily (in addition to their usual care) or to continue with their usual care. We then monitored participants for several years and recorded any major health events such as heart attacks, strokes and deaths. We obtained most of the follow-up data from centrally held electronic hospital admissions and death records, making the study easier for participants and more cost-efficient. We asked participants in both groups to complete questionnaires to assess their quality of life during the study. We also collected data to determine whether there was any economic benefit to the NHS of using allopurinol in patients with ischaemic heart disease. There was no difference in the risk of heart attacks, strokes or death from cardiovascular disease between the participants given allopurinol and those in the group continuing their usual care. We also found no difference in the risks of other cardiovascular events, deaths from any cause or quality-of-life measurements between the allopurinol and usual care groups. The results of the ALL-HEART study suggest that we should not recommend that allopurinol be given to people with ischaemic heart disease to prevent further cardiovascular events or deaths.

Risk of winter hospitalisation and death from acute respiratory infections in Scotland: national retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We undertook a national analysis to characterise and identify risk factors for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) resulting in hospitalisation during the winter period in Scotland. DESIGN: A population-based retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 5.4 million residents in Scotland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between risk factors and ARI hospitalisation. RESULTS: Between 1 September 2022 and 31 January 2023, there were 22,284 (10.9% of 203,549 with any emergency hospitalisation) ARI hospitalisations (1759 in children and 20,525 in adults) in Scotland. Compared with the reference group of children aged 6-17 years, the risk of ARI hospitalisation was higher in children aged 3-5 years (aHR = 4.55; 95% CI: 4.11-5.04). Compared with those aged 25-29 years, the risk of ARI hospitalisation was highest among the oldest adults aged ≥80 years (aHR = 7.86; 95% CI: 7.06-8.76). Adults from more deprived areas (most deprived vs. least deprived, aHR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.57-1.72), with existing health conditions (≥5 vs. 0 health conditions, aHR = 4.84; 95% CI: 4.53-5.18) or with history of all-cause emergency admissions (≥6 vs. 0 previous emergency admissions, aHR = 7.53; 95% CI: 5.48-10.35) were at a higher risk of ARI hospitalisations. The risk increased by the number of existing health conditions and previous emergency admission. Similar associations were seen in children. CONCLUSIONS: Younger children, older adults, those from more deprived backgrounds and individuals with greater numbers of pre-existing conditions and previous emergency admission were at increased risk for winter hospitalisations for ARI.

Association between antibody responses post-vaccination and severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland.

Several population-level studies have described individual clinical risk factors associated with suboptimal antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination, but none have examined multimorbidity. Others have shown that suboptimal post-vaccination responses offer reduced protection to subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the level of protection from COVID-19 hospitalisation/death remains unconfirmed. We use national Scottish datasets to investigate the association between multimorbidity and testing antibody-negative, examining the correlation between antibody levels and subsequent COVID-19 hospitalisation/death among double-vaccinated individuals. We found that individuals with multimorbidity ( ≥ five conditions) were more likely to test antibody-negative post-vaccination and 13.37 [6.05-29.53] times more likely to be hospitalised/die from COVID-19 than individuals without conditions. We also show a dose-dependent association between post-vaccination antibody levels and COVID-19 hospitalisation or death, with those with undetectable antibody levels at a significantly higher risk (HR 9.21 [95% CI 4.63-18.29]) of these serious outcomes compared to those with high antibody levels.

Rationale and Design of SCOT-HEART 2 Trial: CT Angiography for the Prevention of Myocardial Infarction.

Coronary artery disease continues to be the leading cause of death globally. Identifying patients who are at risk of coronary artery disease remains a public health priority. At present, the focus of cardiovascular disease prevention relies heavily on probabilistic risk scoring despite no randomized controlled trials demonstrating their efficacy. The concept of using imaging to guide preventative therapy is not new, but has previously focused on indirect measures such as carotid intima-media thickening or coronary artery calcification. In recent trials, patients found to have coronary artery disease on computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography were more likely to be started on preventative therapy and had lower rates of cardiac events. This led to the design of the SCOT-HEART 2 (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart 2) trial, which aims to determine whether screening with the use of CT coronary angiography is more clinically effective than cardiovascular risk scoring to guide the use of primary preventative therapies and reduce the risk of myocardial infarction.

Understanding and reporting odds ratios as rate-ratio estimates in case-control studies.

Background: We noted that there remains some confusion in the health-science literature on reporting sample odds ratios as estimated rate ratios in case-control studies. Methods: We recap historical literature that definitively answered the question of when sample odds ratios (ORs) from a case-control study are consistent estimators for population rate ratios. We use numerical examples to illustrate the magnitude of the disparity between sample ORs in a case-control study and population rate ratios when sufficient conditions for them to be equal are not satisfied. Results: We stress that in a case-control study, sampling controls from those still at risk at the time of outcome event of the index case is not sufficient for a sample OR to be a consistent estimator for an intelligible rate ratio. In such studies, constancy of the exposure prevalence together with constancy of the hazard ratio (HR) (i.e., the instantaneous rate ratio) over time is sufficient for this result if sampling time is not controlled; if time is controlled, constancy of the HR will suffice. We present numerical examples to illustrate how failure to satisfy these conditions adds a small systematic error to sample ORs as estimates of population rate ratios. Conclusions: We recommend that researchers understand and critically evaluate all conditions used to interpret their estimates as consistent for a population parameter in case-control studies.

Predictors of incomplete COVID-19 vaccine schedule among adults in Scotland: Two retrospective cohort analyses of the primary schedule and third dose.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination continues to be the key public health measure for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Certain groups may be at higher risk of incomplete vaccine schedule, which may leave them vulnerable to COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. AIM: To identify the sociodemographic and clinical predictors for not receiving a scheduled COVID-19 vaccine after previously receiving one. METHODS: We conducted two retrospective cohort studies with ≥3.7 million adults aged ≥18 years in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of not receiving a second, and separately a third dose between December 2020 and May 2022. Independent variables included sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Of 3,826,797 people in the study population who received one dose, 3,732,596 (97.5%) received two doses, and 3,263,153 (86.5%) received all doses available during the study period. The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the second dose were: being aged 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years; aOR:4.26; 95% confidence interval (CI):4.14-4.37); hospitalisation due to a potential vaccine related adverse event of special interest (AESI) (reference: not having a potential AESI, aOR:3.78; 95%CI: 3.29-4.35); and living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile, aOR:3.24; 95%CI: 3.16-3.32). The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the third dose were: being 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years aOR:4.44; 95%CI: 4.38-4.49), living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile aOR:2.56; 95%CI: 2.53-2.59), and Black, Caribbean, or African ethnicity (reference: White ethnicity aOR:2.38; 95%CI: 2.30-2.46). Pregnancy, previous vaccination with mRNA-1273, smoking history, individual and household severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, and having an unvaccinated adult in the household were also associated with incomplete vaccine schedule. CONCLUSION: We observed several risk factors that predict incomplete COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Vaccination programmes must take immediate action to ensure maximum uptake, particularly for populations vulnerable to severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Scottish neonates 2020-2022: a national, population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine neonates in Scotland aged 0-27 days with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by viral testing; the risk of confirmed neonatal infection by maternal and infant characteristics; and hospital admissions associated with confirmed neonatal infections. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING AND POPULATION: All live births in Scotland, 1 March 2020-31 January 2022. RESULTS: There were 141 neonates with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over the study period, giving an overall infection rate of 153 per 100 000 live births (141/92 009, 0.15%). Among infants born to women with confirmed infection around the time of birth, the confirmed neonatal infection rate was 1812 per 100 000 live births (15/828, 1.8%). Two-thirds (92/141, 65.2%) of neonates with confirmed infection had an associated admission to neonatal or (more commonly) paediatric care. Six of these babies (6/92, 6.5%) were admitted to neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care; however, none of these six had COVID-19 recorded as their main diagnosis. There were no neonatal deaths among babies with confirmed infection. IMPLICATIONS AND RELEVANCE: Confirmed neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection was uncommon over the first 23 months of the pandemic in Scotland. Secular trends in the neonatal confirmed infection rate broadly followed those seen in the general population, although at a lower level. Maternal confirmed infection at birth was associated with an increased risk of neonatal confirmed infection. Two-thirds of neonates with confirmed infection had an associated admission to hospital, with resulting implications for the baby, family and services, although their outcomes were generally good. Ascertainment of confirmed infection depends on the extent of testing, and this is likely to have varied over time and between groups: the extent of unconfirmed infection is inevitably unknown.