Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Body mass index and survival in people with heart failure.

AIMS: In people with heart failure (HF), a high body mass index (BMI) has been linked with better outcomes ('obesity paradox'), but there is limited evidence in community populations across long-term follow-up. We aimed to examine the association between BMI and long-term survival in patients with HF in a large primary care cohort. METHODS: We included patients with incident HF aged ≥45 years from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2000-2017). We used Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression and penalised spline methods to assess the association of pre-diagnostic BMI, based on WHO classification, with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: There were 47 531 participants with HF (median age 78.0 years (IQR 70-84), 45.8% female, 79.0% white ethnicity, median BMI 27.1 (IQR 23.9-31.0)) and 25 013 (52.6%) died during follow-up. Compared with healthy weight, people with overweight (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.81, risk difference (RD) -4.1%), obesity class I (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80, RD -4.5%) and class II (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.81, RD -4.5%) were at decreased risk of death, whereas people with underweight were at increased risk (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.75, RD 11.2%). In those underweight, this risk was greater among men than women (p value for interaction=0.02). Class III obesity was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with overweight (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29). CONCLUSION: The U-shaped relationship between BMI and long-term all-cause mortality suggests a personalised approach to identifying optimal weight may be needed for patients with HF in primary care. Underweight people have the poorest prognosis and should be recognised as high-risk.

Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites. FINDINGS: 6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer. INTERPRETATION: This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms. FUNDING: GRAIL Bio UK.

Development of a modified Cambridge Multimorbidity Score for use with SNOMED CT: an observational English primary care sentinel network study.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple health conditions are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and greater care and service needs; a reliable measure of multimorbidity would inform management strategies and resource allocation. AIM: To develop and validate a modified version of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score in an extended age range, using clinical terms that are routinely used in electronic health records across the world (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms, SNOMED CT). DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study using diagnosis and prescriptions data from an English primary care sentinel surveillance network between 2014 and 2019. METHOD: In this study new variables describing 37 health conditions were curated and the associations modelled between these and 1-year mortality risk using the Cox proportional hazard model in a development dataset (n = 300 000). Two simplified models were then developed - a 20-condition model as per the original Cambridge Multimorbidity Score and a variable reduction model using backward elimination with Akaike information criterion as the stopping criterion. The results were compared and validated for 1-year mortality in a synchronous validation dataset (n = 150 000), and for 1-year and 5-year mortality in an asynchronous validation dataset (n = 150 000). RESULTS: The final variable reduction model retained 21 conditions, and the conditions mostly overlapped with those in the 20-condition model. The model performed similarly to the 37- and 20-condition models, showing high discrimination and good calibration following recalibration. CONCLUSION: This modified version of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score allows reliable estimation using clinical terms that can be applied internationally across multiple healthcare settings.

Predicting the risk of acute kidney injury in primary care: derivation and validation of STRATIFY-AKI.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensives reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease but are also associated with harms including acute kidney injury (AKI). Few data exist to guide clinical decision making regarding these risks. AIM: To develop a prediction model estimating the risk of AKI in people potentially indicated for antihypertensive treatment. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational cohort study using routine primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England. METHOD: People aged ≥40 years, with at least one blood pressure measurement between 130 mmHg and 179 mmHg were included. Outcomes were admission to hospital or death with AKI within 1, 5, and 10 years. The model was derived with data from CPRD GOLD (n = 1 772 618), using a Fine-Gray competing risks approach, with subsequent recalibration using pseudo-values. External validation used data from CPRD Aurum (n = 3 805 322). RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 59.4 years and 52% were female. The final model consisted of 27 predictors and showed good discrimination at 1, 5, and 10 years (C-statistic for 10-year risk 0.821, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.818 to 0.823). There was some overprediction at the highest predicted probabilities (ratio of observed to expected event probability for 10-year risk 0.633, 95% CI = 0.621 to 0.645), affecting patients with the highest risk. Most patients (>95%) had a low 1- to 5-year risk of AKI, and at 10 years only 0.1% of the population had a high AKI and low CVD risk. CONCLUSION: This clinical prediction model enables GPs to accurately identify patients at high risk of AKI, which will aid treatment decisions. As the vast majority of patients were at low risk, such a model may provide useful reassurance that most antihypertensive treatment is safe and appropriate while flagging the few for whom this is not the case.

Overestimation of anticoagulant benefit in patients with atrial fibrillation and low life expectancy: evidence from 12 randomized trials.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a high rate of all-cause mortality that is only partially attributable to vascular outcomes. While the competing risk of death may affect expected anticoagulant benefit, guidelines do not account for it. We sought to determine if using a competing risks framework materially affects the guideline-endorsed estimate of absolute risk reduction attributable to anticoagulants. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of 12 RCTs that randomized patients with AF to oral anticoagulants or either placebo or antiplatelets. For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of anticoagulants to prevent stroke or systemic embolism using two methods. First, we estimated the ARR 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 non-linear growth in benefit over time. We compared the absolute and relative differences in estimated benefit and whether the differences in estimated benefit varied by life expectancy. Results: 7933 participants had a median life expectancy of 8 years (IQR 6, 12), determined by comorbidity-adjusted life tables. 43% were randomized to oral anticoagulation (median age 73 years, 36% women). The guideline-endorsed CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc model estimated a larger ARR than the Competing Risk Model (median ARR at 3 years, 6.9% vs. 5.2%). 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 -1.2% (42% relative underestimation); for those with life expectancies in the lowest decile, 3-year ARR difference was 5.9% (91% relative overestimation). Conclusion: Anticoagulants were exceptionally effective at reduced stroke risk. However, anticoagulant 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 in patients with the lowest life expectancy and when benefit was estimated over a multi-year horizon.

Face masks while exercising trial (MERIT): a cross-over randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Physical exertion is a high-risk activity for aerosol emission of respiratory pathogens. We aimed to determine the safety and tolerability of healthy young adults wearing different types of face mask during moderate-to-high intensity exercise. DESIGN: Cross-over randomised controlled study, completed between June 2021 and January 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers aged 18-35 years, who exercised regularly and had no significant pre-existing health conditions. INTERVENTIONS: Comparison of wearing a surgical, cloth and filtering face piece (FFP3) mask to no mask during 4×15 min bouts of exercise. Exercise was running outdoors or indoor rowing at moderate-to-high intensity, with consistency of distance travelled between bouts confirmed using a smartphone application (Strava). Each participant completed each bout in random order. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was change in oxygen saturations. Secondary outcomes were change in heart rate, perceived impact of face mask wearing during exercise and willingness to wear a face mask for future exercise. RESULTS: All 72 volunteers (mean age 23.9) completed the study. Changes in oxygen saturations did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin (2% difference) with any mask type compared with no mask. At the end of exercise, the estimated average difference in oxygen saturations for cloth mask was -0.07% (95% CI -0.39% to 0.25%), for surgical 0.28% (-0.04% to 0.60%) and for FFP3 -0.21% (-0.53% to 0.11%). The corresponding estimated average difference in heart rate for cloth mask was -1.20 bpm (95% CI -4.56 to 2.15), for surgical 0.36 bpm (95% CI -3.01 to 3.73) and for FFP3 0.52 bpm (95% CI -2.85 to 3.89). Wearing a face mask caused additional symptoms such as breathlessness (n=13, 18%) and dizziness (n=7, 10%). 33 participants broadly supported face mask wearing during exercise, particularly indoors, but 22 were opposed. CONCLUSION: This study adds to previous findings (mostly from non-randomised studies) that exercising at moderate-to-high intensity wearing a face mask appears to be safe in healthy, young adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04932226.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Natriuretic peptide testing and heart failure diagnosis in primary care: diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Natriuretic peptide (NP) testing is recommended for patients presenting to primary care with symptoms of chronic heart failure (HF) to prioritise referral for diagnosis. AIM: To report NP test performance at European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline referral thresholds. DESIGN AND SETTING: Diagnostic accuracy study using linked primary and secondary care data (2004 to 2018). METHOD: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of NP testing for HF diagnosis was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 229 580 patients had an NP test and 21 102 (9.2%) were diagnosed with HF within 6 months. The ESC NT-proBNP threshold ≥125 pg/mL had a sensitivity of 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94.2 to 95.0) and specificity of 50.0% (95% CI = 49.7 to 50.3), compared with sensitivity of 81.7% (95% CI = 81.0 to 82.3) and specificity of 80.3% (95% CI = 80.0 to 80.5) for the NICE NT-proBNP ≥400 pg/mL threshold. PPVs for an NT-proBNP test were 16.4% (95% CI = 16.1 to 16.6) and 30.0% (95% CI = 29.6 to 30.5) for ESC and NICE thresholds, respectively. For both guidelines, nearly all patients with an NT-proBNP level below the threshold did not have HF (NPV: ESC 98.9%, 95% CI = 98.8 to 99.0 and NICE 97.7%, 95% CI = 97.6 to 97.8). CONCLUSION: At the higher NICE chronic HF guideline NP thresholds, one in five cases are initially missed in primary care but the lower ESC thresholds require more diagnostic assessments. NP is a reliable 'rule-out' test at both cut-points. The optimal NP threshold will depend on the priorities and capacity of the healthcare system.

Trends in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescribing in English primary care (2014-2019).

BACKGROUND: In England, most prescribing of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (AF) is in primary care. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of dosage and disparities in use. We aimed to describe trends in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescribing, including dose reduction in people with renal impairment and other criteria, and adherence. METHODS: Using English primary care sentinel network data from 2014 to 2019, we assessed appropriate DOAC dose adjustment with creatinine clearance (CrCl). Our primary care sentinel cohort was a subset of 722 general practices, with 6.46 million currently registered patients at the time of this study. RESULTS: Of 6 464 129 people in the cohort, 2.3% were aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of AF, and 30.8% of these were prescribed vitamin K antagonist and 69.1% DOACs. Appropriate DOAC prescribing following CrCl measures improved between 2014 and 2019; dabigatran from 21.3% (95% CI 15.1% to 28.8%) to 48.7% (95% CI 45.0% to 52.4%); rivaroxaban from 22.1% (95% CI 16.7% to 28.4%) to 49.9% (95% CI 48.5% to 53.3%); edoxaban from 10.0% (95% CI 0.3% to 44.5%) in 2016 to 57.6% (95% CI 54.5% to 60.7%) in 2019; apixaban from 30.8% (95% CI 9.1% to 61.4%) in 2015 to 60.5% (95% CI 57.8% to 63.2%) in 2019.Adherence was highest for factor Xa inhibitors, increasing from 50.1% (95% CI 47.7% to 52.4%) in 2014 to 57.8% (95% CI 57.4% to 58.2%) in 2019. Asian and black/mixed ethnicity was associated with non-adherence (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.09) as was male gender (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.22), higher socioeconomic status (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.68), being an ex-smoker (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.19) and hypertension (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17). CONCLUSIONS: The volume and quality of DOAC prescribing has increased yearly. Future interventions to augment quality of anticoagulant management should target disparities in adherence.

Effectiveness of exhaled nitric oxide for the prediction of non-invasive left atrial pressure in older people: a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During left-sided heart failure (HF), left atrial and pulmonary venous pressure increase, which may lead to pulmonary congestion. Previous cohort studies, examining participants with symptomatic HF or rheumatic heart disease, suggest a relationship between increased left atrial pressure (LAP) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). AIM: To examine the strength of association between FeNO and echocardiographic assessment of LAP by the E/e' ratio, to determine if FeNO could be used to identify those with elevated LAP. DESIGN & SETTING: This cross-sectional cohort study examined a subset of the OxVALVE cohort aged ≥65 years. Data collection was undertaken in primary care practices in central England. METHOD: Each participant underwent a focused cardiovascular history and clinical examination. Standard transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) assessment was performed on all participants, with the E/e' ratio calculated to obtain a validated surrogate of LAP. FeNO was measured in 227 participants. RESULTS: FeNO was higher in males compared with females and no different in participants with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or those using inhaled steroids. Participants with a high E/e' (>14) were older, with a higher proportion of females than males. There was no relationship between E/e' and FeNO, either when measured as a continuous variable or in the group with high E/e'. CONCLUSION: FeNO was not found to be an accurate predictor of elevated LAP in a primary care setting.

Two-year outcomes of UK patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: findings from the prospective observational cohort study GARFIELD-AF.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) following the introduction of direct-acting oral anticoagulants are not well known. AIM: To determine the 2-year outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with AF, and the effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in everyday practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective observational cohort study in UK primary care. METHOD: In total, 3574 patients aged ≥18 years with a new AF diagnosis were enrolled. A propensity score was applied using an overlap weighting scheme to obtain unbiased estimates of the treatment effect of anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation on the occurrence of death, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding within 2 years of diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 65.8% received anticoagulant therapy, 20.8% received an antiplatelet only, and 13.4% received neither. During the study period, the overall incidence rates of all-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 4.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.69 to 4.65), 1.45 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.77), and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.50) per 100 person-years, respectively. Anticoagulation treatment compared with no anticoagulation treatment was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.70 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.93), significantly lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (aHR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62), and a non-significant higher risk of major bleeding (aHR 1.31, 95% CI = 0.77 to 2.24). CONCLUSION: The data support a benefit of anticoagulation in reducing stroke and death, without an increased risk of a major bleed in patients with new-onset AF. Anticoagulation treatment in patients at high risk of stroke who are not receiving anticoagulation may further improve outcomes.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Point-of-care NT-proBNP monitoring for heart failure: observational feasibility study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Around one million individuals in the UK have heart failure (HF), a chronic disease that causes significant morbidity and mortality. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) monitoring could help improve the care of patients with HF in the community. AIM: The aim of this study is to provide evidence to support the routine use of point-of-care (POC) NT-proBNP monitoring in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: In this observational cohort study, the Roche Cobas h 232 POC device was used to measure NT-proBNP in 27 patients with HF at 0, 6, and 12 months, with a subset reanalysed in the laboratory for comparison. METHOD: Data were analysed for within-person and between-person variability and concordance with laboratory readings using Passing-Bablok regression. GPs reported whether POC results impacted clinical decisionmaking, and patients indicated their willingness to participate in long-term cohort studies using the Likert acceptability scale. RESULTS: Within-person variability in POC NT-proBNP over 12 months was 881 pg/mL (95% confidence interval [CI] = 380 to 1382 pg/mL). Between-person variability was 1972 pg/mL (95% CI = 1,525 to 2791 pg/mL). Passing-Bablok regression showed no significant systematic difference between POC and laboratory measurements. Patients indicated a high level of acceptability, and GP decisionmaking was affected for at least one visit in a third of patients. CONCLUSION: Within-person variability in POC NT-proBNP is around half of between-person variability, so detecting changes could be of use in HF management. High patient acceptability and impact on clinical decisionmaking warrant further investigation in a larger long-term cohort study.

Change in glomerular filtration rate over time in the Oxford Renal Cohort Study: observational study.

BACKGROUND: Decline in kidney function can result in adverse health outcomes. The Oxford Renal Cohort Study has detailed baseline assessments from 884 participants ≥60 years of age. AIM: To determine the proportion of participants with a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), identify determinants of decline, and determine proportions with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remission. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational cohort study in UK primary care. METHOD: Data were used from baseline and annual follow-up assessments to monitor change in kidney function. Rapid eGFR decline was defined as eGFR decrease >5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, improvement as eGFR increase >5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, and remission in those with CKD at baseline and eGFR >60 ml/min/1.73 m2 during follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify factors associated with eGFR decline. RESULTS: There was a net decline in eGFR in the 884 participants over 5 years of follow-up. In 686 participants with >2 eGFR tests with a median follow-up of 2.1 years, 164 (24%) evidenced rapid GFR decline, 185 (27%) experienced eGFR improvement, and 82 of 394 (21%) meeting CKD stage 1-4 at baseline experienced remission. In the multivariable analysis, smoking status, higher systolic blood pressure, and being known to have CKD at cohort entry were associated with rapid GFR decline. Those with CKD stage 3 at baseline were less likely to exhibit GFR decline compared with normal kidney function. CONCLUSION: This study established that 24% of people evidenced rapid GFR decline whereas 21% evidenced remission of CKD. People at risk of rapid GFR decline may benefit from closer monitoring and appropriate treatment to minimise risks of adverse outcomes, although only a small proportion meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for referral to secondary care.

Natriuretic peptide level at heart failure diagnosis and risk of hospitalisation and death in England 2004-2018.

OBJECTIVE: Heart failure (HF) is a malignant condition requiring urgent treatment. Guidelines recommend natriuretic peptide (NP) testing in primary care to prioritise referral for specialist diagnostic assessment. We aimed to assess association of baseline NP with hospitalisation and mortality in people with newly diagnosed HF. METHODS: Population-based cohort study of 40 007 patients in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England with a new HF diagnosis (48% men, mean age 78.5 years). We used linked primary and secondary care data between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2018 to report one-year hospitalisation and 1-year, 5-year and 10-year mortality by NP level. RESULTS: 22 085 (55%) participants were hospitalised in the year following diagnosis. Adjusted odds of HF-related hospitalisation in those with a high NP (NT-proBNP >2000 pg/mL) were twofold greater (OR 2.26 95% CI 1.98 to 2.59) than a moderate NP (NT-proBNP 400-2000 pg/mL). All-cause mortality rates in the high NP group were 27%, 62% and 82% at 1, 5 and 10 years, compared with 19%, 50% and 77%, respectively, in the moderate NP group and, in a competing risks model, risk of HF-related death was 50% higher at each timepoint. Median time between NP test and HF diagnosis was 101 days (IQR 19-581). CONCLUSIONS: High baseline NP is associated with increased HF-related hospitalisation and poor survival. While healthcare systems remain under pressure from the impact of COVID-19, research to test novel strategies to prevent hospitalisation and improve outcomes-such as a mandatory two-week HF diagnosis pathway-is urgently needed.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the pilot study for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

PRospective Evaluation of natriuretic peptide-based reFERral of patients with chronic heart failure in primary care (PREFER): a real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current management practice of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in multinational primary care (PC) and determine whether N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP)-guided referral of HFrEF patients from PC to a cardiologist could improve care, defined as adherence to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. METHODS: PRospective Evaluation of natriuretic peptide-based reFERral of patients with chronic HF in PC (PREFER) study enrolled HFrEF patients from PC considered clinically stable and those with NT-pro-BNP ≥600 pg/mL were referred to a cardiologist for optimisation of HF treatment. The primary outcome of adherence to ESC HF guidelines after referral to specialist was assessed at the second visit within 4 weeks of cardiologist's referral and no later than 6 months after the baseline visit. Based on futility interim analysis, the study was terminated early. RESULTS: In total, 1415 HFrEF patients from 223 PCs from 18 countries in Europe were enrolled. Of these, 1324 (96.9%) were considered clinically stable and 920 (65.0%) had NT-pro-BNP ≥600 pg/mL (mean: 2631 pg/mL). In total, 861 (60.8%) patients fulfilled both criteria and were referred to a cardiologist. Before cardiologist consultation, 10.1% of patients were on ESC guideline-recommended HFrEF medications and 2.7% were on recommended dosages of HFrEF medication (defined as ≥50% of ESC guideline-recommended dose). Postreferral, prescribed HFrEF drugs remained largely unchanged except for an increase in diuretics (+4.6%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (+7.9%). No significant increase in patients' adherence to guideline-defined drug combinations (11.2% post-referral vs 10.1% baseline) or drug combinations and dosages (3.3% postreferral vs 2.7% baseline) was observed after cardiologist consultation. CONCLUSIONS: PREFER demonstrates substantial suboptimal treatment of HFrEF patients in the real world. Referral of patients with elevated NT-pro-BNP levels from PC to cardiologist did not result in meaningful treatment optimisation for treatments with known mortality and morbidity benefit.