Thromboxane biosynthesis and future events in diabetes: the ASCEND trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Thromboxane (TX) A2, released by activated platelets, plays an important role in atherothrombosis. Urinary 11-dehydro-TXB2 (U-TXM), a stable metabolite reflecting the whole-body TXA2 biosynthesis, is reduced by ∼70% by daily low-dose aspirin. The U-TXM represents a non-invasive biomarker of in vivo platelet activation and is enhanced in patients with diabetes. This study assessed whether U-TXM is associated with the risk of future serious vascular events or revascularizations (SVE-R), major bleeding, or cancer in patients with diabetes. METHODS: The U-TXM was measured pre-randomization to aspirin or placebo in 5948 people with type 1 or 2 diabetes and no cardiovascular disease, in the ASCEND trial. Associations between log U-TXM and SVE-R (n = 618), major bleed (n = 206), and cancer (n = 700) during 6.6 years of follow-up were investigated by Cox regression; comparisons of these associations with the effects of randomization to aspirin were made. RESULTS: Higher U-TXM was associated with older age, female sex, current smoking, type 2 diabetes, higher body size, urinary albumin/creatinine ratio of ≥3 mg/mmol, and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate. After adjustment for these, U-TXM was marginally statistically significantly associated with SVE-R and major bleed but not cancer [hazard ratios per 1 SD higher log U-TXM (95% confidence interval): 1.09 (1.00-1.18), 1.16 (1.01-1.34), and 1.06 (0.98-1.14)]. The hazard ratio was similar to that implied by the clinical effects of randomization to aspirin for SVE-R but not for major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The U-TXM was log-linearly independently associated with SVE-R in diabetes. This is consistent with the involvement of platelet TXA2 in diabetic atherothrombosis.

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).

Effects of aspirin on dementia and cognitive function in diabetic patients: the ASCEND trial.

AIMS: Aspirin is widely used in cardiovascular disease prevention but is also associated with an increased risk of bleeding. The net effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ASCEND trial, 15 480 people from the UK with diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease were randomized to aspirin 100 mg daily or matching placebo for a mean of 7.4 years. The 15 427 ASCEND participants with no recorded dementia prior to baseline were included in this cognitive study with a primary pre-specified outcome of 'broad dementia', comprising dementia, cognitive impairment, or confusion. This was ascertained through participant, carer, or general practitioner report or hospital admission diagnosis, by 31 March 2019 (∼2 years beyond the scheduled treatment period). The broad dementia outcome occurred in a similar percentage of participants in the aspirin group and placebo group: 548 participants (7.1%) vs. 598 (7.8%), rate ratio 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-1.02]. Thus, the CI excluded proportional hazards of >2% and proportional benefits of >19%. CONCLUSION: Aspirin does not have a large proportional effect on the risk of dementia. Trials or meta-analyses with larger total numbers of incident dementia cases to increase statistical power are needed to assess whether any modest proportional 10-15% benefits of 5-7 years of aspirin use on dementia exist. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500; ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00135226.

Performance of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 in a Contemporary UK Type 2 Diabetes Trial Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS-OM) developed using 30-year (1977-2007) data from the UKPDS is widely used for health outcomes' projections and economic evaluations of therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Nevertheless, its reliability for contemporary UK T2D populations is unclear. We assessed the performance of version 2 of the model (UKPDS-OM2) using data from A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes (ASCEND), which followed participants with diabetes in the UK between 2005 and 2017. METHODS: The UKPDS-OM2 was used to predict the occurrence of myocardial infarction (MI), other ischemic heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular (CV) death, and other death among the 14 569 participants with T2D in ASCEND, all without previous CV disease at study entry. Calibration (comparison of predicted and observed year-on-year cumulative incidence over 10 years) and discrimination (c-statistics) of the model were assessed for each endpoint. The percentage error in event rates at year 7 (mean duration of follow up) was used to quantify model bias. RESULTS: The UKPDS-OM2 substantially overpredicted MI, stroke, CV death, and other death over the 10-year follow-up period (by 149%, 42%, 269%, and 52%, respectively, at year 7). Discrimination of the model for MI and other ischemic heart disease (c-statistics 0.58 and 0.60, respectively) was poorer than that for other outcomes (c-statistics ranging from 0.66 to 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: The UKPDS-OM2 substantially overpredicted risks of key CV outcomes and death in people with T2D in ASCEND. Appropriate adjustments or a new model may be required for assessments of long-term effects of treatments in contemporary T2D cohorts.

COVID-19 pandemic and admission rates for and management of acute coronary syndromes in England.

BACKGROUND: Several countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have reported a substantial drop in the number of patients attending the emergency department with acute coronary syndromes and a reduced number of cardiac procedures. We aimed to understand the scale, nature, and duration of changes to admissions for different types of acute coronary syndrome in England and to evaluate whether in-hospital management of patients has been affected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analysed data on hospital admissions in England for types of acute coronary syndrome from Jan 1, 2019, to May 24, 2020, that were recorded in the Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care database. Admissions were classified as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), myocardial infarction of unknown type, or other acute coronary syndromes (including unstable angina). We identified revascularisation procedures undertaken during these admissions (ie, coronary angiography without percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery). We calculated the numbers of weekly admissions and procedures undertaken; percentage reductions in weekly admissions and across subgroups were also calculated, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: Hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome declined from mid-February, 2020, falling from a 2019 baseline rate of 3017 admissions per week to 1813 per week by the end of March, 2020, a reduction of 40% (95% CI 37-43). This decline was partly reversed during April and May, 2020, such that by the last week of May, 2020, there were 2522 admissions, representing a 16% (95% CI 13-20) reduction from baseline. During the period of declining admissions, there were reductions in the numbers of admissions for all types of acute coronary syndrome, including both STEMI and NSTEMI, but relative and absolute reductions were larger for NSTEMI, with 1267 admissions per week in 2019 and 733 per week by the end of March, 2020, a percent reduction of 42% (95% CI 38-46). In parallel, reductions were recorded in the number of PCI procedures for patients with both STEMI (438 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 346 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 21%, 95% CI 12-29) and NSTEMI (383 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 240 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 37%, 29-45). The median length of stay among patients with acute coronary syndrome fell from 4 days (IQR 2-9) in 2019 to 3 days (1-5) by the end of March, 2020. INTERPRETATION: Compared with the weekly average in 2019, there was a substantial reduction in the weekly numbers of patients with acute coronary syndrome who were admitted to hospital in England by the end of March, 2020, which had been partly reversed by the end of May, 2020. The reduced number of admissions during this period is likely to have resulted in increases in out-of-hospital deaths and long-term complications of myocardial infarction and missed opportunities to offer secondary prevention treatment for patients with coronary heart disease. The full extent of the effect of COVID-19 on the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome will continue to be assessed by updating these analyses. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Aspirin use reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events but increases the risk of bleeding; the balance of benefits and hazards for the prevention of first cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults who had diabetes but no evident cardiovascular disease to receive aspirin at a dose of 100 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the first serious vascular event (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause, excluding any confirmed intracranial hemorrhage). The primary safety outcome was the first major bleeding event (i.e., intracranial hemorrhage, sight-threatening bleeding event in the eye, gastrointestinal bleeding, or other serious bleeding). Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal tract cancer. RESULTS: A total of 15,480 participants underwent randomization. During a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, serious vascular events occurred in a significantly lower percentage of participants in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (658 participants [8.5%] vs. 743 [9.6%]; rate ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01). In contrast, major bleeding events occurred in 314 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group, as compared with 245 (3.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52; P=0.003), with most of the excess being gastrointestinal bleeding and other extracranial bleeding. There was no significant difference between the aspirin group and the placebo group in the incidence of gastrointestinal tract cancer (157 participants [2.0%] and 158 [2.0%], respectively) or all cancers (897 [11.6%] and 887 [11.5%]); long-term follow-up for these outcomes is planned. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use prevented serious vascular events in persons who had diabetes and no evident cardiovascular disease at trial entry, but it also caused major bleeding events. The absolute benefits were largely counterbalanced by the bleeding hazard. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; ASCEND Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00135226 .).

Effects of n-3 Fatty Acid Supplements in Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Increased intake of n-3 fatty acids has been associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in observational studies, but this finding has not been confirmed in randomized trials. It remains unclear whether n-3 (also called omega-3) fatty acid supplementation has cardiovascular benefit in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We randomly assigned 15,480 patients with diabetes but without evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to receive 1-g capsules containing either n-3 fatty acids (fatty acid group) or matching placebo (olive oil) daily. The primary outcome was a first serious vascular event (i.e., nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, transient ischemic attack, or vascular death, excluding confirmed intracranial hemorrhage). The secondary outcome was a first serious vascular event or any arterial revascularization. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (adherence rate, 76%), a serious vascular event occurred in 689 patients (8.9%) in the fatty acid group and in 712 (9.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.08; P=0.55). The composite outcome of a serious vascular event or revascularization occurred in 882 patients (11.4%) and 887 patients (11.5%), respectively (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09). Death from any cause occurred in 752 patients (9.7%) in the fatty acid group and in 788 (10.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of nonfatal serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with diabetes without evidence of cardiovascular disease, there was no significant difference in the risk of serious vascular events between those who were assigned to receive n-3 fatty acid supplementation and those who were assigned to receive placebo. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00135226 .).

Streamlined mail-based methods for large randomised trials: lessons learnt from the ASCEND study.

Reliable assessment of the effects of an intervention usually requires large randomised trials but such studies are becoming increasingly complex and costly to run. 'Streamlined' trials are needed in which every aspect of the trial design and conduct is simplified, retaining only those elements needed to answer the research question and ensure the safety of the individual participants. In this review we discuss how the trial 'A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes' (ASCEND) was streamlined. The study included a two-by-two factorial design: it assessed the effects of low-dose aspirin and, separately, supplementation with n-3 fatty acids on serious vascular events in 15,480 people with diabetes but no overt cardiovascular disease. Other key streamlined design features, such as mail-based recruitment and follow-up, mainly by post, with no in-person visits and use of a run-in period, are also described. We go on to discuss the success of the study and other studies that have employed a similar mail-based approach, and the type of clinical trials that are suitable for mail-based design. Finally, we consider the limitations of the study, and how these could be circumvented in future studies. ASCEND randomised large numbers of eligible participants, achieved good adherence rates and almost complete follow-up at a fraction of the cost of traditional clinic-based trials. Such studies are necessary if researchers are to address the important clinical questions most relevant to improving health.

LDL-cholesterol reduction in chronic kidney disease: options beyond statins.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events. LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) is a key modifiable cause of ASCVD and lowering LDL-C with statins reduces the risk of ASCVD events in a wide range of populations, including those with CKD. This review considers the utility of recently developed nonstatin LDL-C-lowering therapies in CKD. RECENT FINDINGS: The cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, reduces LDL-C by 15-20% and is well tolerated in CKD. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (PCSK9) reduce LDL-C by 50-60% and reduce the risk of ASCVD events. However, these agents require self-administration by subcutaneous injection every 2-4 weeks. The PCSK9 synthesis inhibitor, inclisiran, is administered approximately 6 monthly and may be more suitable for widespread use, although outcome trials are awaited. These PCSK9 targeting therapies require no dose adjustment in CKD and have no drug interactions. SUMMARY: Statins and ezetimibe are safe and reduce ASCVD risk in CKD populations. PCSK9 targeting agents may be useful in high-risk CKD patients, including those with prior ASCVD.

PCSK9 inhibition: ready for prime time in CKD?

Lowering LDL cholesterol reduces the risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease in a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease, with no evidence of a threshold below which further reductions no longer reduce risk. Statins safely lower LDL cholesterol, but novel inhibitors of proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 (PCSK9) provide additional reductions which may reduce atherosclerotic vascular disease yet further in this high risk population.

ASCEND: A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes: Characteristics of a randomized trial of aspirin and of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in 15,480 people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: The use of aspirin for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is firmly established, and the proportional reductions in heart attacks and strokes appear to be similar in people with and without diabetes. Uncertainty remains about the role of antiplatelet treatments for primary prevention of CVD, and guidelines vary in their recommendations. It has also been hypothesized that long-term aspirin can prevent gastro-intestinal and other cancers. Observational studies suggest associations between higher intakes of omega-3 fatty acids (FA) and lower rates of CVD, but there is no large-scale randomized evidence to support using prophylactic omega-3 FA supplementation in primary prevention. ASCEND is a randomized trial assessing whether 100 mg daily aspirin safely prevents CVD and cancer in patients with diabetes without known arterial disease. It is also assessing whether supplementation with 1 g omega-3 FA daily prevents CVD. This paper describes the methods and baseline characteristics of the randomized participants. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2011, using mail-based methods, 15,480 people with diabetes were randomized to aspirin versus placebo and, in a factorial design, to omega-3 FA supplementation versus placebo. Blood and urine samples were collected to allow baseline stratification by biochemical prognostic variables (e.g. HbA1c, blood lipids). Follow-up is for a median of at least 7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstrating that prophylactic aspirin safely reduces the risk of CVD or cancer in the primary prevention setting, or that omega-3 FA supplementation prevents CVD, would be relevant to hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are currently not receiving such therapies. The results of ASCEND will be reported in 2018.

Prognostic utility of estimated albumin excretion rate in chronic kidney disease: results from the Study of Heart and Renal Protection.

Background: Estimated albumin excretion rate (eAER) provides a better estimate of 24-h albuminuria than albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR). However, whether eAER is superior to ACR in predicting end-stage renal disease (ESRD), vascular events (VEs) or death is uncertain. Methods: The prognostic utility of ACR and eAER (estimated from ACR, sex, age and race) to predict mortality, ESRD and VEs was compared using Cox proportional hazards regression among 5552 participants with chronic kidney disease in the Study of Heart and Renal Protection, who were not on dialysis at baseline. Results: During a median follow-up of 4.8 years, 1959 participants developed ESRD, 1204 had a VE and 1130 died (641 from a non-vascular, 369 from a vascular and 120 from an unknown cause). After adjustment for age, sex and eGFR, both ACR and eAER were strongly and similarly associated with ESRD risk. The average relative risk (RR) per 10-fold higher level was 2.70 (95% confidence interval 2.45-2.98) for ACR and 2.67 (2.43-2.94) for eAER. Neither ACR nor eAER provided any additional prognostic information for ESRD risk over and above the other. For VEs, there were modest positive associations between both ACR and eAER and risk [adjusted RR per 10-fold higher level 1.37 (1.22-1.53) for ACR and 1.36 (1.22-1.52) for eAER]. Again, neither measure added prognostic information over and above the other. Similar results were observed when ACR and eAER were related to vascular mortality [RR per 10-fold higher level: 1.64 (1.33-2.03) and 1.62 (1.32-2.00), respectively] or to non-vascular mortality [1.53 (1.31-1.79) and 1.50 (1.29-1.76), respectively]. Conclusions: In this study, eAER did not improve risk prediction of ESRD, VEs or mortality.

PCSK9 inhibition: the dawn of a new age in cholesterol lowering?

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is a circulating enzyme of hepatic origin that plays a key role in LDL receptor turnover. Genetic studies have confirmed that individuals with gain-of-function PCSK9 mutations have increased PCSK9 activity, elevated LDL-cholesterol levels and a severe form of familial hypercholesterolaemia. Those with variants leading to reduced PCSK9 have lower LDL-cholesterol levels and a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, and this has led to the development of various strategies aimed at reducing circulating PCSK9. Monoclonal antibodies to PCSK9, given every 2-4 weeks by subcutaneous injection, have been shown to reduce LDL-cholesterol by 50-60% compared with placebo in individuals with and without diabetes. PCSK9 inhibition also reduces lipoprotein(a), an atherogenic lipid particle, by around 20-30%. Major cardiovascular outcome trials for two agents, evolocumab and alirocumab, are expected to report from 2017. These trials involve over 45,000 participants and are likely to include about 15,000 individuals with diabetes. PCSK9-binding adnectins have been employed as an alternative method of removing circulating PCSK9. Small interfering RNA targeting messenger RNA for PCSK9, which acts by reducing hepatic production of PCSK9, is also under investigation. These agents may only need to be given by subcutaneous injection once every 4-6 months. Ongoing trials will determine whether anti-PCSK9 antibody therapy safely reduces cardiovascular risk, although high cost may limit its use. Development of PCSK9-lowering technologies cheaper than monoclonal antibodies will be necessary for large numbers of individuals to benefit from this approach to lowering cholesterol.

Accuracy of heart failure ascertainment using routinely collected healthcare data: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ascertainment of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in cardiovascular trials is costly and complex, involving processes that could be streamlined by using routinely collected healthcare data (RCD). The utility of coded RCD for HF outcome ascertainment in randomized trials requires assessment. We systematically reviewed studies assessing RCD-based HF outcome ascertainment against "gold standard" (GS) methods to study the feasibility of using such methods in clinical trials. METHODS: Studies assessing International Classification of Disease (ICD) coded RCD-based HF outcome ascertainment against GS methods and reporting at least one agreement statistic were identified by searching MEDLINE and Embase from inception to May 2021. Data on study characteristics, details of RCD and GS data sources and definitions, and test statistics were reviewed. Summary sensitivities and specificities for studies ascertaining acute and prevalent HF were estimated using a bivariate random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. RESULTS: A total of 58 studies of 48,643 GS-adjudicated HF events were included in this review. Strategies used to improve case identification included the use of broader coding definitions, combining multiple data sources, and using machine learning algorithms to search free text data, but these methods were not always successful and at times reduced specificity in individual studies. Meta-analysis of 17 acute HF studies showed that RCD algorithms have high specificity (96.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 91.5-98.3), but lacked sensitivity (63.5%, 95% CI 51.3-74.1) with similar results for 21 prevalent HF studies. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies. CONCLUSIONS: RCD can correctly identify HF outcomes but may miss approximately one-third of events. Methods used to improve case identification should also focus on minimizing false positives.

Clinical trial results in context: comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes of 38,510 RECOVERY trial participants versus a reference population of 346,271 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.