Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionThe emergence of the novel respiratory SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic have required rapid assimilation of population-level data to understand and control the spread of infection in the general and vulnerable populations. Rapid analyses are needed to inform policy development and target interventions to at-risk groups to prevent serious health outcomes. We aim to provide an accessible research platform to determine demographic, socioeconomic and clinical risk factors for infection, morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, to measure the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare utilisation and long-term health, and to enable the evaluation of natural experiments of policy interventions.Methods and analysisTwo privacy-protecting population-level cohorts have been created and derived from multisourced demographic and healthcare data. The C20 cohort consists of 3.2 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2020 with follow-up until 31 May 2020. The complete cohort dataset will be updated monthly with some individual datasets available daily. The C16 cohort consists of 3 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2016 with follow-up to 31 December 2019. C16 is designed as a counterfactual cohort to provide contextual comparative population data on disease, health service utilisation and mortality. Study outcomes will: (a) characterise the epidemiology of COVID-19, (b) assess socioeconomic and demographic influences on infection and outcomes, (c) measure the impact of COVID-19 on short -term and longer-term population outcomes and (d) undertake studies on the transmission and spatial spread of infection.Ethics and disseminationThe Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-independent Information Governance Review Panel has approved this study. The study findings will be presented to policy groups, public meetings, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

The public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK included advising those identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) to self-isolate within their homes. We compared the health-care usage and mental health of the CEV population with that of the general population during the pandemic. In this retrospective population-scale data linkage study in Wales, we used person-level linked, routinely collected, data sources available within the Secure Anonymous Information Linkage Databank. Age-standardised rates of monthly planned and emergency care attendances between Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2020, were examined. We used a Cox model to explore risk factors for depression or anxiety (identified from primary care diagnosis, symptoms, and prescription Read codes). The CEV cohort included 127 787 patients and was older than the general population (52·4% (66 963) CEV were aged ≥65 years, vs 21·0% (662 376) of the general population, p<0·0001). Average monthly trends showed that the decline in planned care was greater among the CEV than the general population from March–August, 2020 (elective admissions: –7·2% for CEV vs –0·6 for general population; outpatient attendances: –3·8% vs –1·3%), with a slower recovery into December, 2020 for CEV (elective: CEV –1.4% vs general population 3·9%; outpatient: 1·7% vs 4·1%). There were increases in both ED attendances and emergency admissions from March–August, 2020, which were greater among the general population (7·0% vs 3·1%, respectively) compared with the CEV (4·3% vs 0·5%). Being CEV (hazard ratio 1·2 [95% CI 1·2–1·3]) and historical poor mental health (3·7 [3·5–3·9]) were associated with an increased risk of anxiety or depression. Declines in planned care were not unexpected given the impact of COVID-19 on the National Health Service, and suggest considerable unmet need. Declines in secondary care activity amongst the CEV could reflect reluctance to attend hospital, not reduced clinical need. Reliance on an algorithm to identify CEV might have led to overestimation of the heterogeneous CEV population. The Health Foundation as part of the Networked Data Labs.

IntroductionMultimorbidity is widely recognised as the presence of two or more concurrent long-term conditions, yet remains a poorly understood global issue despite increasing in prevalence.We have created the Wales Multimorbidity e-Cohort (WMC) to provide an accessible research ready data asset to further the understanding of multimorbidity. Our objectives are to create a platform to support research which would help to understand prevalence, trajectories and determinants in multimorbidity, characterise clusters that lead to highest burden on individuals and healthcare services, and evaluate and provide new multimorbidity phenotypes and algorithms to the National Health Service and research communities to support prevention, healthcare planning and the management of individuals with multimorbidity.Methods and analysisThe WMC has been created and derived from multisourced demographic, administrative and electronic health record data relating to the Welsh population in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. The WMC consists of 2.9 million people alive and living in Wales on the 1 January 2000 with follow-up until 31 December 2019, Welsh residency break or death. Published comorbidity indices and phenotype code lists will be used to measure and conceptualise multimorbidity.Study outcomes will include: (1) a description of multimorbidity using published data phenotype algorithms/ontologies, (2) investigation of the associations between baseline demographic factors and multimorbidity, (3) identification of temporal trajectories of clusters of conditions and multimorbidity and (4) investigation of multimorbidity clusters with poor outcomes such as mortality and high healthcare service utilisation.Ethics and disseminationThe SAIL Databank independent Information Governance Review Panel has approved this study (SAIL Project: 0911). Study findings will be presented to policy groups, public meetings, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

We aimed to evaluate the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1–2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was done, which included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936) and is ongoing. Between Feb 2 and Dec 29, 2021, from 10 852 enrolled, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% were receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 h recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 514 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0·87; 95% CI 0·77–0·99; p=0·028). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of eight previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths), in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·57; 95% CI 0·45–0·72). Including the results from RECOVERY in an updated meta-analysis of all nine completed trials (involving 11 888 randomly assigned patients and 1485 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or another JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·80; 95% CI 0·72–0·89; p<0·0001). In RECOVERY, there was no significant excess in death or infection due to non-COVID-19 causes and no significant excess of thrombosis, or other safety outcomes. In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Casirivimab and imdevimab are non-competing monoclonal antibodies that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, blocking viral entry into host cells. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab administered in combination in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. RECOVERY is a randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing several possible treatments with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 127 UK hospitals took part in the evaluation of casirivimab and imdevimab. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 12 years admitted to hospital with clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual care plus casirivimab 4 g and imdevimab 4 g administered together in a single intravenous infusion. Investigators and data assessors were masked to analyses of the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality assessed by intention to treat, first only in patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomisation (ie, those who were seronegative) and then in the overall population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received casirivimab and imdevimab. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Between Sept 18, 2020, and May 22, 2021, 9785 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible for casirivimab and imdevimab, of which 4839 were randomly assigned to casirivimab and imdevimab plus usual care and 4946 to usual care alone. 3153 (32%) of 9785 patients were seronegative, 5272 (54%) were seropositive, and 1360 (14%) had unknown baseline antibody status. 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 452 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·69–0·91; p=0·0009). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 943 (19%) of 4839 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 1029 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·86–1·02; p=0·14). The proportional effect of casirivimab and imdevimab on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity=0·002). There were no deaths attributed to the treatment, or meaningful between-group differences in the pre-specified safety outcomes of cause-specific mortality, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, or major bleeding events. Serious adverse reactions reported in seven (<1%) participants were believed by the local investigator to be related to treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab. In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced 28-day mortality in patients who were seronegative (and therefore had not mounted their own humoral immune response) at baseline but not in those who were seropositive at baseline. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-thrombotic properties. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The trial took place at 177 hospitals in the UK, two hospitals in Indonesia, and two hospitals in Nepal. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care plus 150 mg aspirin once per day until discharge or usual standard of care alone using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28 day mortality. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Between Nov 1, 2020, and March 21, 2021, 14 892 (66%) of 22 560 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were eligible to be randomly allocated to aspirin. 7351 patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) of 7351 patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) of 7541 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·89–1·04; p=0·35). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days, IQR 5 to >28, vs 9 days, IQR 5 to >28) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs 74%; rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 1·02–1·10; p=0·0062). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs 22%; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·90–1·03; p=0·23). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events (4·6% vs 5·3%; absolute reduction 0·6%, SE 0·4%) and an increase in major bleeding events (1·6% vs 1·0%; absolute increase 0·6%, SE 0·2%). In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28 day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive within 28 days. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

A ubiquitously expressed chaperone, heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) is of considerable interest as an oncology target because tumor cells and oncogenic proteins are acutely dependent on its activity. AT13387 (2,4‐dihydroxy‐5‐isopropyl‐phenyl)‐[5‐(4‐methyl‐piperazin‐1‐ylmethyl)‐1,3‐dihydro‐isoindol‐2‐yl] methanone, l‐lactic acid salt) a novel, high‐affinity HSP90 inhibitor, which is currently being clinically tested, has shown activity against a wide array of tumor cell lines, including lung cancer cell lines. This inhibitor has induced the degradation of specific HSP90 client proteins for up to 7 days in tumor cell lines in vitro. The primary driver of cell growth (mutant epidermal growth factor receptors) was particularly sensitive to HSP90 inhibition. The long duration of client protein knockdown and suppression of phospho‐signaling seen in vitro after treatment with AT13387 was also apparent in vivo, with client proteins and phospho‐signaling suppressed for up to 72 h in xenograft tumors after treatment with a single dose of AT13387. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated that while AT13387 was rapidly cleared from blood, its retention in tumor xenografts was markedly extended, and it was efficacious in a range of xenograft models. AT13387's long duration of action enabled, in particular, its efficacious once weekly administration in human lung carcinoma xenografts. The use of longer‐acting HSP90 inhibitors, such as AT13387, on less frequent dosing regimens has the potential to maintain antitumor efficacy as well as minimize systemic exposure and unwanted effects on normal tissues. (Cancer Sci, 2012; 103: 522–527)

Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.