Explore the vast range of titles available.

Ambulatory blood pressure provides a more comprehensive assessment than clinic blood pressure, and has been reported to better predict health outcomes than clinic or home pressure. We aimed to examine associations of clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a large cohort of primary care patients referred for assessment of hypertension. We did an observational cohort study using clinic and ambulatory blood pressure data obtained from March 1, 2004, to Dec 31, 2014, from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Registry. This registry included patients from 223 primary care centres from the Spanish National Health System in all 17 regions of Spain. Mortality data (date and cause) were ascertained by a computerised search of the vital registry of the Spanish National Institute of Statistics. Complete data were available for age, sex, all blood pressure measures, and BMI. For each study participant, follow-up was from the date of their recruitment to the date of death or Dec 31, 2019, whichever occurred first. Cox models were used to estimate associations between usual clinic or ambulatory blood pressure and mortality, adjusted for confounders and additionally for alternative measures of blood pressure. For each measure of blood pressure, we created five groups (ie, fifths) defined by quintiles of that measure among those who subsequently died. During a median follow-up of 9·7 years, 7174 (12·1%) of 59 124 patients died, including 2361 (4·0%) from cardiovascular causes. J-shaped associations were observed for several blood pressure measures. Among the top four baseline-defined fifths, 24-h systolic blood pressure was more strongly associated with all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·41 per 1 – SD increment [95% CI 1·36–1·47]) than clinic systolic blood pressure (1·18 [1·13–1·23]). After adjustment for clinic blood pressure, 24-h blood pressure remained strongly associated with all-cause deaths (HR 1·43 [95% CI 1·37–1·49]), but the association between clinic blood pressure and all-cause death was attenuated when adjusted for 24-h blood pressure (1·04 [1·00–1·09]). Compared with the informativeness of clinic systolic blood pressure (100%), night-time systolic blood pressure was most informative about risk of all-cause death (591%) and cardiovascular death (604%). Relative to blood pressure within the normal range, elevated all-cause mortality risks were observed for masked hypertension (HR 1·24 [95% CI 1·12–1·37]) and sustained hypertension (1·24 [1·15–1·32]), but not white-coat hypertension, and elevated cardiovascular mortality risks were observed for masked hypertension (1·37 [1·15–1·63]) and sustained hypertension (1·38 [1·22–1·55]), but not white-coat hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure, particularly night-time blood pressure, was more informative about the risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular death than clinic blood pressure. Spanish Society of Hypertension, Lacer Laboratories, UK Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK, National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centres (Oxford and University College London Hospitals), and British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence.

The benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, the extent to which these effects differ by baseline blood pressure, presence of comorbidities, or drug class is less clear. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify these differences. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE for large-scale blood pressure lowering trials, published between Jan 1, 1966, and July 7, 2015, and we searched the medical literature to identify trials up to Nov 9, 2015. All randomised controlled trials of blood pressure lowering treatment were eligible for inclusion if they included a minimum of 1000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm. No trials were excluded because of presence of baseline comorbidities, and trials of antihypertensive drugs for indications other than hypertension were eligible. We extracted summary-level data about study characteristics and the outcomes of major cardiovascular disease events, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, renal failure, and all-cause mortality. We used inverse variance weighted fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool the estimates. We identified 123 studies with 613 815 participants for the tabular meta-analysis. Meta-regression analyses showed relative risk reductions proportional to the magnitude of the blood pressure reductions achieved. Every 10 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular disease events (relative risk [RR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·77–0·83), coronary heart disease (0·83, 0·78–0·88), stroke (0·73, 0·68–0·77), and heart failure (0·72, 0·67–0·78), which, in the populations studied, led to a significant 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (0·87, 0·84–0·91). However, the effect on renal failure was not significant (0·95, 0·84–1·07). Similar proportional risk reductions (per 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) were noted in trials with higher mean baseline systolic blood pressure and trials with lower mean baseline systolic blood pressure (all ptrend>0·05). There was no clear evidence that proportional risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease differed by baseline disease history, except for diabetes and chronic kidney disease, for which smaller, but significant, risk reductions were detected. β blockers were inferior to other drugs for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease events, stroke, and renal failure. Calcium channel blockers were superior to other drugs for the prevention of stroke. For the prevention of heart failure, calcium channel blockers were inferior and diuretics were superior to other drug classes. Risk of bias was judged to be low for 113 trials and unclear for 10 trials. Heterogeneity for outcomes was low to moderate; the I2 statistic for heterogeneity for major cardiovascular disease events was 41%, for coronary heart disease 25%, for stroke 26%, for heart failure 37%, for renal failure 28%, and for all-cause mortality 35%. Blood pressure lowering significantly reduces vascular risk across various baseline blood pressure levels and comorbidities. Our results provide strong support for lowering blood pressure to systolic blood pressures less than 130 mm Hg and providing blood pressure lowering treatment to individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. National Institute for Health Research and Oxford Martin School.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Among hospitalized patients with Covid-19, treatment with dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality than usual care, according to the level of respiratory support the patients were receiving, indicating a possible correlation between efficacy and the stage of infection.

The effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for disease progression are not well understood. The EMPA-KIDNEY trial was designed to assess the effects of treatment with empagliflozin in a broad range of such patients. We enrolled patients with chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 20 but less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m of body-surface area, or who had an eGFR of at least 45 but less than 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 200. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of progression of kidney disease (defined as end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in eGFR to <10 ml per minute per 1.73 m , a sustained decrease in eGFR of ≥40% from baseline, or death from renal causes) or death from cardiovascular causes. A total of 6609 patients underwent randomization. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 of 3304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.82; P<0.001). Results were consistent among patients with or without diabetes and across subgroups defined according to eGFR ranges. The rate of hospitalization from any cause was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003), but there were no significant between-group differences with respect to the composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes (which occurred in 4.0% in the empagliflozin group and 4.6% in the placebo group) or death from any cause (in 4.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. Among a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease who were at risk for disease progression, empagliflozin therapy led to a lower risk of progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and others; EMPA-KIDNEY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03594110; EudraCT number, 2017-002971-24.).

Among 4716 hospitalized adult patients with Covid-19 in the United Kingdom, those who were treated with hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care.

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

Lopinavir–ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity, preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir–ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 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 lopinavir–ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Between March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir–ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir–ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91–1·17; p=0·60). Results were consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91–1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99–1·20; p=0·092). In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir–ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir–ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research.

Alteplase is effective for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke but debate continues about its use after longer times since stroke onset, in older patients, and among patients who have had the least or most severe strokes. We assessed the role of these factors in affecting good stroke outcome in patients given alteplase. We did a pre-specified meta-analysis of individual patient data from 6756 patients in nine randomised trials comparing alteplase with placebo or open control. We included all completed randomised phase 3 trials of intravenous alteplase for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke for which data were available. Retrospective checks confirmed that no eligible trials had been omitted. We defined a good stroke outcome as no significant disability at 3–6 months, defined by a modified Rankin Score of 0 or 1. Additional outcomes included symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (defined by type 2 parenchymal haemorrhage within 7 days and, separately, by the SITS-MOST definition of parenchymal type 2 haemorrhage within 36 h), fatal intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days, and 90-day mortality. Alteplase increased the odds of a good stroke outcome, with earlier treatment associated with bigger proportional benefit. Treatment within 3·0 h resulted in a good outcome for 259 (32·9%) of 787 patients who received alteplase versus 176 (23·1%) of 762 who received control (OR 1·75, 95% CI 1·35–2·27); delay of greater than 3·0 h, up to 4·5 h, resulted in good outcome for 485 (35·3%) of 1375 versus 432 (30·1%) of 1437 (OR 1·26, 95% CI 1·05–1·51); and delay of more than 4·5 h resulted in good outcome for 401 (32·6%) of 1229 versus 357 (30·6%) of 1166 (OR 1·15, 95% CI 0·95–1·40). Proportional treatment benefits were similar irrespective of age or stroke severity. Alteplase significantly increased the odds of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (type 2 parenchymal haemorrhage definition 231 [6·8%] of 3391 vs 44 [1·3%] of 3365, OR 5·55, 95% CI 4·01–7·70, p<0·0001; SITS-MOST definition 124 [3·7%] vs 19 [0·6%], OR 6·67, 95% CI 4·11–10·84, p<0·0001) and of fatal intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days (91 [2·7%] vs 13 [0·4%]; OR 7·14, 95% CI 3·98–12·79, p<0·0001). The relative increase in fatal intracranial haemorrhage from alteplase was similar irrespective of treatment delay, age, or stroke severity, but the absolute excess risk attributable to alteplase was bigger among patients who had more severe strokes. There was no excess in other early causes of death and no significant effect on later causes of death. Consequently, mortality at 90 days was 608 (17·9%) in the alteplase group versus 556 (16·5%) in the control group (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·99–1·25, p=0·07). Taken together, therefore, despite an average absolute increased risk of early death from intracranial haemorrhage of about 2%, by 3–6 months this risk was offset by an average absolute increase in disability-free survival of about 10% for patients treated within 3·0 h and about 5% for patients treated after 3·0 h, up to 4·5 h. Irrespective of age or stroke severity, and despite an increased risk of fatal intracranial haemorrhage during the first few days after treatment, alteplase significantly improves the overall odds of a good stroke outcome when delivered within 4·5 h of stroke onset, with earlier treatment associated with bigger proportional benefits. UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, University of Glasgow, University of Edinburgh.

Background Effective targeted prevention of type 2 diabetes (T2D) depends on accurate prediction of disease risk. We assessed the role of metabolomic profiling in improving T2D risk prediction beyond conventional risk factors. Methods Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomic profiling was undertaken on baseline plasma samples in 65,684 UK Biobank participants without diabetes and not taking lipid-lowering medication. Among a subset of 50,519 participants with data available on all relevant co-variates (sociodemographic characteristics, parental history of diabetes, lifestyle—including dietary—factors, anthropometric measures and fasting time), Cox regression yielded adjusted hazard ratios for the associations of 143 individual metabolic biomarkers (including lipids, lipoproteins, fatty acids, amino acids, ketone bodies and other low molecular weight metabolic biomarkers) and 11 metabolic biomarker principal components (PCs) (accounting for 90% of the total variance in individual biomarkers) with incident T2D. These 11 PCs were added to established models for T2D risk prediction among the full study population, and measures of risk discrimination (c-statistic) and reclassification (continuous net reclassification improvement [NRI], integrated discrimination index [IDI]) were assessed. Results During median 11.9 (IQR 11.1–12.6) years’ follow-up, after accounting for multiple testing, 90 metabolic biomarkers showed independent associations with T2D risk among 50,519 participants (1211 incident T2D cases) and 76 showed associations after additional adjustment for HbA1c (false discovery rate controlled p < 0.01). Overall, 8 metabolic biomarker PCs were independently associated with T2D. Among the full study population of 65,684 participants, of whom 1719 developed T2D, addition of PCs to an established risk prediction model, including age, sex, parental history of diabetes, body mass index and HbA1c, improved T2D risk prediction as assessed by the c-statistic (increased from 0.802 [95% CI 0.791–0.812] to 0.830 [0.822–0.841]), continuous NRI (0.44 [0.38–0.49]) and relative (15.0% [10.5–20.4%]) and absolute (1.5 [1.0–1.9]) IDI. More modest improvements were observed when metabolic biomarker PCs were added to a more comprehensive established T2D risk prediction model additionally including waist circumference, blood pressure and plasma lipid concentrations (c-statistic, 0.829 [0.819–0.838] to 0.837 [0.831–0.848]; continuous NRI, 0.22 [0.17–0.28]; relative IDI, 6.3% [4.1–9.8%]; absolute IDI, 0.7 [0.4–1.1]). Conclusions When added to conventional risk factors, circulating NMR-based metabolic biomarkers modestly enhanced T2D risk prediction.