Explore the vast range of titles available.

Heart failure is a prevalent condition that is generally treated in primary care. The aim of this study was to assess how primary-care physicians think that heart failure should be managed, how they implement their knowledge, and whether differences exist in practice between countries. The survey was undertaken in 15 countries that had membership of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) between Sept 1, 1999, and May 31, 2000. Primary-care physicians' knowledge and perceptions about the management of heart failure were assessed with a perception survey and how a representative sample of patients was managed with an actual practice survey. 1363 physicians provided data for 11 062 patients, of whom 54% were older than 70 years and 45% were women. 82% of patients had had an echocardiogram but only 51% of these showed left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, and major valve disease were all common. Physicians gave roughly equal priority to improvement of symptoms and prognosis. Most were aware of the benefits of ACE inhibitors and β blockers. 60% of patients were prescribed ACE inhibitors, 34% β blockers but only 20% received these drugs in combination. Doses given were about 50% of targets suggested in the ESC guidelines. If systolic dysfunction was documented, ACE inhibitors were more likely and β blockers less likely to be prescribed than when there was no evidence of systolic dysfunction. Results from this survey suggest that most patients with heart failure are appropriately investigated, although this finding might be as a result of high rates of hospital admissions. However, treatment seems to be less than optimum, and there are substantial variations in practice between countries. The inconsistencies between physicians' knowledge and the treatment that they deliver suggests that improved organisation of care for heart failure is required.

Accurate data for prevalence rates for heart failure due to various causes, and for left-ventricular systolic dysfunction in all adults are unavailable. Our aim was to assess prevalence of left-ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure in a large representative adult population in England. Of 6286 randomly selected patients aged 45 years and older, 3960 (63%) participated in the study. They came from 16 randomly selected general practices. We assessed patients by history and examination, electrocardiography, and echocardiography. Prevalence of left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (defined as ejection fraction <40%) and heart failure was calculated for the overall population on the basis of strict criteria and, when necessary, adjudication by a panel. Left-ventricular systolic dysfunction was diagnosed in 72 (1·8% [95% CI 1·4–2·3]) participants, half of whom had no symptoms. Borderline left-ventricular function (ejection fraction 40–50%) was seen in 139 patients (3·5% [3·0–4·1]). Definite heart failure was seen in 92 (2·3%, [1·9–2·8]) and was associated with an ejection fraction of less than 40% in 38 (41%) patients, atrial fibrillation in 30 (33%), and valve disease in 24 (26%). Probable heart failure was seen in a further 32 (0·8% [0·6–1·1]) patients. In total, 124 (3·1% [2·6–3·7]) patients aged 45 years or older had definite or probable heart failure. Heart failure is often misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed in primary care. Our results suggest that assessment of left-ventricular function in patients with suspected heart failure could lead to more effective diagnosis and treatment of this disorder.

A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI –0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding. We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96. Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9–6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41–2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62–4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14–0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55–3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients). H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term. National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment.

Anticoagulants are more effective than antiplatelet agents at reducing stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation, but whether this benefit outweighs the increased risk of bleeding in elderly patients is unknown. We assessed whether warfarin reduced risk of major stroke, arterial embolism, or other intracranial haemorrhage compared with aspirin in elderly patients. 973 patients aged 75 years or over (mean age 81·5 years, SD 4·2) with atrial fibrillation were recruited from primary care and randomly assigned to warfarin (target international normalised ratio 2–3) or aspirin (75 mg per day). Follow-up was for a mean of 2·7 years (SD 1·2). The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), intracranial haemorrhage, or clinically significant arterial embolism. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN89345269. There were 24 primary events (21 strokes, two other intracranial haemorrhages, and one systemic embolus) in people assigned to warfarin and 48 primary events (44 strokes, one other intracranial haemorrhage, and three systemic emboli) in people assigned to aspirin (yearly risk 1·8% vs 3·8%, relative risk 0·48, 95% CI 0·28–0·80, p=0·003; absolute yearly risk reduction 2%, 95% CI 0·7–3·2). Yearly risk of extracranial haemorrhage was 1·4% (warfarin) versus 1·6% (aspirin) (relative risk 0·87, 0·43–1·73; absolute risk reduction 0·2%, −0·7 to 1·2). These data support the use of anticoagulation therapy for people aged over 75 who have atrial fibrillation, unless there are contraindications or the patient decides that the benefits are not worth the inconvenience.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with a substantial risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and vascular events. The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), finerenone, offers cardiorenal protection for people with CKD and diabetes, but there is uncertainty if the steroidal MRA, spironolactone, provides the same protection. In this prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial, we assessed the effectiveness of 25 mg spironolactone in addition to usual care or usual care alone for reducing cardiovascular outcomes in stage 3b CKD among an older community cohort (mean age = 74.8 years and s.d. = 8.1). We recruited 1,434 adults from English primary care, of whom 1,372 (96%) were included in the primary analysis. The primary outcome was time from randomization until the first occurrence of death, hospitalization for heart disease, stroke, heart failure, transient ischemic attack or peripheral arterial disease, or first onset of any condition listed not present at baseline. Across 3 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 113 of 677 participants randomized to spironolactone (16.7%) and 111 of 695 participants randomized to usual care (16.0%) with no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.37). Two-thirds of participants randomized to spironolactone stopped treatment within 6 months, predominantly because they met prespecified safety stop criteria. The most common reason for stopping spironolactone was a decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate that met prespecified stop criteria ( n  = 239, 35.4%), followed by participants being withdrawn due to treatment side effects ( n  = 128, 18.9%) and hyperkalemia ( n  = 54, 8.0%). In conclusion, we found that spironolactone was frequently discontinued due to safety concerns, with no evidence that it reduced cardiovascular outcomes in people with stage 3b CKD. Spironolactone should not be used for people with stage 3b CKD without another explicit treatment indication. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: ISRCTN44522369 . A randomized controlled trial involving patients with stage 3b chronic kidney disease from primary care reported that in contrast to reported cardiorenal protective effects of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), the steroidal MRA spironolactone did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular disease hospitalization compared to usual care.

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine on reducing the need for hospital admission in patients in the community at higher risk of complications from COVID-19 syndromic illness (testing was largely unavailable at the time, hence not microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection), as part of the national open-label, multi-arm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial in community care in the United Kingdom (UK). People aged 65 and over, or aged 50 and over with comorbidities, and who had been unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 were randomised to usual care with the addition of hydroxychloroquine, 200 mg twice a day for seven days, or usual care without hydroxychloroquine (control). Participants were recruited based on symptoms and approximately 5% had confirmed SARS-COV2 infection. The primary outcome while hydroxychloroquine was in the trial was hospital admission or death related to suspected COVID-19 infection within 28 days from randomisation. First recruitment was on April 2, 2020, and the hydroxychloroquine arm was suspended by the UK Medicines Regulator on May 22, 2020. 207 were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and 206 to usual care, and 190 and 194 contributed to the primary analysis results presented, respectively. There was no swab result available within 28 days of randomisation for 39% in both groups: 107 (54%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 111 (55%) in the usual care group tested negative for SARS-Cov-2, and 13 (7%) and 11 (5%) tested positive. 13 participants, (seven (3·7%) in the usual care plus hydroxychloroquine and six (3.1%) in the usual care group were hospitalized (odds ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·36 to 3.00], probability of superiority 0·47). There was one serious adverse event, in the usual care group. More people receiving hydroxychloroquine reported nausea. We found no evidence from this treatment arm of the PRINCIPLE trial, stopped early and therefore under-powered for reasons external to the trial, that hydroxychloroquine reduced hospital admission or death in people with suspected, but mostly unconfirmed COVID-19.

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 In this clinical trial, the authors show that a 5-day molnupiravir treatment reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load in at-risk outpatients by day 5 but mostly fails to clear virus, leads to lower spike antibody response by day 14 and higher virus mutation rates.

Aging is associated with a decline in many components of the immune system (immunosenescence). Probiotics may improve the immune response in older people. The objective was to determine the effect of the combination of two probiotic organisms [ Lacticaseibacillus (previously known as Lactobacillus ) rhamnosus GG (LGG) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis , BB-12 (BB-12)] on a range of immune biomarkers measured in the blood of older people resident in care homes in the UK. In a randomized controlled trial, older people [aged 67–97 (mean 86) years] resident in care homes received the combination of LGG+BB-12 (1.3–1.6 × 10 9 CFU per day) or placebo for up to 12 months. Full blood count, blood immune cell phenotypes, plasma immune mediator concentrations, phagocytosis, and blood culture responses to immune stimulation were all measured. Response to seasonal influenza vaccination was measured in a subset of participants. Paired samples (i.e., before and after intervention) were available for 30 participants per group. LGG and BB-12 were more likely to be present in feces in the probiotic group and were present at higher numbers. There was no significant effect of the probiotics on components of the full blood count, blood immune cell phenotypes, plasma immune mediator concentrations, phagocytosis by neutrophils and monocytes, and blood culture responses to immune stimulation. There was an indication that the probiotics improved the response to seasonal influenza vaccination with significantly ( p = 0.04) higher seroconversion to the A/Michigan/2015 vaccine strain in the probiotic group than in the placebo group (47 vs. 15%).

Background Blood pressure (BP) control following stroke is important but currently sub-optimal. This trial aimed to determine whether self-monitoring of hypertension with telemonitoring and a treatment escalation protocol, results in lower BP than usual care in people with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Methods Unblinded randomised controlled trial, comparing a BP telemonitoring-based intervention with control (usual care) for hypertension management in 12 primary care practices in England. People with previous stroke or TIA with clinic systolic BP 130–180 mmHg, taking ≤ 3 antihypertensive medications and on stable treatment for at least four weeks were randomised 1:1 using secure online system to intervention or control. The BP:Together intervention comprised self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital behavioural intervention which supported telemonitoring of self-monitored BP with feedback to clinicians and patients regarding medication titration. The planned primary outcome was difference in clinic measured systolic BP 12 months from randomisation but was not available following early study termination due to withdrawal of funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, in addition to pre-randomised data, routinely recorded BP was extracted from electronic patient records both pre- and post-randomisation and presented descriptively only. An intention to treat approach was taken. Results From 650 postal invitations, 129 (20%) responded, of whom 95 people had been screened for eligibility prior to the pandemic (November 2019-March 2020) and 55 (58%) were randomised. Pre-randomisation routinely recorded mean BP was 145/78 mmHg in the control ( n  = 26) and 145/79 mmHg in the self-monitoring ( n  = 21) groups. Post-randomisation mean BP was 134/73 mmHg in the control ( n  = 19) and 130/75 mmHg in the self-monitoring ( n  = 25) groups. Participants randomised to self-monitoring used the intervention for ≥ 7 months in 25/27 (93%) of cases. Conclusions Recruitment of people with stroke/TIA to a trial comparing a BP self-monitoring and digital behavioural intervention to usual care was feasible prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the vast majority of those randomised to intervention used it while the trial was running. Routinely recorded blood pressure control improved in both groups. Digital interventions including self-monitoring are feasible for people with stroke/TIA and should be definitively evaluated in future trials. Trial registration ISRCTN57946500 06/09/2019 Prospective.