Search

Background Guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) rather than an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) for the treatment of hypertension for people of African and Caribbean descent, due to an increased risk of angioedema associated with ACEi use observed in US trials. However, the effectiveness and risk of these drugs in Black populations in UK routine care is unknown. Methods and findings We applied a reference trial emulation approach to UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum data (linked with data from Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics) to study the comparative effectiveness of ARB and ACEi in ethnic minority groups in England, after benchmarking results against the ONTARGET trial. Approximately 17,593 Black, 30,805 South Asian, and 524,623 White patients receiving a prescription for ARB/ACEi between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2019 were included with a median follow-up of 5.2 years. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular-related death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure with individual components studied as secondary outcomes. Angioedema was a safety endpoint. We assessed outcomes using an inverse-probability-weighted Cox proportional hazards model for ARB versus ACEi with heterogeneity by ethnicity assessed on the relative and absolute scale. For the primary outcome, 27,327 (18.0%) events were recorded in the ARB group (event rate: 25% per 5.5 person-years) and 80,624 (19.1%) events (event rate: 26% per 5.5 person-years) in the ACEi group. We benchmarked results against ONTARGET and observed hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for the primary outcome, with an absolute incidence rate difference (IRD)% of -1.01 (95% CI: -1.42, -0.60) per 5.5 person-years. We found no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity by ethnicity for the primary outcome on the multiplicative (P.sub.int = 0.422) or additive scale (P.sub.int = 0.287). Results were consistent for most secondary outcomes. However, for cardiovascular-related death, which occurred in 37,554 (6.6%) people, there was strong evidence of heterogeneity on the multiplicative (P.sub.int = 0.002) and additive scale (P.sub.int < 0.001). Compared to ACEi, ARB were associated with more events in Black individuals (HR 1.20 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.40); IRD% 1.07 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.04); number-needed-to-harm (NNH): 93) and associated with fewer events in White individuals (HR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.93); IRD% -0.87 (95% CI: -1.10, -0.63); number-needed-to-treat (NNT): 115), and no differences in South Asian individuals (HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.09); IRD% -0.17 (95% CI: -0.87, 0.53)). For angioedema, HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.67) with no heterogeneity for ARB versus ACEi on the multiplicative scale (P.sub.int = 0.306). However, there was heterogeneity on the additive scale (P.sub.int = 0.023). Absolute risks were higher in Black individuals (IRD% -0.49 (95% CI: -0.79, -0.18); NNT: 204) compared with White individuals (IRD% -0.06 (95% CI: -0.09, -0.03); NNT: 1667) and no difference among South Asian individuals (IRD% -0.05 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.05) for ARB versus ACEi. Conclusions These results demonstrate variation in drug effects of ACEi and ARB for some outcomes by ethnicity and suggest the potential for adverse consequences from current UK guideline recommendations for ARB in preference to ACEi for Black individuals., Author(s): Paris J. Baptiste 1,2,*, Angel Y. S. Wong 2, Anna Schultze 2, Catherine M. Clase 3,4, Clémence Leyrat 5, Elizabeth Williamson 5, Emma Powell 2, Johannes F. E. Mann [...]

Background Socioeconomic factors have been consistently associated with suicide, and economic recessions are linked to rising suicide rates. However, evidence on the impact of socioeconomic interventions to reduce suicide rates is limited. This study investigates the association of the world's largest conditional cash transfer programme with suicide rates in a cohort of half of the Brazilian population. Methods and findings We used data from the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort, covering a 12-year period (2004 to 2015). It comprises socioeconomic and demographic information on 114,008,317 individuals, linked to the 'Bolsa Família' programme (BFP) payroll database, and nationwide death registration data. BFP was implemented by the Brazilian government in 2004. We estimated the association of BFP using inverse probability of treatment weighting, estimating the weights for BFP beneficiaries (weight = 1) and nonbeneficiaries by the inverse probability of receiving treatment (weight = E(ps)/(1-E(ps))). We used an average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) estimator and fitted Poisson models to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for suicide associated with BFP experience. At the cohort baseline, BFP beneficiaries were younger (median age 27.4 versus 35.4), had higher unemployment rates (56% versus 32%), a lower level of education, resided in rural areas, and experienced worse household conditions. There were 36,742 suicide cases among the 76,532,158 individuals aged 10 years, or older, followed for 489,500,000 person-years at risk. Suicide rates among beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries were 5.4 (95% CI = 5.32, 5.47, p < 0.001) and 10.7 (95% CI = 10.51, 10.87, p < 0.001) per 100,000 individuals, respectively. BFP beneficiaries had a lower suicide rate than nonbeneficiaries (IRR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.42, 0.45, p < 0.001). This association was stronger among women (IRR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.33, 0.38, p < 0.001), and individuals aged between 25 and 59 (IRR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.40, 0.43, p < 0.001). Study limitations include a lack of control for previous mental disorders and access to means of suicide, and the possible under-registration of suicide cases due to stigma. Conclusions We observed that BFP was associated with lower suicide rates, with similar results in all sensitivity analyses. These findings should help to inform policymakers and health authorities to better design suicide prevention strategies. Targeting social determinants using cash transfer programmes could be important in limiting suicide, which is predicted to rise with the economic recession, consequent to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Author(s): Daiane Borges Machado 1,2,*, Elizabeth Williamson 3, Julia M. Pescarini 1,3, Flavia J. O. Alves 1, Luís F. S. Castro-de-Araujo 1,4, Maria Yury Ichihara 1, Laura C. Rodrigues 1,3, [...]

Background There is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods and findings With the approval of NHS-England, we conducted a cohort study, using linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February to December 2020) and surviving at least 1 week, and (i) demographically matched controls from the 2019 general population; and (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017 to 2019. We used Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidities considered potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. We included 24,673 postdischarge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls, followed for [less than or equal to]315 days. COVID-19 patients had median age of 66 years, 13,733 (56%) were male, and 19,061 (77%) were of white ethnicity. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30,968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.22, 2.14 to 2.30, p < 0.001) but slightly lower than the influenza group (aHR 0.95, 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.004). All-cause mortality (7,439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (aHR 4.82, 4.48 to 5.19 versus general population controls [p < 0.001] and 1.74, 1.61 to 1.88 versus influenza controls [p < 0.001]). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than in general population controls and largely similar or lower in COVID-19 compared with influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted or die due to their initial infection or other lower respiratory tract infection (aHR 1.37, 1.22 to 1.54, p < 0.001) and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission or death (aHR 1.37, 1.02 to 1.84, p = 0.039); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with preexisting dementia had higher risk of dementia hospitalisation or death (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2.47, 1.37 to 4.44, p = 0.002). Limitations of our study were that reasons for hospitalisation or death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes, and we did not have data to distinguish COVID-19 variants. Conclusions In this study, we observed that people discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations, but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmission or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of postdischarge monitoring., Author(s): Krishnan Bhaskaran 1,*, Christopher T. Rentsch 1, George Hickman 2, William J. Hulme 2, Anna Schultze 1, Helen J. Curtis 2, Kevin Wing 1, Charlotte Warren-Gash 1, Laurie Tomlinson [...]

The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa claimed >11,000 lives with nearly 30,000 cases (l). During the outbreak in Sierra Leone, patients arriving at healthcare facilities were screened [...]