Search

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of combination BP lowering on cardiovascular events and mortality in the presence of aspirin and/or statin therapy in a combined analysis of the ADVANCE and PROGRESS trials. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 14 682 participants allocated combination therapy with perindopril and indapamide or placebo followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. Participants were stratified into four groups defined by background use of medications at baseline: statin, aspirin, both or neither. Linear mixed effect models were used to assess differences in BP and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risks of major cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality and treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: At baseline, 14% of patients were on both aspirin and statin, 35% on aspirin, 9% on statins and 42% on neither aspirin/statins. Compared with placebo, combination BP therapy reduced mean SBP by 5.7 mmHg in ADVANCE and 12.1 mmHg in PROGRESS, with no difference (P > 0.447) between patients by baseline use of aspirin/statin. Combination BP therapy reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.86), with no significant difference (P = 0.600) between aspirin/statin subgroups. Rates of treatment discontinuation were similar with combination BP therapy compared with placebo (18.4 versus 18%), with no evidence of difference across the subgroups (P = 0.340). CONCLUSION: BP lowering with perindopril and indapamide reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events independent of baseline use of aspirin and/or statins.

AimsPatients with cardiac disease are considered high risk for poor outcomes following hospitalization with COVID-19. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in associations between various heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality.Method and resultsWe used data from the CAPACITY-COVID registry and LEOSS study. Multivariable Poisson regression models were fitted to assess the association between different types of pre-existent heart disease and in-hospital mortality. 16,511 patients with COVID-19 were included (21.1% aged 66 – 75 years; 40.2% female) and 31.5% had a history of heart disease. Patients with heart disease were older, predominantly male and often had other comorbid conditions when compared to those without. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease (29.7%; n=1545 versus 15.9%; n=1797). However, following multivariable adjustment this difference was not significant (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.08 [95% CI 1.02 – 1.15; p-value 0.12 (corrected for multiple testing)]). Associations with in-hospital mortality by heart disease subtypes differed considerably, with the strongest association for heart failure aRR (1.19 [1.10 – 1.30]; p-value ConclusionConsiderable heterogeneity exists in the strength of association between heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. Of all patients with heart disease, those with heart failure are at greatest risk of death when hospitalized with COVID-19. Serious cardiac complications are rare.

Cell lines represent the most versatile and widely used models of cancer and, as such, are critical for identifying and advancing new therapies. Strikingly, there is a significant gap in both the number of childhood brain cancer cell lines and their characterisation compared to their adult counterparts. To address this inequity, we established a childhood brain cancer cell line atlas (publicly available at vicpcc.org.au/dashboard) encompassing over 180 childhood CNS-derived cell lines, representing 20 tumour types and 11 molecular subtypes. Cell lines are characterized by whole genome, RNA-sequencing, phospho- and total proteomics, DNA methylation and ATAC-seq analyses. Multi-omic factor analysis revealed distinct lineage-specified classification of our cell line cohort. In parallel, high throughput drug and CRISPR/Cas9 screens were conducted to map the functional dependencies in over 70 childhood CNS cell lines, including 47 paediatric high grade glioma models. These screens identified both lineage and molecular-subtype specific genetic and drug dependencies, underscoring the utility of this wide-scale approach. Machine based learning approaches to predict genotype-phenotype correlations uncovered distinct paediatric-specific biomarkers of growth dependency, highlighting the unique genetic wiring underlying paediatric CNS tumours. Finally, by integrating functional, molecular and drug profiles of paediatric CNS cell lines, we construct a system to prioritize investigation of novel therapeutic target-biomarkers pairs in specific CNS tumour types.

Suboptimal adherence to antihypertensive medication is a major contributor to poor blood pressure control. Several methods, direct or indirect, are available for measuring adherence, including the recently developed biochemical screening, although there is no gold-standard method routinely used in clinical practice to accurately assess the different facets of adherence. Adherence to treatment is a complex phenomenon and several of the barriers to adherence will need to be addressed at the healthcare system level; however, when looking at adherence from a more practical side and from the practitioner's perspective, the patient-practitioner relationship is a key element both in detecting adherence and in attempting to choose interventions tailored to the patient's profile. The use of single-pill combinations enabling simplification of treatment regimen, the implementation of a collaborative team-based approach and the development of electronic health tools also hold promise for improving adherence, and thus impacting cardiovascular outcomes and healthcare costs.

This chapter explores the use of Legal Design, Technology and Innovation (“LDTI”) as a means of preparing lawyers for emerging legal careers, including the new legal jobs predicted by Richard Susskind in Tomorrow’s Lawyers. The chapter begins with an exploration of Susskind’s predictions on the future of the legal profession and legal education. Sections 2 (Legal Design), 3 (Legal Technology) and 4 (Legal Innovation) explore how LDTI education programs have responded to the changing legal landscape predicted by Susskind. In Sect. 5, the authors propose an empirical evaluation of Susskind’s specific job categorizations and their related need for LDTI skills, as a necessary prerequisite to legal curriculum reform. As a first step in this evaluation process, the authors have prepared a prototype survey focused on determining: (1) the existence and/or prevalence of Susskind’s new jobs; (2) whether legal employees and employers are satisfied with these jobs; and (3) what legal educators should do to prepare lawyers for these jobs. Having circulated the prototype survey among a limited set of key stakeholders, the authors share some preliminary results. In the final section, the authors propose areas for further investigation and invite others to participate in our multi-phase, empirical evaluation of emerging legal careers and the skills required to fill these positions.

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common form of hypertension and is highly prevalent in older people. We recently showed differences between upper-arm cuff and invasive blood pressure (BP) become greater with increasing age, which could influence correct identification of ISH. This study sought to determine the difference between identification of ISH by cuff BP compared with invasive BP. Cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured in 1695 subjects (median 64 years, interquartile range [55–72], 68% male) from the INSPECT (Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium) database. Data were recorded during coronary angiography among 29 studies, using 21 different cuff BP devices. ISH was defined as ≥130/

ObjectivesTo estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care services and overall (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer.MethodsWe employed near real-time weekly data on cancer care to determine the adverse effect of the pandemic on cancer services. We also used these data, together with national death registrations until June 2020 to model deaths, in excess of background (pre-COVID-19) mortality, in people with cancer. Background mortality risks for 24 cancers with and without COVID-19-relevant comorbidities were obtained from population-based primary care cohort (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) on 3 862 012 adults in England.ResultsDeclines in urgent referrals (median=−70.4%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=−41.5%) to a nadir (lowest point) in the pandemic were observed. By 31 May, these declines have only partially recovered; urgent referrals (median=−44.5%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=−31.2%). There were short-term excess death registrations for cancer (without COVID-19), with peak relative risk (RR) of 1.17 at week ending on 3 April. The peak RR for all-cause deaths was 2.1 from week ending on 17 April. Based on these findings and recent literature, we modelled 40% and 80% of cancer patients being affected by the pandemic in the long-term. At 40% affected, we estimated 1-year total (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer as between 7165 and 17 910, using RRs of 1.2 and 1.5, respectively, where 78% of excess deaths occured in patients with ≥1 comorbidity.ConclusionsDramatic reductions were detected in the demand for, and supply of, cancer services which have not fully recovered with lockdown easing. These may contribute, over a 1-year time horizon, to substantial excess mortality among people with cancer and multimorbidity. It is urgent to understand how the recovery of general practitioner, oncology and other hospital services might best mitigate these long-term excess mortality risks.

Hypertensive disorders are the most common medical complications in the peripartum period associated with a substantial increase in morbidity and mortality. Hypertension in the peripartum period may be due to the continuation of pre-existing or gestational hypertension, de novo development of pre-eclampsia or it may be also induced by some drugs used for analgesia or suppression of postpartum haemorrhage. Women with severe hypertension and hypertensive emergencies are at high risk of life-threatening complications, therefore, despite the lack of evidence-based data, based on expert opinion, antihypertensive treatment is recommended. Labetalol intravenously and methyldopa orally are then the two most frequently used drugs. Short-acting oral nifedipine is suggested to be used only if other drugs or iv access are not available. Induction of labour is associated with improved maternal outcome and should be advised for women with gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia at 37 weeks’ gestation. This position paper provides the first interdisciplinary approach to the management of hypertension in the peripartum period based on the best available evidence and expert consensus.

Aims Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the cellular entry point for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)—the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the effect of renin-angiotensin system (RAS)-inhibition on ACE2 expression in human tissues of key relevance to blood pressure regulation and COVID-19 infection has not previously been reported. Methods and results We examined how hypertension, its major metabolic co-phenotypes, and antihypertensive medications relate to ACE2 renal expression using information from up to 436 patients whose kidney transcriptomes were characterized by RNA-sequencing. We further validated some of the key observations in other human tissues and/or a controlled experimental model. Our data reveal increasing expression of ACE2 with age in both human lungs and the kidney. We show no association between renal expression of ACE2 and either hypertension or common types of RAS inhibiting drugs. We demonstrate that renal abundance of ACE2 is positively associated with a biochemical index of kidney function and show a strong enrichment for genes responsible for kidney health and disease in ACE2 co-expression analysis. Conclusion Our results indicate that neither hypertension nor antihypertensive treatment is likely to alter the expression of the key entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2 in the human kidney. Our data further suggest that in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, kidney ACE2 is most likely nephro-protective but the age-related increase in its expression within lungs and kidneys may be relevant to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection., Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract

BackgroundIn 2011, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended the routine use of out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring for the diagnosis of hypertension. These changes were predicted to reduce unnecessary treatment costs and workload associated with misdiagnosis.AimTo assess the impact of guideline change on rates of hypertension-related consultation in general practice.Design and settingA retrospective open cohort study in adults registered with English general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2017.MethodThe primary outcome was the rate of face-to-face, telephone, and home visit consultations related to hypertension with a GP or nurse. Age- and sex-standardised rates were analysed using interrupted time-series analysis.ResultsIn 3 937 191 adults (median follow-up 4.2 years) there were 12 253 836 hypertension-related consultations. The rate of hypertension-related consultation was 71.0 per 100 person–years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.8 to 74.2) in April 2006, which remained flat before 2011. The introduction of the NICE hypertension guideline in 2011 was associated with a change in yearly trend (change in trend −3.60 per 100 person–years, 95% CI = −5.12 to −2.09). The rate of consultation subsequently decreased to 59.2 per 100 person–years (95% CI = 56.5 to 61.8) in March 2017. These changes occurred around the time of diagnosis, and persisted when accounting for wider trends in all consultations.ConclusionHypertension-related workload has declined in the last decade, in association with guideline changes. This is due to changes in workload at the time of diagnosis, rather than reductions in misdiagnosis.

BackgroundEarly observational studies suggested that the use of the renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, specifically angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, may increase the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and adversely affect the prognosis or survival of infected patients. To explore the impact of RAS inhibitor use on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, from all published studies.Methods and FindingsA systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of RAS inhibitors in relation to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and/or the severity and mortality associated with COVID-19 was conducted. English language bibliographic databases PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Embase, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, searched from Jan 1st, 2020 to July 20th, 2020. 58 observational studies (69,200 COVID-19 patients and 3,103,335 controls) were included. There was no difference in the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection between RAS inhibitor users and non-users (unadjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.21), (adjusted OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02), (adjusted HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.31). There was no significant difference in the severe Covid-19 case rate between RAS inhibitor users and non-users (unadjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.36), (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.12), or in mortality due to COVID-19 between RAS inhibitor users and non-users (unadjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.44), (adjusted OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23), (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.14).ConclusionsIn the most comprehensive analysis of all available data to date, treatment with RAS inhibitors was not associated with increased risk of infection, severity of disease, or mortality due to COVID-19. The best available evidence suggests that these treatments should not be discontinued on the basis of concern about risk associated with COVID-19.

Summary Background A subset of patients with severe COVID-19 develop a hyperinflammatory syndrome, which might contribute to morbidity and mortality. This study explores a specific phenotype of COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation (COV-HI), and its associations with escalation of respiratory support and survival. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled consecutive inpatients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to University College London Hospitals and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals in the UK with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 during the first wave of community-acquired infection. Demographic data, laboratory tests, and clinical status were recorded from the day of admission until death or discharge, with a minimum follow-up time of 28 days. We defined COV-HI as a C-reactive protein concentration greater than 150 mg/L or doubling within 24 h from greater than 50 mg/L, or a ferritin concentration greater than 1500 μg/L. Respiratory support was categorised as oxygen only, non-invasive ventilation, and intubation. Initial and repeated measures of hyperinflammation were evaluated in relation to the next-day risk of death or need for escalation of respiratory support (as a combined endpoint), using a multi-level logistic regression model. Findings We included 269 patients admitted to one of the study hospitals between March 1 and March 31, 2020, among whom 178 (66%) were eligible for escalation of respiratory support and 91 (34%) patients were not eligible. Of the whole cohort, 90 (33%) patients met the COV-HI criteria at admission. Despite having a younger median age and lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, a higher proportion of patients with COV-HI on admission died during follow-up (36 [40%] of 90 patients) compared with the patients without COV-HI on admission (46 [26%] of 179). Among the 178 patients who were eligible for full respiratory support, 65 (37%) met the definition for COV-HI at admission, and 67 (74%) of the 90 patients whose respiratory care was escalated met the criteria by the day of escalation. Meeting the COV-HI criteria was significantly associated with the risk of next-day escalation of respiratory support or death (hazard ratio 2·24 [95% CI 1·62–2·87]) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity. Interpretation Associations between elevated inflammatory markers, escalation of respiratory support, and survival in people with COVID-19 indicate the existence of a high-risk inflammatory phenotype. COV-HI might be useful to stratify patient groups in trial design. Funding None.

Background The number of proposed prognostic models for COVID-19 is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation. Methods We independently externally validated the performance candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictor in univariable analyses. Results We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78; 95% CI 0.73–0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration, Oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the 22 prognostic models evaluated in this study add incremental value to these univariable predictors.

Objective To determine the relation between age and troponin level and its prognostic implication. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Five cardiovascular centres in the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Informatics Collaborative (UK-NIHR HIC). Participants 257 948 consecutive patients undergoing troponin testing for any clinical reason between 2010 and 2017. Main outcome measure All cause mortality. Results 257 948 patients had troponin measured during the study period. Analyses on troponin were performed using the peak troponin level, which was the highest troponin level measured during the patient’s hospital stay. Troponin levels were standardised as a multiple of each laboratory’s 99th centile of the upper limit of normal (ULN). During a median follow-up of 1198 days (interquartile range 514-1866 days), 55 850 (21.7%) deaths occurred. A positive troponin result (that is, higher than the upper limit of normal) signified a 3.2 higher mortality hazard (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 3.2) over three years. Mortality varied noticeably with age, with a hazard ratio of 10.6 (8.5 to 13.3) in 18-29 year olds and 1.5 (1.4 to 1.6) in those older than 90. A positive troponin result was associated with an approximately 15 percentage points higher absolute three year mortality across all age groups. The excess mortality with a positive troponin result was heavily concentrated in the first few weeks. Results were analysed using multivariable adjusted restricted cubic spline Cox regression. A direct relation was seen between troponin level and mortality in patients without acute coronary syndrome (ACS, n=120 049), whereas an inverted U shaped relation was found in patients with ACS (n=14 468), with a paradoxical decline in mortality at peak troponin levels >70×ULN. In the group with ACS, the inverted U shaped relation persisted after multivariable adjustment in those who were managed invasively; however, a direct positive relation was found between troponin level and mortality in patients managed non-invasively. Conclusions A positive troponin result was associated with a clinically important increased mortality, regardless of age, even if the level was only slightly above normal. The excess mortality with a raised troponin was heavily concentrated in the first few weeks. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03507309 .

A key question in COVID-19 infection is why some previously healthy patients develop severe pulmonary failure and some ultimately die. Initial pulmonary failure does not exhibit classical features of ARDS; hypercoagulability is a common laboratory feature, and pulmonary thrombotic microangiopathy has been reported post mortem1,2,3. Biomarkers cannot robustly identify such patients pre-emptively and no specific interventions exist to mitigate clinical deterioration. Mononuclear phagocytic cells are key immune cells and bind fibrinogen through the CD11b/CD18 dimer CR3, whose activated form can initiate microthrombus formation. Accordingly, we profiled circulating monocyte CD11b/CD18 cell surface density from COVID-19 infected adults who were (i) symptomatic but breathless, (ii) requiring ventilatory support, and (iii) recovering following ICU care for hypoxia.

Background: Spironolactone (SPIRO) reduces BP in patients (pts) with resistant hypertension (RHTN); however, its use in pts with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is often limited by hyperkalemia (HK). In AMBER, patiromer (PAT) enabled more persistent use of SPIRO in pts with RHTN and CKD. As SPIRO is recommended in RHTN and DM increases HK risk, we report results in prespecified subgroups with type 1 or 2 DM (DM+) and without (DM-). Methods: Randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial in adults with RHTN and eGFR 25 to ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Pts were assigned (1:1) to PBO or PAT, and SPIRO 25 mg QD, with dose titrations permitted after 1 wk for PAT and 3 wks for SPIRO. Primary endpoint: between-group difference at Wk 12 in % of pts on SPIRO. Results: 295 pts were randomized, 145 (49%) DM+ and 150 (51%) DM-. Baseline mean (SD) serum K+ (mEq/L) was 4.76 (0.34) in DM+ and 4.67 (0.39) in DM-. Significantly more pts treated with PAT than with PBO remained on SPIRO at Wk 12 in both subgroups (Figure). LS Mean (SE) cumulative SPIRO dose was higher with PAT than PBO, by 438.7 (177.7) mg in DM+ and 317.8 (175.0) mg in DM-. Adverse events of hyperkalemia or blood K+ increased occurred in 7 (PBO) and 8 (PAT) DM+ patients and 7 (PBO) and 1 (PAT) DM- patients. Conclusions: PAT enabled more pts with advanced CKD and RHTN to continue treatment with SPIRO, regardless of DM status. Disclosure R. Agarwal: Other Relationship; Self; AbbVie Inc., Akebia Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Bird Rock Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, OPKO Health, Inc., Reata, Relypsa, Inc.,Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, ZS Pharma. P. Rossignol: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Idorsia, Novartis France, Novo Nordisk Inc., Relypsa, Inc., Servier, Vifor Pharma Group. Stock/Shareholder; Self; CardioRenal: cofounder. S. Arthur: Employee; Self; Relypsa, Inc. A. Conrad: Employee; Self; Relypsa, Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Vifor Pharma Group. W.B. White: Consultant; Self; Relypsa, Inc. B. Williams: Consultant; Self; Novartis AG, Relypsa, Inc., Vascular Dynamics Inc. Other Relationship; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., Servier. Funding Relypsa, Inc.

Background and Aims Spironolactone (SPIRO) is effective at reducing blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension (RHTN); however, its use in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is often limited by hyperkalaemia. In AMBER, patiromer (PAT) enabled more persistent use of SPIRO in patients with RHTN and eGFR 25 to ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients were required to be normokalaemic at baseline, with serum potassium (sK+) 4.3 to 5.1 mmol/L. Since higher baseline sK+ may increase the risk for developing hyperkalaemia on SPIRO, we evaluated AMBER results in prespecified subgroups by baseline sK+. Methods This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial in adults with eGFR 25 to ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m2, uncontrolled RHTN, and sK+ 4.3 to 5.1 mmol/L. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive PBO or PAT, and SPIRO 25 mg QD, with dose titrations permitted after 1 week (PAT) and 3 weeks (SPIRO). The primary endpoint was the between-group difference at Week 12 in the percentage of patients on SPIRO. The secondary endpoint was the difference between treatment groups in the change in systolic automated office blood pressure (AOBP) from baseline to Week 12 (or to the last available measurement before the addition of any new antihypertensive medications or increase in any of the baseline antihypertensive medications). The primary and secondary endpoints were assessed in prespecified subgroups by baseline sK+ stratum: 4.3 to Results 295 patients were randomised, 129 (44%) and 166 (56%) with baseline sK+ 4.3 to Conclusion PAT enabled more patients with advanced CKD and RHTN to continue treatment with SPIRO, regardless of baseline sK+ stratum.

Background Patients presenting with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) often undergo a blood test to measure troponin, but interpretation of the result is impeded by uncertainty about its clinical importance. We investigated the relationship between troponin level, coronary angiography, and all‐cause mortality in real‐world patients presenting with AF . Methods and Results We used National Institute of Health Research Health Informatics Collaborative data to identify patients admitted between 2010 and 2017 at 5 tertiary centers in the United Kingdom with a primary diagnosis of AF . Peak troponin results were scaled as multiples of the upper limit of normal. A total of 3121 patients were included in the analysis. Over a median follow‐up of 1462 (interquartile range, 929–1975) days, there were 586 deaths (18.8%). The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality associated with a positive troponin (value above upper limit of normal) was 1.20 (95% CI , 1.01–1.43; P CI , 1.9–3.4) at ≈250 multiples of the upper limit of normal. There was an exponential relationship between higher troponin levels and increased odds of coronary angiography. The mortality risk was 36% lower in patients undergoing coronary angiography than in those who did not (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI , 0.42–0.89; P =0.01). Conclusions Increased troponin was associated with increased risk of mortality in patients presenting with AF . The lower hazard ratio in patients undergoing invasive management raises the possibility that the clinical importance of troponin release in AF may be mediated by coronary artery disease, which may be responsive to revascularization.

Background: Cancer and multiple non-cancer conditions are considered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as high risk conditions in the COVID-19 emergency. Professional societies have recommended changes in cancer service provision to minimize COVID-19 risks to cancer patients and health care workers. However, we do not know the extent to which cancer patients, in whom multi-morbidity is common, may be at higher overall risk of mortality as a net result of multiple factors including COVID-19 infection, changes in health services, and socioeconomic factors. Methods: We report multi-center, weekly cancer diagnostic referrals and chemotherapy treatments until April 2020 in England and Northern Ireland. We analyzed population-based health records from 3,862,012 adults in England to estimate 1-year mortality in 24 cancer sites and 15 non-cancer comorbidity clusters (40 conditions) recognized by CDC as high-risk. We estimated overall (direct and indirect) effects of COVID-19 emergency on mortality under different Relative Impact of the Emergency (RIE) and different Proportions of the population Affected by the Emergency (PAE). We applied the same model to the US, using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data. Results: Weekly data until April 2020 demonstrate significant falls in admissions for chemotherapy (45-66% reduction) and urgent referrals for early cancer diagnosis (70-89% reduction), compared to pre-emergency levels. Under conservative assumptions of the emergency affecting only people with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases) at COVID-19 PAE of 40%, and an RIE of 1.5, the model estimated 6,270 excess deaths at 1 year in England and 33,890 excess deaths in the US. In England, the proportion of patients with incident cancer with ≥1 comorbidity was 65.2%. The number of comorbidities was strongly associated with cancer mortality risk. Across a range of model assumptions, and across incident and prevalent cancer cases, 78% of excess deaths occur in cancer patients with ≥1 comorbidity. Conclusion: We provide the first estimates of potential excess mortality among people with cancer and multimorbidity due to the COVID-19 emergency and demonstrate dramatic changes in cancer services. To better inform prioritization of cancer care and guide policy change, there is an urgent need for weekly data on cause-specific excess mortality, cancer diagnosis and treatment provision and better intelligence on the use of effective treatments for comorbidities.

Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the cellular entry point for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) - the cause of COVID-19 disease. It has been hypothesized that use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibiting medications in patients with hypertension, increases the expression of ACE2 and thereby increases the risk of COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes or death. However, the effect of RAS-inhibition on ACE2 expression in human tissues of key relevance to blood pressure regulation and COVID-19 infection has not previously been reported. We examined how hypertension, its major metabolic co-phenotypes and antihypertensive medications relate to ACE2 renal expression using information from up to 436 patients whose kidney transcriptomes were characterised by RNA-sequencing. We further validated some of the key observations in other human tissues and/or a controlled experimental model. Our data reveal increasing expression of ACE2 with age in both human lungs and the kidney. We show no association between renal expression of ACE2 and either hypertension or common types of RAS inhibiting drugs. We demonstrate that renal abundance of ACE2 is positively associated with a biochemical index of kidney function and show a strong enrichment for genes responsible for kidney health and disease in ACE2 co-expression analysis. Collectively, our data indicate that neither hypertension nor antihypertensive treatment are likely to alter individual risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or influence clinical outcomes in COVID-19 through changes of ACE2 expression. Our data further suggest that in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, kidney ACE2 is most likely nephro-protective but the age-related increase in its expression within lungs and kidneys may be relevant to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

IntroductionCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. The LIPIDOGRAM2015 study was performed to estimate the prevalence of risk factors for atherosclerotic diseases as well as cardiovascular and related disorders in the primary care setting in Poland. The LIPIDOGEN2015 sub-study was designed to include a random cohort of patients in order to analyse parameters related to lipid metabolism, oxidative stress, inflammatory responses, autoimmune disorders, and gene variants that confer susceptibility to cardiometabolic and atherosclerotic diseases.Material and methodsThe recruitment was carried out by 438 primary care physicians in Poland. The expected number of patients recruited for the LIPIDOGRAM2015 study was 13,000–14,000 with 13–15% (1700–2000) also participating in the LIPIDOGEN2015 sub-study. Each patient had to complete a questionnaire concerning medical and family history, concomitant diseases, and pharmacotherapy. Anthropometric measurements were performed at the doctor’s office. For the LIPIDOGEN2015 sub-study, saliva samples for DNA isolation and blood samples for measurement of glycated haemoglobin, oxidative stress parameters, autoantibody levels, and inflammatory cytokine profile and apolipoprotein profile were collected. Follow-up data will be obtained from the National Health Fund in Poland.ResultsThe LIPIDOGRAM2015 and LIPIDOGEN2015 study cohort reflects the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and concomitant diseases, markers of oxidative stress, the presence of autoantibodies, inflammatory cytokine profile, and apolipoprotein profile, as well as genetic variants potentially conferring susceptibility to cardiometabolic and atherosclerotic diseases.ConclusionsThis study presents the prevalence of different CV risk factors, with special emphasis on lipid disorders, and it assesses the relationship between inflammation, oxidative stress, and mutations in genes encoding proteins regulating lipid metabolism, as well as genes conferring susceptibility to cardiovascular, cardiometabolic, and related diseases.

Summary Background The medical, societal, and economic impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has unknown effects on overall population mortality. Previous models of population mortality are based on death over days among infected people, nearly all of whom thus far have underlying conditions. Models have not incorporated information on high-risk conditions or their longer-term baseline (pre-COVID-19) mortality. We estimated the excess number of deaths over 1 year under different COVID-19 incidence scenarios based on varying levels of transmission suppression and differing mortality impacts based on different relative risks for the disease. Methods In this population-based cohort study, we used linked primary and secondary care electronic health records from England (Health Data Research UK–CALIBER). We report prevalence of underlying conditions defined by Public Health England guidelines (from March 16, 2020) in individuals aged 30 years or older registered with a practice between 1997 and 2017, using validated, openly available phenotypes for each condition. We estimated 1-year mortality in each condition, developing simple models (and a tool for calculation) of excess COVID-19-related deaths, assuming relative impact (as relative risks [RRs]) of the COVID-19 pandemic (compared with background mortality) of 1·5, 2·0, and 3·0 at differing infection rate scenarios, including full suppression (0·001%), partial suppression (1%), mitigation (10%), and do nothing (80%). We also developed an online, public, prototype risk calculator for excess death estimation. Findings We included 3 862 012 individuals (1 957 935 [50·7%] women and 1 904 077 [49·3%] men). We estimated that more than 20% of the study population are in the high-risk category, of whom 13·7% were older than 70 years and 6·3% were aged 70 years or younger with at least one underlying condition. 1-year mortality in the high-risk population was estimated to be 4·46% (95% CI 4·41–4·51). Age and underlying conditions combined to influence background risk, varying markedly across conditions. In a full suppression scenario in the UK population, we estimated that there would be two excess deaths (vs baseline deaths) with an RR of 1·5, four with an RR of 2·0, and seven with an RR of 3·0. In a mitigation scenario, we estimated 18 374 excess deaths with an RR of 1·5, 36 749 with an RR of 2·0, and 73 498 with an RR of 3·0. In a do nothing scenario, we estimated 146 996 excess deaths with an RR of 1·5, 293 991 with an RR of 2·0, and 587 982 with an RR of 3·0. Interpretation We provide policy makers, researchers, and the public a simple model and an online tool for understanding excess mortality over 1 year from the COVID-19 pandemic, based on age, sex, and underlying condition-specific estimates. These results signal the need for sustained stringent suppression measures as well as sustained efforts to target those at highest risk because of underlying conditions with a range of preventive interventions. Countries should assess the overall (direct and indirect) effects of the pandemic on excess mortality. Funding National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, Health Data Research UK.

Hypertensive emergencies are those situations where very high blood pressure (BP) values are associated with acute organ damage, and therefore, require immediate, but careful, BP reduction. The type of acute organ damage is the principal determinant of: (i) the drug of choice, (ii) the target BP, and (iii) the timeframe in which BP should be lowered. Key target organs are the heart, retina, brain, kidneys, and large arteries. Patients who lack acute hypertension-mediated end organ damage do not have a hypertensive emergency and can usually be treated with oral BP-lowering agents and usually discharged after a brief period of observation.

This commentary refers to ‘Bedtime hypertension treatment improves cardiovascular risk reduction: the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial’, by R.C. Hermida et al., doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz754.

BackgroundThe medical, health service, societal and economic impact of the COVID-19 emergency has unknown effects on overall population mortality. Previous models of population mortality are based on death over days among infected people, nearly all of whom (to date at least) have underlying conditions. Models have not incorporated information on high risk conditions or their longer term background (pre-COVID-19) mortality. We estimated the excess number of deaths over 1 year under different COVID-19 incidence rates and differing mortality impacts.MethodsUsing population based linked primary and secondary care electronic health records in England (HDR UK - CALIBER), we report the prevalence of underlying conditions defined by UK Public Health England COVID-19 guidelines (16 March 2020) in 3,862,012 individuals aged ≥30 years from 1997-2017. We used previously validated phenotypes, openly available (https://caliberresearch.org/portal), for each condition using ICD-10 diagnosis, Read, procedure and medication codes. We estimated the 1-year mortality in each condition, and developed simple models of excess COVID-19-related deaths assuming relative risk (RR) of the impact of the emergency (compared to background mortality) of 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0.Findings20.0% of the population are at risk according to current PHE guidelines, of which; 13.7% were age>70 years and 6.3% aged ≤70 years with ≥1 underlying condition (cardiovascular disease (2.3%), diabetes (2.2%), steroid therapy (1.9%), severe obesity (0.9%), chronic kidney disease (0.6%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD (0.5%). Multimorbidity (co-occurrence of ≥2 conditions in an individual) was common (10.1%). The 1-year mortality in the at-risk population was 4.46%, and age and underlying conditions combine to influence background risk, varying markedly across conditions (5.9% in age>70 years, 8.6% for COPD and 13.1% in those with ≥3 or more conditions). In a suppression scenario (at SARS CoV2 rates of 0.001% of the UK population), there would be minimal excess deaths (3 and 7 excess deaths at relative risk, RR, 1.5 and 2.0 respectively). At SARS CoV2 rates of 10% of the UK population (mitigation) the model estimates the numbers of excess deaths as: 13791, 34479 and 68957 (at RR 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0 respectively). At SARS CoV2 rates of 80% in the UK population (“do-nothing”), the model estimates the number of excess deaths as 110332, 275,830 and 551,659 (at RR 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0) respectively.InterpretationWe provide the public, researchers and policy makers a simple model to estimate the excess mortality over 1 year from COVID-19, based on underlying conditions at different ages. If the relative mortality impact of COVID-19 were to be about 20% (similar magnitude as the established winter vs summer mortality excess), then the excess deaths would be 0 when 1 in 100 000 (suppression), 13791 when 1 in 10 (mitigation) and 110332 when 8 in 10 are infected (“do nothing”) scenario. However, the relative impact of COVID-19 is unknown. If the emergency were to double the mortality risk, then we estimate 7, 68957 and 551,659 excess deaths in the same scenarios. These results may inform the need for more stringent suppression measures as well as efforts to target those at highest risk for a range of preventive interventions.

Research and innovation in biomedicine and health care increasingly depend on electronic data. The emergence of data-driven technologies and associated digital transformations has focused attention on the value of such data. Despite the broad consensus of the value of health data, there is less consensus on the basis for that value; thus, the nature and extent of health data value remain unclear. Much of the existing literature presupposes that the value of data is to be understood primarily in financial terms, and assumes that a single financial value can be assigned. We here argue that the value of a dataset is instead relational; that is, the value depends on who wants to use it and for what purposes. Moreover, data are valued for both nonfinancial and financial reasons. Thus, it may be more accurate to discuss the values (plural) of a dataset rather than the singular value. This plurality of values opens up an important set of questions about how health data should be valued for the purposes of public policy. We argue that public value models provide a useful approach in this regard. According to public value theory, public value is created, or captured, to the extent that public sector institutions further their democratically established goals, and their impact on improving the lives of citizens. This article outlines how adopting such an approach might be operationalized within existing health care systems such as the English National Health Service, with particular focus on actionable conclusions.

Essential hypertension is invariably symptomless and usually detected by routine screening or opportunistic measurement of blood pressure. However, once a patient has been labelled as ‘hypertensive’ it is not uncommon for them to associate preceding symptoms to their elevated blood pressure. Some patients will claim that they can recognize when their blood pressure is elevated, usually on the basis of symptoms such as plethoric features, palpitations, dizziness, or a feeling of tension. Screening surveys have demonstrated that these symptoms occur no more commonly in untreated hypertensive patients than they do in the normotensive population. However, there are two important caveats to the symptomless nature of essential hypertension: (1) symptoms may develop as a consequence of target organ damage, (2) headache may be a feature of severe hypertension.

‘Essential hypertension’ is high blood pressure for which there is no clearly defined aetiology. From a practical perspective, it is best defined as that level of blood pressure at which treatment to lower blood pressure results in significant clinical benefit—a level which will vary from patient to patient depending on their absolute cardiovascular risk. Historically, most guidelines define ‘hypertension’ as an office blood pressure greater than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg, but some recent recommendations prefer home or ambulatory blood pressure (blood pressure) averages. When using 24 h ambulatory blood pressure or home blood pressure averages to define hypertension, the diagnostic thresholds are lower than those used with office measurement, with a value of 135/85 mm Hg typically used for both daytime ambulatory blood pressure and home measurements.

Blood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined systematically and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP was compared with invasive aortic BP across decades of age (from 40 to 89 years) using individual-level data from 31 studies (1674 patients undergoing coronary angiography) and 22 different cuff BP devices (19 oscillometric, 1 automated auscultation, 2 mercury sphygmomanometry) from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium. Subjects were aged 64±11 years, and 32% female. Cuff systolic BP overestimated invasive aortic systolic BP in those aged 40 to 49 years, but with each older decade of age, there was a progressive shift toward increasing underestimation of aortic systolic BP ( P P P

International audience

Objective: Self-management of hypertension can reduce and control blood pressure (BP) compared with clinic monitoring. However, self-management relies on patients following an algorithm, which may be variably adhered to. This study reports fidelity of high-risk patients to the self-management algorithm set by the TASMIN-SR trial. Methods: Patients with hypertension, above target clinic BP and one or more of stroke, diabetes, coronary heart disease or chronic kidney disease, were invited to self-monitor following an individualized self-titration algorithm. Home BP readings and medication change details were submitted monthly for 12 months. Readings downloaded from patients’ electronic monitors were compared with written submissions, and protocol fidelity was assessed. Results: Two hundred and seventy-six patients were randomized to self-management and 225 (82%) completed the required training sessions. Of these, 166 (74%) completed self-management. A total of 11385 (89.6%) submitted readings were accurate compared with corresponding downloaded monitor readings. Mean error rate was 5.2% per patient, which increased with age but not comorbidities. Patients made 475 of 683 (69.5%) algorithm-recommended medication changes, equating to nearly three medication changes per patient. Mean SBP for patients who completed training and made all recommended changes dropped from 141 mmHg (95% CI 138.26–144.46) to 121 mmHg (95% CI 118.30–124.17 mmHg) compared with 129 mmHg (95% CI 125.27–136.73 mmHg) for patients who made none. Conclusion: Most patients randomized to self-management completed training; however, 36% of these had dropped out by 12 months. Self-monitoring was largely undertaken properly and accurately recorded. Fidelity with self-management was associated with lower achieved SBP. Successful implementation of self-management into daily practice requires careful training and should be accompanied by monitoring of fidelity.

Healthcare should be judged by its equity as well as its quality. Both aspects depend not only on the characteristics of service delivery but also on the research and innovation that ultimately shape them. Conducting a fully-inclusive evaluation of the relationship between enrolment in primary research studies at University College London Hospitals NHS Trust and indices of deprivation, here we demonstrate a quantitative approach to evaluating equity in healthcare research and innovation. We surveyed the geographical locations, aggregated into Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs), of all England-resident UCLH patients registered as enrolled in primary clinical research studies. We compared the distributions of ten established indices of deprivation across enrolled and non-enrolled areas within Greater London and within a distance-matched subset across England. Bayesian Poisson regression models were used to examine the relation between deprivation and the volume of enrolment standardized by population density and local disease prevalence. A total of 54593 enrolments covered 4401 LSOAs in Greater London and 10150 in England, revealing wide geographical reach. The distributions of deprivation indices were similar between enrolled and non-enrolled areas, exhibiting median differences from 0.26% to 8.73%. Across Greater London, enrolled areas were significantly more deprived on most indices, including the Index of Multiple Deprivation; across England, a more balanced relationship to deprivation emerged. Regression analyses of enrolment volumes yielded weak biases, in favour of greater deprivation for most indices, with little modulation by local disease prevalence. Primary clinical research at UCLH has wide geographical reach. Areas with enrolled patients show similar distributions of established indices of deprivation to those without, both within Greater London, and across distance-matched areas of England. We illustrate a robust approach to quantifying an important aspect of equity in clinical research and provide a flexible set of tools for replicating it across other institutions.

Background: While chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common in resistant hypertension (RHTN), prior studies ­evaluating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists excluded patients with reduced kidney function due to risk of hyperkalemia. AMBER (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03071263) will evaluate if the potassium-binding polymer patiromer used concomitantly with spironolactone in patients with RHTN and CKD prevents hyperkalemia and allows more persistent spironolactone use for hypertension management. Methods: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group 12-week study of patiromer and spironolactone versus placebo and spironolactone in patients with uncontrolled RHTN and CKD. RHTN is defined as unattended systolic automated office blood pressure (AOBP) of ­135–160 mm Hg during screening despite taking ≥3 antihypertensives, including a diuretic, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker ­(unless not tolerated or contraindicated). The CKD inclusion criterion is an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25 to ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Screening serum potassium must be 4.3–5.1 mEq/L. The primary efficacy endpoint is the between-group difference (spironolactone plus patiromer versus spironolactone plus placebo) in the proportion of patients remaining on spironolactone at Week 12. Results: Baseline characteristics have been analyzed as of March 2018 for 146 (of a targeted 290) patients. Mean (SD) baseline age is 69.3 (10.9) years; 52.1% are male, 99.3% White, and 47.3% have diabetes. Mean (SD) baseline serum potassium is 4.68 (0.25) mEq/L, systolic AOBP is 144.3 (6.8) mm Hg, eGFR is 35.7 (7.7) mL/min/1.73 m2. Conclusion: AMBER will define the ability of patiromer to facilitate the use of spironolactone, an effective antihypertensive therapy for patients with RHTN and CKD.

Effective treatment of systolic hypertension in elderly patients remains a major therapeutic challenge. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, was conducted to determine its effects versus olmesartan (angiotensin receptor blocker) on central aortic pressures, in elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) with systolic hypertension and pulse pressure >60 mm Hg, indicative of arterial stiffness. Patients (n=454; mean age, 67.7 years; mean seated systolic blood pressure, 158.6 mm Hg; mean seated pulse pressure, 69.7 mm Hg) were randomized to receive once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg, force titrated to double the initial doses after 4 weeks, before primary assessment at 12 weeks. The study extended double-blind treatment for 12 to 52 weeks, during which amlodipine (2.5–5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25–25 mg) were added-on for patients not achieving blood pressure target (P =0.010), further corroborated by secondary assessments at week 12 (central aortic pulse pressure, −2.4 mm Hg, P P P P