Search

Objectives: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines., Design: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021., Setting: England, UK., Participants: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines., Main Outcome Measures: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance., Results: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3-7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44))., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.

Background: While population estimates suggest high vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, the protection for health care workers, who are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, is less understood., Methods: We conducted a national cohort study of health care workers in Wales (UK) from 7 December 2020 to 30 September 2021. We examined uptake of any COVID-19 vaccine, and the effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) against polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We used linked and routinely collected national-scale data within the SAIL Databank. Data were available on 82,959 health care workers in Wales, with exposure extending to 26 weeks after second doses., Results: Overall vaccine uptake was high (90%), with most health care workers receiving theBNT162b2 vaccine (79%). Vaccine uptake differed by age, staff role, socioeconomic status; those aged 50-59 and 60+ years old were 1.6 times more likely to get vaccinated than those aged 16-29. Medical and dental staff, and Allied Health Practitioners were 1.5 and 1.1 times more likely to get vaccinated, compared to nursing and midwifery staff. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was found to be strong and consistent across the characteristics considered; 52% three to six weeks after first dose, 86% from two weeks after second dose, though this declined to 53% from 22 weeks after the second dose., Conclusions: With some variation in rate of uptake, those who were vaccinated had a reduced risk of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those unvaccinated. Second dose has provided stronger protection for longer than first dose but our study is consistent with waning from seven weeks onwards., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group,the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats (NERVTAG) Risk Stratification Subgroupand amember of AstraZeneca’s Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Task Force; all roles are unremunerated.CR is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling and the Medicines & Healthcare products RegulatoryAgency’s Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group.DTB is employed by the Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland, and the Department of Health, Northern Ireland.MP is employed by the Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme at Public Health Wales and is involved in the COVID-19 vaccine roll out for Wales.SVK is co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on COVID-19 andethnicity, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity and acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship, MRC and CSO.RF is a member of is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) Social Care Working Group (SCWG).RO is a member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Committee (TAC) and has provided methodological advice outside of the submitted work toCogentiaHealthcare Consulting Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd,the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit, the University of Bristol, and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).RAL is a member of the Welsh Government COVID19 Technical Advisory Group.All other authors have declared no competinginterests., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a common condition affecting more than 10% of those over 70 years of age. Reliable estimates of survival following a diagnosis of HF are important to guide management and facilitate advanced care planning. Most existing research has focused on survival rates for patients admitted to hospital with acute HF. However, the majority of patients with HF are diagnosed in the outpatient setting and can have periods of sustained symptom stability in the chronic phase of their illness. There has not been a systematic review of the literature to determine the prognosis of patients with chronic HF in the community., Methods: We will undertake a comprehensive search of the following databases: CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Embase, MEDLINE and the Clinical Trials Register ( clinicaltrials.gov ). Two reviewers will independently complete screening, data extraction and quality appraisal with the option of input from a third reviewer to arbitrate. We will include data from observational or database studies conducted in either community or outpatient settings. Studies of acute HF or specific subgroups of patients will be excluded. There is no restriction by geographical setting, publication language or study date. We will complete QUIPS and GRADE assessments to systematically appraise the quality of evidence within and between studies. Where possible, we will seek to pool results to conduct a meta-analysis and undertake relevant subgroup analysis including by study setting, participant age and study decade. The primary outcome will be survival time from diagnosis. The secondary outcomes will be HF-related hospital admissions, symptom burden and measures of morbidity., Discussion: This systematic review will provide up to date evidence on the current survival rates and prognostic indicators for patients with chronic HF. We will put this into historical perspective, comparing outcomes across time to help understand the impact of advances in evidence-based treatment on average survival. This information is important in facilitating informed decision-making for patients and health professionals as well as highlighting areas to focus resources and improve public health planning., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017075680.

Background: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease., Design and Methods: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old 'high risk' patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management., Results: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year., Conclusion: Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2015.)

Purpose: The principal goal of the electronic Primary Care Research Network (ePCRN) is to enable the development of an electronic infrastructure to support clinical research activities in primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs). We describe the model that the ePCRN developed to enhance the growth and to expand the reach of PBRN research., Methods: Use cases and activity diagrams were developed from interviews with key informants from 11 PBRNs from the United States and United Kingdom. Discrete functions were identified and aggregated into logical components. Interaction diagrams were created, and an overall composite diagram was constructed describing the proposed software behavior. Software for each component was written and aggregated, and the resulting prototype application was pilot tested for feasibility. A practical model was then created by separating application activities into distinct software packages based on existing PBRN business rules, hardware requirements, network requirements, and security concerns., Results: We present an information architecture that provides for essential interactions, activities, data flows, and structural elements necessary for providing support for PBRN translational research activities. The model describes research information exchange between investigators and clusters of independent data sites supported by a contracted research director. The model was designed to support recruitment for clinical trials, collection of aggregated anonymous data, and retrieval of identifiable data from previously consented patients across hundreds of practices., Conclusions: The proposed model advances our understanding of the fundamental roles and activities of PBRNs and defines the information exchange commonly used by PBRNs to successfully engage community health care clinicians in translational research activities. By describing the network architecture in a language familiar to that used by software developers, the model provides an important foundation for the development of electronic support for essential PBRN research activities.

In the United Kingdom (UK), local initiatives have started to federate electronic healthcare records from different primary care clinical systems, mainly for the purposes of ensuring that health care services effectively meet the needs of the population. The use of such information is being investigated for clinical research, notably in patient cohort identification and recruitment. To achieve these aims, it is essential that the information from different systems can be searched from a single interface. While interoperability is a widely researched topic, interoperable methods and data sources in primary care are largely missing. This paper describes our approach to enabling primary care data in England to be searchable on a platform developed for performing large national collaborative primary care research studies throughout the United States.

Background: Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin targets the two most common modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, hypertension and dyslipidaemia. We evaluated the clinical utility of this single pill to help patients across Europe and Canada achieve country-specific targets for blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)., Design: Two 16-week, open-label studies conducted in 122 study centres across the United Kingdom and Canada (JEWEL 1) and 113 centres across 11 European countries (JEWEL 2)., Methods: Patients with uncontrolled BP and controlled/uncontrolled LDL-C qualifying for treatment according to local governing guidelines were administered single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin with appropriate lifestyle modification. Eight dosages of amlodipine/atorvastatin (5/10-10/80 mg) were titrated to achieve country-specific BP and LDL-C targets. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients reaching country-specific BP and LDL-C targets in 16 weeks., Results: Among 2245 patients enrolled in the studies (JEWEL 1, n = 1138; JEWEL 2, n = 1107), 62.9% in JEWEL 1 and 50.6% in JEWEL 2 achieved both country-specific BP and LDL-C goals. BP was reduced by 20.4/10.7 and 21.8/12.6 mmHg in JEWEL 1 and JEWEL 2, respectively, and reductions in LDL-C were 0.90 mmol/l (34.8 mg/dl) and 1.09 mmol/l (42.2 mg/dl), respectively. The most common adverse events were peripheral oedema (11.0%), joint swelling (2.9%) and headache (2.9%), of which, only oedema was linked to study treatment., Conclusion: Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment, which in a real-world setting helped more than half of the patients achieve both BP and LDL-C targets as recommended by local guidelines. Although fewer patients met their goals in JEWEL 2 than JEWEL 1, reductions in BP and LDL-C were slightly greater in JEWEL 2, suggesting that the observed differences are likely because of more stringent targets in Europe than in the UK/Canada.