Predicted clinical and economic burden associated with reduction in access to acute coronary interventional care during the COVID-19 lockdown in two European countries.

AIMS: As a consequence of untimely or missed revascularization of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients died at home or survived with serious sequelae, resulting in potential long-term worse prognosis and related health-economic implications.This analysis sought to predict long-term health outcomes [survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and cost of reduced treatment of STEMIs occurring during the first COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a Markov decision-analytic model, we incorporated probability of hospitalization, timeliness of PCI, and projected long-term survival and cost (including societal costs) of mortality and morbidity, for STEMI occurring during the first UK and Spanish lockdowns, comparing them with expected pre-lockdown outcomes for an equivalent patient group.STEMI patients during the first UK lockdown were predicted to lose an average of 1.55 life-years and 1.17 QALYs compared with patients presenting with a STEMI pre-pandemic. Based on an annual STEMI incidence of 49 332 cases, the total additional lifetime costs calculated at the population level were £36.6 million (€41.3 million), mainly driven by costs of work absenteeism. Similarly in Spain, STEMI patients during the lockdown were expected to survive 2.03 years less than pre-pandemic patients, with a corresponding reduction in projected QALYs (-1.63). At the population level, reduced PCI access would lead to additional costs of €88.6 million. CONCLUSION: The effect of a 1-month lockdown on STEMI treatment led to a reduction in survival and QALYs compared to the pre-pandemic era. Moreover, in working-age patients, untimely revascularization led to adverse prognosis, affecting societal productivity and therefore considerably increasing societal costs.

Racial Disparities in Mortality Associated With Acute Myocardial Infarction and COVID-19 in the United States: A Nationwide Analysis.

This study assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on racial disparities in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) management and outcomes. We reviewed AMI patient management and outcomes in the pandemic's initial nine months, comparing COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases using 2020's National Inpatient Sample data. Our findings revealed that patients with concurrent AMI and COVID-19 had higher in-hospital mortality (aOR 3.19, 95% CI 2.63-3.88), increased mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.90, 95% CI 1.54-2.33), and higher initiation of hemodialysis (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05-1.89) compared to those without COVID-19. Moreover, Black and Asian/Pacific Islander patients had higher in-hospital mortality than White patients, (aOR 2.13, 95% CI 1.35-3.59; aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.5-8.37). Also, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander patients showed higher odds of initiating hemodialysis (aOR 5.48, 95% CI 2.13-14.1; aOR 2.99, 95% CI 1.13-7.97; aOR 7.84, 95% CI 1.55-39.5), and were less likely to receive PCI for AMI (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.74; aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.86; aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.90). Black patients also showed less likelihood of undergoing CABG (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.49-0.61). Our study highlights elevated mortality and complications in COVID-19 AMI patients, emphasizing significant racial disparities. These findings underscore the pressing need for initiatives addressing healthcare disparities, enhancing access, and promoting culturally sensitive care to boost health equity.

Cardiovascular Health Care Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the capacity of health care systems around the world, including substantial disruptions to cardiovascular care across key areas of health care delivery. In this narrative review, we examine the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for cardiovascular health care, including excess cardiovascular mortality, acute and elective cardiovascular care, and disease prevention. Additionally, we consider the long-term public health consequences of disruptions to cardiovascular care across both primary and secondary care settings. Finally, we review health care inequalities and their driving factors, as highlighted by the pandemic, and consider their importance in the context of cardiovascular health care.

Antipsychotic prescribing and mortality in people with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study (preprint)

Background: Antipsychotic drugs have been associated with increased mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction in people with dementia. Concerns have been raised that antipsychotic prescribing may have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic due to social restrictions imposed to limit the spread of the virus. We used multisource, routinely-collected healthcare data from Wales, UK, to investigate prescribing and mortality trends in people with dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used individual-level, anonymised, population-scale linked health data to identify adults aged >=60 years with a diagnosis of dementia in Wales, UK. We explored antipsychotic prescribing trends over 67 months between 1st January 2016 and 1st August 2021, overall and stratified by age and dementia subtype. We used time series analyses to examine all-cause, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke mortality over the study period and identified the leading causes of death in people with dementia. Findings: Of 57,396 people with dementia, 11,929 (21%) were prescribed an antipsychotic at any point during follow-up. Accounting for seasonality, antipsychotic prescribing increased during the second half of 2019 and throughout 2020. However, the absolute difference in prescribing rates was small, ranging from 1253 to 1305 per 10,000 person-months. Prescribing in the 60-64 age group and those with Alzheimer's disease increased throughout the 5-year period. All-cause and stroke mortality increased in the second half of 2019 and throughout 2020 but MI mortality declined. From January 2020, COVID-19 was the second commonest underlying cause of death in people with dementia. Interpretation: During the COVID-19 pandemic there was a small increase in antipsychotic prescribing in people with dementia. The long-term increase in antipsychotic prescribing in younger people and in those with Alzheimer's disease warrants further investigation. Funding: British Heart Foundation (BHF) (SP/19/3/34678) via the BHF Data Science Centre led by HDR UK, and the Scottish Neurological Research Fund.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and management.

How the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected prevention and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is not fully understood. In this study, we used medication data as a proxy for CVD management using routinely collected, de-identified, individual-level data comprising 1.32 billion records of community-dispensed CVD medications from England, Scotland and Wales between April 2018 and July 2021. Here we describe monthly counts of prevalent and incident medications dispensed, as well as percentage changes compared to the previous year, for several CVD-related indications, focusing on hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes. We observed a decline in the dispensing of antihypertensive medications between March 2020 and July 2021, with 491,306 fewer individuals initiating treatment than expected. This decline was predicted to result in 13,662 additional CVD events, including 2,281 cases of myocardial infarction and 3,474 cases of stroke, should individuals remain untreated over their lifecourse. Incident use of lipid-lowering medications decreased by 16,744 patients per month during the first half of 2021 as compared to 2019. By contrast, incident use of medications to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, other than insulin, increased by approximately 623 patients per month for the same time period. In light of these results, methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment for CVD risk factors and remain undiagnosed are urgently required to avoid large numbers of excess future CVD events, an indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Has the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic reversed the trends in CV mortality between 1999-2019 in the United States?

AIMS: Although cardiovascular (CV) mortality increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about how these patterns varied across key subgroups, include age, sex, and race and ethnicity, as well as by specific cause of CV death. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Centers for Disease Control WONDER database was used to evaluate trends in age-adjusted CV mortality between 1999 and 2020 among US adults aged 18 and older. Overall, there was a 4.6% excess CV mortality in 2020 compared to 2019, which represents an absolute excess of 62 802 deaths. The relative CV mortality increase between 2019 and 2020 was higher for adults under 55 years of age (11.9% relative increase), versus adults aged 55-74 (7.9% increase) and adults 75 and older (2.2% increase). Hispanic adults experienced a 9.4% increase in CV mortality (7 400 excess deaths) versus 4.3% for non-Hispanic adults (56 760 excess deaths). Black adults experienced the largest % increase in CV mortality at 10.6% (15 477 excess deaths) versus 3.5% increase (42 907 excess deaths) for White adults. Among individual causes of CV mortality, there was an increase between 2019 and 2020 of 4.3% for ischemic heart disease (32 293 excess deaths), 15.9% for hypertensive disease (13 800 excess deaths), 4.9% for cerebrovascular disease (11 218 excess deaths), but a decline of 1.4% for heart failure mortality. CONCLUSION: The first year of the COVID pandemic in the United States was associated with a reversal in prior trends of improved CV mortality. Increases in CV mortality were most pronounced among Black and Hispanic adults.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on secondary care for cardiovascular disease in the UK: an electronic health record analysis across three countries.

BACKGROUND: Although morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 have been widely reported, the indirect effects of the pandemic beyond 2020 on other major diseases and health service activity have not been well described. METHODS: Analyses used national administrative electronic hospital records in England, Scotland and Wales for 2016-2021. Admissions and procedures during the pandemic (2020-2021) related to six major cardiovascular conditions (acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysm, and venous thromboembolism) were compared to the annual average in the pre-pandemic period (2016-2019). Differences were assessed by time period and urgency of care. RESULTS: In 2020, there were 31 064 (-6%) fewer hospital admissions (14 506 [-4%] fewer emergencies, 16 560 [-23%] fewer elective admissions) compared to 2016-2019 for the six major cardiovascular diseases combined. The proportional reduction in admissions was similar in all three countries. Overall, hospital admissions returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021. Elective admissions remained substantially below expected levels for almost all conditions in all three countries (-10 996 [-15%] fewer admissions). However, these reductions were offset by higher than expected total emergency admissions (+25 878 [+6%] higher admissions), notably for heart failure and stroke in England, and for venous thromboembolism in all three countries. Analyses for procedures showed similar temporal variations to admissions. CONCLUSION: This study highlights increasing emergency cardiovascular admissions during the pandemic, in the context of a substantial and sustained reduction in elective admissions and procedures. This is likely to increase further the demands on cardiovascular services over the coming years.

Indirect effects of the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic on secondary care for cardiovascular disease in the UK: an electronic health record analysis across three countries. (preprint)

BackgroundAlthough morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 have been widely reported, the indirect effects of the pandemic beyond 2020 on other major diseases and health service activity have not been well described. MethodsAnalyses used national administrative electronic hospital records in England, Scotland and Wales for 2016-2021. Admissions and procedures during the pandemic (2020-2021) related to six major cardiovascular conditions (acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysm, and venous thromboembolism) were compared to the annual average in the pre-pandemic period (2016-2019). Differences were assessed by time period and urgency of care. ResultsIn 2020, there were 31,064 (-6%) fewer hospital admissions (14,506 [-4%] fewer emergencies, 16,560 [-23%] fewer elective admissions) compared to 2016-2019 for the six major cardiovascular diseases combined. The proportional reduction in admissions was similar in all three countries. Overall, hospital admissions returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021. Elective admissions remained substantially below expected levels for almost all conditions in all three countries (-10,996 [-15%] fewer admissions). However, these reductions were offset by higher than expected total emergency admissions (+25,878 [+6%] higher admissions), notably for heart failure and stroke in England, and for venous thromboembolism in all three countries. Analyses for procedures showed similar temporal variations to admissions. ConclusionThis study highlights increasing emergency cardiovascular admissions as a result of the pandemic, in the context of a substantial and sustained reduction in elective admissions and procedures. This is likely to increase further the demands on cardiovascular services over the coming years. Key QuestionWhat is the impact in 2020 and 2021 of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admissions and procedures for six major cardiovascular diseases in England, Scotland and Wales? Key FindingIn 2020, there were 6% fewer hospital admissions (emergency: -4%, elective: -23%) compared to 2016-2019 for six major cardiovascular diseases, across three UK countries. Overall, admissions returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2021, but elective admissions remained below expected levels. Take-home MessageThere was increasing emergency cardiovascular admissions as a result of the pandemic, with substantial and sustained reduction in elective admissions and procedures. This is likely to increase further the demands on cardiovascular services over the coming years.

Design and evaluation of an interactive quality dashboard for national clinical audit data: a realist evaluation

BackgroundNational audits aim to reduce variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement. However, varying provider engagement with audit data means that this is not being realised.AimThe aim of the study was to develop and evaluate a quality dashboard (i.e. QualDash) to support clinical teams’ and managers’ use of national audit data.DesignThe study was a realist evaluation and biography of artefacts study.SettingThe study involved five NHS acute trusts.Methods and resultsIn phase 1, we developed a theory of national audits through interviews. Data use was supported by data access, audit staff skilled to produce data visualisations, data timeliness and quality, and the importance of perceived metrics. Data were mainly used by clinical teams. Organisational-level staff questioned the legitimacy of national audits. In phase 2, QualDash was co-designed and the QualDash theory was developed. QualDash provides interactive customisable visualisations to enable the exploration of relationships between variables. Locating QualDash on site servers gave users control of data upload frequency. In phase 3, we developed an adoption strategy through focus groups. ‘Champions’, awareness-raising through e-bulletins and demonstrations, and quick reference tools were agreed. In phase 4, we tested the QualDash theory using a mixed-methods evaluation. Constraints on use were metric configurations that did not match users’ expectations, affecting champions’ willingness to promote QualDash, and limited computing resources. Easy customisability supported use. The greatest use was where data use was previously constrained. In these contexts, report preparation time was reduced and efforts to improve data quality were supported, although the interrupted time series analysis did not show improved data quality. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, revealing positive perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. In phase 5, the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of QualDash was assessed. Interviews were undertaken to understand how QualDash could be revised to support a region-wide Gold Command. Requirements included multiple real-time data sources and functionality to help to identify priorities.ConclusionsAudits seeking to widen engagement may find the following strategies beneficial: involving a range of professional groups in choosing metrics;real-time reporting;presenting ‘headline’ metrics important to organisational-level staff;using routinely collected clinical data to populate data fields;and dashboards that help staff to explore and report audit data. Those designing dashboards may find it beneficial to include the following: ‘at a glance’ visualisation of key metrics;visualisations configured in line with existing visualisations that teams use, with clear labelling;functionality that supports the creation of reports and presentations;the ability to explore relationships between variables and drill down to look at subgroups;and low requirements for computing resources. Organisations introducing a dashboard may find the following strategies beneficial: clinical champion to promote use;testing with real data by audit staff;establishing routines for integrating use into work practices;involving audit staff in adoption activities;and allowing customisation.LimitationsThe COVID-19 pandemic stopped phase 4 data collection, limiting our ability to further test and refine the QualDash theory. Questionnaire results should be treated with caution because of the small, possibly biased, sample. Control sites for the interrupted time series analysis were not possible because of research and development delays. One intervention site did not submit data. Limited uptake meant that assessing the impact on more measures was not appropriate.Future workThe extent to which national audit dashboards are used and the strategies national audits use to encourage uptake, a realist review of the impact of dashboards, and rigorous evaluations of the impact of dashboards and the effectiveness of adoption strategies should be explored.Study registrationThis study is registered as ISRCTN18289782.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A retrospective cohort study predicting and validating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with chronic kidney disease.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased risk of baseline mortality and severe COVID-19, but analyses across CKD stages, and comorbidities are lacking. In prevalent and incident CKD, we investigated comorbidities, baseline risk, COVID-19 incidence, and predicted versus observed one-year excess death. In a national dataset (NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment [NHSD TRE]) for England encompassing 56 million individuals), we conducted a retrospective cohort study (March 2020 to March 2021) for prevalence of comorbidities by incident and prevalent CKD, SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Baseline mortality risk, incidence and outcome of infection by comorbidities, controlling for age, sex and vaccination were assessed. Observed versus predicted one-year mortality at varying population infection rates and pandemic-related relative risks using our published model in pre-pandemic CKD cohorts (NHSD TRE and Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]) were compared. Among individuals with CKD (prevalent:1,934,585, incident:144,969), comorbidities were common (73.5% and 71.2% with one or more condition[s] in respective data sets, and 13.2% and 11.2% with three or more conditions, in prevalent and incident CKD), and associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly dialysis/transplantation (odds ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 2.04-2.13) and heart failure (1.73, 1.71-1.76), but not cancer (1.01, 1.01-1.04). One-year all-cause mortality varied by age, sex, multi-morbidity and CKD stage. Compared with 34,265 observed excess deaths, in the NHSD-TRE and CPRD databases respectively, we predicted 28,746 and 24,546 deaths (infection rates 10% and relative risks 3.0), and 23,754 and 20,283 deaths (observed infection rates 6.7% and relative risks 3.7). Thus, in this largest, national-level study, individuals with CKD have a high burden of comorbidities and multi-morbidity, and high risk of pre-pandemic and pandemic mortality. Hence, treatment of comorbidities, non-pharmaceutical measures, and vaccination are priorities for people with CKD and management of long-term conditions is important during and beyond the pandemic.

Cardiovascular Health Care Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the capacity of health care systems around the world, including substantial disruptions to cardiovascular care across key areas of health care delivery. In this narrative review, we examine the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for cardiovascular health care, including excess cardiovascular mortality, acute and elective cardiovascular care, and disease prevention. Additionally, we consider the long-term public health consequences of disruptions to cardiovascular care across both primary and secondary care settings. Finally, we review health care inequalities and their driving factors, as highlighted by the pandemic, and consider their importance in the context of cardiovascular health care.

Digital health in older adults for the prevention and management of cardiovascular diseases and frailty. A clinical consensus statement from the ESC Council for Cardiology Practice/Taskforce on Geriatric Cardiology, the ESC Digital Health Committee and the ESC Working Group on e-Cardiology.

Digital health technology is receiving increasing attention in cardiology. The rise of accessibility of digital health tools including wearable technologies and smart phone applications used in medical practice has created a new era in healthcare. The coronavirus pandemic has provided a new impetus for changes in delivering medical assistance across the world. This Consensus document discusses the potential implementation of digital health technology in older adults, suggesting a practical approach to general cardiologists working in an ambulatory outpatient clinic, highlighting the potential benefit and challenges of digital health in older patients with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease. Advancing age may lead to a progressive loss of independence, to frailty, and to increasing degrees of disability. In geriatric cardiology, digital health technology may serve as an additional tool both in cardiovascular prevention and treatment that may help by (i) supporting self-caring patients with cardiovascular disease to maintain their independence and improve the management of their cardiovascular disease and (ii) improving the prevention, detection, and management of frailty and supporting collaboration with caregivers. Digital health technology has the potential to be useful for every field of cardiology, but notably in an office-based setting with frequent contact with ambulatory older adults who may be pre-frail or frail but who are still able to live at home. Cardiologists and other healthcare professionals should increase their digital health skills and learn how best to apply and integrate new technologies into daily practice and how to engage older people and their caregivers in a tailored programme of care.

Aortic stenosis post-COVID-19: a mathematical model on waiting lists and mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To provide estimates for how different treatment pathways for the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) may affect National Health Service (NHS) England waiting list duration and associated mortality. DESIGN: We constructed a mathematical model of the excess waiting list and found the closed-form analytic solution to that model. From published data, we calculated estimates for how the strategies listed under Interventions may affect the time to clear the backlog of patients waiting for treatment and the associated waiting list mortality. SETTING: The NHS in England. PARTICIPANTS: Estimated patients with AS in England. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Increasing the capacity for the treatment of severe AS, (2) converting proportions of cases from surgery to transcatheter aortic valve implantation and (3) a combination of these two. RESULTS: In a capacitated system, clearing the backlog by returning to pre-COVID-19 capacity is not possible. A conversion rate of 50% would clear the backlog within 666 (533-848) days with 1419 (597-2189) deaths while waiting during this time. A 20% capacity increase would require 535 (434-666) days, with an associated mortality of 1172 (466-1859). A combination of converting 40% cases and increasing capacity by 20% would clear the backlog within a year (343 (281-410) days) with 784 (292-1324) deaths while awaiting treatment. CONCLUSION: A strategy change to the management of severe AS is required to reduce the NHS backlog and waiting list deaths during the post-COVID-19 'recovery' period. However, plausible adaptations will still incur a substantial wait to treatment and many hundreds dying while waiting.

The collateral damage of COVID-19 to cardiovascular services: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on care and outcomes across non-COVID-19 cardiovascular (CV) diseases is unknown. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to quantify the effect and investigate for variation by CV disease, geographic region, country income classification and the time course of the pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2019 to December 2021, Medline and Embase databases were searched for observational studies comparing a pandemic and pre-pandemic period with relation to CV disease hospitalisations, diagnostic and interventional procedures, outpatient consultations, and mortality. Observational data were synthesised by incidence rate ratios (IRR) and risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265930). A total of 158 studies, covering 49 countries and 6 continents, were used for quantitative synthesis. Most studies (80%) reported information for high-income countries (HICs). Across all CV disease and geographies there were fewer hospitalisations, diagnostic and interventional procedures, and outpatient consultations during the pandemic. By meta-regression, in low-middle income countries (LMICs) compared to HICs the decline in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) hospitalisations (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.94) and revascularisation (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) was more severe. In LMICs, but not HICs, in-hospital mortality increased for STEMI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.37) and heart failure (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12). The magnitude of decline in hospitalisations for CV diseases did not differ between the first and second wave. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial global collateral CV damage during the COVID-19 pandemic with disparity in severity by country income classification.

Spironolactone effect on the blood pressure of patients at risk of developing heart failure: an analysis from the HOMAGE trial.

AIMS: Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) increases the risk of developing heart failure (HF). The effect of spironolactone on BP of patients at risk of developing HF is yet to be determined. To evaluate the effect of spironolactone on the BP of patients at risk for HF and whether renin can predict spironolactone's effect. METHODS AND RESULTS: HOMAGE (Heart OMics in Aging) was a prospective multicentre randomized open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial including 527 patients at risk for developing HF randomly assigned to either spironolactone (25-50 mg/day) or usual care alone for a maximum of 9 months. Sitting BP was assessed at baseline, Months 1 and 9 (or last visit). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), mixed effects models, and structural modelling equations was used. The median (percentile25-75) age was 73 (69-79) years, 26% were female, and >75% had history of hypertension. Overall, the baseline BP was 142/78 mmHg. Patients with higher BP were older, more likely to have diabetes and less likely to have coronary artery disease, had greater left ventricular mass (LVM), and left atrial volume (LAV). Compared with usual care, by last visit, spironolactone changed SBP by -10.3 (-13.0 to -7.5) mmHg and DBP by -3.2 (-4.8 to -1.7) mmHg (P < 0.001 for both). A higher proportion of patients on spironolactone had controlled BP <130/80 mmHg (36 vs. 26%; P = 0.014). Lower baseline renin levels predicted a greater response to spironolactone (interactionP = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Spironolactone had a clinically important BP-lowering effect. Spironolactone should be considered for lowering blood pressure in patients who are at risk of developing HF.

Excess years of life lost to COVID-19 and other causes of death by sex, neighbourhood deprivation, and region in England and Wales during 2020: A registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Deaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL.

A snapshot global survey on side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare professionals and armed forces with a focus on headache.

BACKGROUND: New messenger RNA (mRNA) and adenovirus-based vaccines (AdV) against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered large scale clinical trials. Since healthcare professionals (HCPs) and armed forces personnel (AFP) represent a high-risk category, they act as a suitable target population to investigate vaccine-related side effects, including headache, which has emerged as a common complaint. METHODS: We investigated the side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines among HCPs and AFP through a 38 closed-question international survey. The electronic link was distributed via e-mail or via Whatsapp to more than 500 contacts. Responses to the survey questions were analyzed with bivariate tests. RESULTS: A total of 375 complete surveys have been analyzed. More than 88% received an mRNA vaccine and 11% received AdV first dose. A second dose of mRNA vaccine was administered in 76% of individuals. No severe adverse effects were reported, whereas moderate reactions and those lasting more than 1 day were more common with AdV (P=0.002 and P=0.024 respectively). Headache was commonly reported regardless of the vaccine type, but less frequently, with shorter duration and lower severity that usually experienced by participants, without significant difference irrespective of vaccine type. CONCLUSIONS: Both mRNA and AdV COVID-19 vaccines were safe and well tolerated in a real-life subset of HCPs and AFP subjects.