Reliability of single-lead electrocardiogram interpretation to detect atrial fibrillation: insights from the SAFER Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Single-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) can be recorded using widely available devices such as smartwatches and handheld ECG recorders. Such devices have been approved for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. However, little evidence exists on the reliability of single-lead ECG interpretation. We aimed to assess the level of agreement on detection of AF by independent cardiologists interpreting single lead ECGs, and to identify factors influencing agreement. METHODS: In a population-based AF screening study, adults aged ≥65 years old recorded four single-lead ECGs per day for 1-4 weeks using a handheld ECG recorder. ECGs showing signs of possible AF were identified by a nurse, aided by an automated algorithm. These were reviewed by two independent cardiologists who assigned participant- and ECG-level diagnoses. Inter-rater reliability of AF diagnosis was calculated using linear weighted Cohen's kappa (kw). RESULTS: Out of 2,141 participants and 162,515 ECGs, only 1,843 ECGs from 185 participants were reviewed by both cardiologists. Agreement was moderate: kw = 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37-0.58) at participant-level; and kw = 0.58 (0.53-0.62) at ECG-level. At participant-level, agreement was associated with the number of adequate-quality ECGs recorded, with higher agreement in participants who recorded at least 67 adequate-quality ECGs. At ECG-level, agreement was associated with ECG quality and whether ECGs exhibited algorithm-identified possible AF. CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability of AF diagnosis from single-lead ECGs was found to be moderate in older adults. Strategies to improve reliability might include participant and cardiologist training and designing AF detection programmes to obtain sufficient ECGs for reliable diagnoses.

The Association between Blood Test Trends and Undiagnosed Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Clinical guidelines include monitoring blood test abnormalities to identify patients at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. Noting blood test changes over time may improve cancer risk stratification by considering a patient's individual baseline and important changes within the normal range. We aimed to review the published literature to understand the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 15 May 2023 for studies assessing the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. We used descriptive summaries and narratively synthesised studies. We included 29 articles. Common blood tests were haemoglobin (24%, n = 7), C-reactive protein (17%, n = 5), and fasting blood glucose (17%, n = 5), and common cancers were pancreatic (29%, n = 8) and colorectal (17%, n = 5). Of the 30 blood tests studied, an increasing trend in eight (27%) was associated with eight cancer types, and a decreasing trend in 17 (57%) with 10 cancer types. No association was reported between trends in 11 (37%) tests and breast, bile duct, glioma, haematological combined, liver, prostate, or thyroid cancers. Our review highlights trends in blood tests that could facilitate the identification of individuals at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. For most possible combinations of tests and cancers, there was limited or no evidence.

Randomised controlled trial of population screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of evidence that the benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) outweigh the harms. Following the completion of the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) pilot trial, the aim of the main SAFER trial is to establish whether population screening for AF reduces incidence of stroke risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Approximately 82 000 people aged 70 years and over and not on oral anticoagulation are being recruited from general practices in England. Patients on the palliative care register or residents in a nursing home are excluded. Eligible people are identified using electronic patient records from general practices and sent an invitation and consent form to participate by post. Consenting participants are randomised at a ratio of 2:1 (control:intervention) with clustering by household. Those randomised to the intervention arm are sent an information leaflet inviting them to participate in screening, which involves use of a handheld single-lead ECG four times a day for 3 weeks. ECG traces identified by an algorithm as possible AF are reviewed by cardiologists. Participants with AF are seen by a general practitioner for consideration of anticoagulation. The primary outcome is stroke. Major secondary outcomes are: death, major bleeding and cardiovascular events. Follow-up will be via electronic health records for an average of 4 years. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat using time-to-event modelling. Results from this trial will be combined with follow-up data from the cluster-randomised pilot trial by fixed-effects meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will include public-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

AZD1222 effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in individuals with comorbidity or frailty: The RAVEN cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations. METHODS: Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity. RESULTS: Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1). CONCLUSIONS: Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed.

European expert consensus recommendations on the primary care use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism are supported by robust clinical trial evidence. Despite published guidance, general practitioners are faced with increasingly complex decisions and implementation remains sub-optimal in certain real-world scenarios. METHODS: A two stage formal consensus exercise was performed to formulate consensus statements and a summary guide, facilitating optimal management of direct oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism patients by generalist physicians across Europe. An online questionnaire distributed to a broad panel (Phase 1), followed by a virtual panel discussion by an expert group (Phase 2) were conducted. Phase 1 statements covered nine management domains, and were developed via a literature review and expert steering committee. Participants rated statements by their level of agreement. Phase 1 responses were collated and analysed prior to discussion and iterative refinement in Phase 2. RESULTS: In total 56 participants from across Europe responded to Phase 1. The majority had experience working as general practitioners. Consensus indicated that direct oral anticoagulants are the treatment of choice for managing patients with venous thromboembolism, at initiation and for extended treatment, with a review at three to six months to re-assess treatment effect and risk profile. Direct oral anticoagulant choice should be based on individual patient factors and include shared treatment choice between clinicians and patients; the only sub-group of patients requiring specific guidance are those with cancer. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate an appreciation of best practices, but highlight challenges in clinical practice. The patient pathway and consensus recommendations provided, aim to highlight key considerations for general practice decision making, and aid optimal venous thromboembolism treatment.

Estimating Vitamin K Antagonist Anticoagulation Benefit in People With Atrial Fibrillation Accounting for Competing Risks: Evidence From 12 Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation have a high mortality rate that is only partially attributable to vascular outcomes. The competing risk of death may affect the expected anticoagulant benefit. We determined if competing risks materially affect the guideline-endorsed estimate of anticoagulant benefit. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or either placebo or antiplatelets. For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of VKAs to prevent stroke or systemic embolism using 2 methods-first using a guideline-endorsed model (CHA2DS2-VASc) and then again using a competing risk model that uses the same inputs as CHA2DS2-VASc but accounts for the competing risk of death and allows for nonlinear growth in benefit. We compared the absolute and relative differences in estimated benefit and whether the differences varied by life expectancy. RESULTS: A total of 7933 participants (median age, 73 years, 36% women) had a median life expectancy of 8 years (interquartile range, 6-12), determined by comorbidity-adjusted life tables and 43% were randomized to VKAs. The CHA2DS2-VASc model estimated a larger ARR than the competing risk model (median ARR at 3 years, 6.9% [interquartile range, 4.7%-10.0%] versus 5.2% [interquartile range, 3.5%-7.4%]; P<0.001). ARR differences varied by life expectancies: for those with life expectancies in the highest decile, 3-year ARR difference (CHA2DS2-VASc model - competing risk model 3-year risk) was -1.3% (95% CI, -1.3% to -1.2%); for those with life expectancies in the lowest decile, 3-year ARR difference was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-5.0%). CONCLUSIONS: VKA anticoagulants were exceptionally effective at reducing stroke risk. However, VKA benefits were misestimated with CHA2DS2-VASc, which does not account for the competing risk of death nor decelerating treatment benefit over time. Overestimation was most pronounced when life expectancy was low and when the benefit was estimated over a multiyear horizon.

Periodontal diseases and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and respiratory diseases: Summary of the consensus report by the European Federation of Periodontology and WONCA Europe.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory non-communicable disease (NCD) characterised by the destruction of the tooth-supporting apparatus (periodontium), including alveolar bone, the presence of periodontal pockets, and bleeding on probing. OBJECTIVES: To outline, for family doctors, the implications of the association between periodontal and systemic diseases; to explore the role of family doctors in managing periodontitis as an ubiquitous non-communicable disease (NCD). METHODS: The consensus reports of previous focused collaborative workshops between WONCA Europe and the European Federation of Periodontology (using previously undertaken systematic reviews), and a specifically commissioned systematic review formed the technical papers to underpin discussions. Working groups prepared proposals independently, and the proposals were subsequently discussed and approved at plenary meetings. RESULTS: Periodontitis is independently associated with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnoea, and COVID-19 complications. Treatment of periodontitis has been associated with improvements in systemic health outcomes. The article also presents evidence gaps. Oral health care professionals (OHPs) and family doctors should collaborate in managing these conditions, including implementing strategies for early case detection of periodontitis in primary medical care centres and of systemic NCDs in oral/dental care settings. There is a need to raise awareness of periodontal diseases, their consequences, and the associated risk factors amongst family doctors. CONCLUSION: Closer collaboration between OHPs and family doctors is important in the early case detection and management of NCDs like cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, and respiratory diseases. Strategies for early case detection/prevention of NCDs, including periodontitis, should be developed for family doctors, other health professionals (OHPs), and healthcare funders. Evidence-based information on the reported associations between periodontitis and other NCDs should be made available to family doctors, OHPs, healthcare funders, patients, and the general population.

Periodontitis is independently associated with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnoea, and COVID-19.Periodontal treatment for optimal outcomes improves diabetes outcomes and surrogate measures of cardiovascular risk.Closer collaboration between oral health care professionals and family doctors is important in the early case detection and management of non-communicable diseases.Information on the reported associations should be made available to family doctors, oral health professionals, healthcare funders, patients, and the general population.

Disparities in COVID-19 mortality amongst the immunosuppressed: A systematic review and meta-analysis for enhanced disease surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Effective disease surveillance, including that for COVID-19, is compromised without a standardised method for categorising the immunosuppressed as a clinical risk group. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether excess COVID-associated mortality compared to the immunocompetent could meaningfully subdivide the immunosuppressed. Our study adhered to UK Immunisation against infectious disease (Green Book) criteria for defining and categorising immunosuppression. Using OVID (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Transplant Library, and Global Health), PubMed, and Google Scholar, we examined relevant literature between the entirety of 2020 and 2022. We selected for cohort studies that provided mortality data for immunosuppressed subgroups and immunocompetent comparators. Meta-analyses, grey literature and any original works that failed to provide comparator data or reported all-cause or paediatric outcomes were excluded. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of COVID-19 mortality were meta-analysed by immunosuppressed category and subcategory. Subgroup analyses differentiated estimates by effect measure, country income, study setting, level of adjustment, use of matching and publication year. Study screening, extraction and bias assessment were performed blinded and independently by two researchers; conflicts were resolved with the oversight of a third researcher. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022360755. FINDINGS: We identified 99 unique studies, incorporating data from 1,542,097 and 56,248,181 unique immunosuppressed and immunocompetent patients with COVID-19 infection, respectively. Compared to immunocompetent people (pooled OR, 95%CI), solid organ transplants (2.12, 1.50-2.99) and malignancy (2.02, 1.69-2.42) patients had a very high risk of COVID-19 mortality. Patients with rheumatological conditions (1.28, 1.13-1.45) and HIV (1.20, 1.05-1.36) had just slightly higher risks than the immunocompetent baseline. Case type, setting income and mortality data matching and adjustment were significant modifiers of excess immunosuppressed mortality for some immunosuppressed subgroups. INTERPRETATION: Excess COVID-associated mortality among the immunosuppressed compared to the immunocompetent was seen to vary significantly across subgroups. This novel means of subdivision has prospective benefit for targeting patient triage, shielding and vaccination policies during periods of high disease transmission.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients.

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

The feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using hand-held electrocardiogram devices.

AIMS: There are few data on the feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) using hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) devices outside a specialist setting or in people over the age of 75. We investigated the feasibility of screening when conducted without face-to-face contact ('remote') or via in-person appointments in primary care and explored impact of age on screening outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: People aged ≥65 years from 13 general practices in England participated in screening during 2019-20. This involved attending a practice nurse appointment (10 practices) or receiving an ECG device by post (three practices). Participants were asked to use a hand-held ECG for 1-4 weeks. Screening outcomes included uptake, quality of ECGs, AF detection rates, and uptake of anticoagulation if AF was detected. Screening was carried out by 2141 (87.5%) of people invited to practice nurse-led screening and by 288 (90.0%) invited to remote screening. At least 56 interpretable ECGs were provided by 98.0% of participants who participated for 3 weeks, with no significant differences by setting or age, except people aged 85 or over (91.1%). Overall, 2.6% (64/2429) screened participants had AF, with detection rising with age (9.2% in people aged 85 or over). A total of 53/64 (82.8%) people with AF commenced anticoagulation. Uptake of anticoagulation did not vary by age. CONCLUSION: Population screening for paroxysmal AF is feasible in general practice and without face-to-face contact for all ages over 64 years, including people aged 85 and over.

Safety, Efficacy and Pharmacokinetics of AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) for Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: 15-Month Final Analysis of the TACKLE Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase 3 TACKLE study, outpatient treatment with AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) was well tolerated and significantly reduced progression to severe disease or death through day 29 in adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the primary analysis. Here, we report data from the final analysis of the TACKLE study, performed after approximately 15 months' follow-up. METHODS: Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 and dosed within 7 days of symptom onset with 600 mg intramuscular AZD7442 (n = 456; 300 mg tixagevimab/300 mg cilgavimab) or placebo (n = 454). RESULTS: Severe COVID-19 or death through day 29 occurred in 4.4% and 8.8% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 50.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.4, 71.3; p = 0.0096]; among participants dosed within 5 days of symptom onset, the RRR was 66.9% (95% CI 31.1, 84.1; p = 0.002). Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 occurred in 5.0% of participants receiving AZD7442 versus 9.7% receiving placebo, an RRR of 49.2% (95% CI 14.7, 69.8; p = 0.009). Adverse events occurred in 55.5% and 55.9% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Serious adverse events occurred in 10.2% and 14.4% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and deaths occurred in 1.8% of participants in both groups. Serum concentration-time profiles recorded over 457 days were similar for AZD7442, tixagevimab, and cilgavimab, and were consistent with the extended half-life reported for AZD7442 (approx. 90 days). CONCLUSIONS: AZD7442 reduced the risk of progression to severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, was well tolerated through 15 months, and exhibited predictable pharmacokinetics in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. These data support the long-term safety of using long-acting monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04723394 .

The body's immune system produces proteins called antibodies that specifically target foreign substances such as viruses. AZD7442 is a combination of two antibodies (called tixagevimab and cilgavimab) that bind to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus spike protein, preventing it from causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). AZD7442 was designed to be "long-acting" and therefore provide prolonged protection against COVID-19 lasting several months from a single dose. It was tested in a clinical trial (TACKLE) to see if it could prevent people who had recently developed symptoms of COVID-19 from getting sicker, being hospitalized, or dying. Around 900 adults took part in this clinical trial. Half of this group were treated with a dose of AZD7442, given as two injections. The other half received a placebo (injections that look like the AZD7442 injections but contain no medicine). The effect of AZD7442 treatment against COVID-19 was monitored over 6 months, and safety was monitored over 15 months. Around the same percentage of participants in the trial reported side effects with AZD7442 and placebo, suggesting there were no safety issues with AZD7442. AZD7442 treatment reduced the risk of participants getting severe COVID-19 or dying from COVID-19 by approximately half, compared with the placebo group. Participants receiving AZD7442 also had fewer hospitalizations due to COVID-19 complications, compared with the placebo group. These results showed the long-term safety of using long-acting antibodies such as AZD7442 as a treatment for COVID-19.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after autumn 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccinations: a pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies involving 7.4 million adults in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Background: UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose. Methods: We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations. Findings: Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32-1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; 10.43 (8.06-13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0-29.9; 2.94 (2.51-3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15-10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23-1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21-1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease. Interpretation: Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics. Funding: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Risk of COVID-19 death in adults who received booster COVID-19 vaccinations in England.

The emergence of the COVID-19 vaccination has been critical in changing the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure protection remains high in vulnerable groups booster vaccinations in the UK have been targeted based on age and clinical vulnerabilities. We undertook a national retrospective cohort study using data from the 2021 Census linked to electronic health records. We fitted cause-specific Cox models to examine the association between health conditions and the risk of COVID-19 death and all-other-cause death for adults aged 50-100-years in England vaccinated with a booster in autumn 2022. Here we show, having learning disabilities or Down Syndrome (hazard ratio=5.07;95% confidence interval=3.69-6.98), pulmonary hypertension or fibrosis (2.88;2.43-3.40), motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia or Huntington's disease (2.94, 1.82-4.74), cancer of blood and bone marrow (3.11;2.72-3.56), Parkinson's disease (2.74;2.34-3.20), lung or oral cancer (2.57;2.04 to 3.24), dementia (2.64;2.46 to 2.83) or liver cirrhosis (2.65;1.95 to 3.59) was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death. Individuals with cancer of the blood or bone marrow, chronic kidney disease, cystic fibrosis, pulmonary hypotension or fibrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 death relative to other causes of death compared with individuals who did not have diagnoses. Policy makers should continue to priorities vulnerable groups for subsequent COVID-19 booster doses to minimise the risk of COVID-19 death.

Diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in a primary care population (RAPTOR-C19).

OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence exists for the diagnostic performance of point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in community healthcare. We carried out a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of the LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A or B assay in primary care. METHODS: Total of 913 adults and children with symptoms of current SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from 18 UK primary care practices during a period when Omicron was the predominant COVID variant of concern (June 2022 to December 2022). Trained health care staff performed the index test, with diagnostic accuracy parameters estimated for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza against real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rtRT-PCR). RESULTS: 151/887 participants were SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR positive, 109 positive for Influenza A, 6 for Influenza B. Index test sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 80.8% (122 of the 151, 95% CI, 73.6-86.7%) and specificity 98.9% (728 of the 736, 95% CI, 97.9-99.5%). For influenza A, sensitivity was 61.5% (67 of the 109, 95% CI, 51.7-70.6%) and specificity 99.4% (771 of the 776, 95% CI, 98.5-99.8%). Sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza dropped sharply at rtRT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) > 30. DISCUSSIONS: The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B assay had moderate sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in primary care, with lower performance with high rtRT-PCR Ct. Negative results in this patient group cannot definitively rule out SARS-CoV-2 or influenza.

A targeted approach to vaccine hesitancy.

This short communication makes the case for targeted vaccine research when attempting to counter hesitancy, especially amongst vulnerable or rarefied patient groups. Far from disincentivizing vaccination, the freedom to research and publicize the limitations of these technologies for certain groups and personalizing dosing, pacing, adjuvants, and time-sensitive alternatives in response is essential for optimizing health outcomes while neutralizing the vaccine research landscape itself. Vaccine evangelism only arouses suspicion when it is not tempered by rigorous research into differential vaccine benefit-risk in this way. That said, the long-standing politicization of vaccination-a topic vulnerable to misinterpretation and media sensationalism-along with the commercial incentives associated with universal adoption makes more comparative and critical research difficult to fund and promote in practice. Likewise, a prescriptive approach to vaccination does little to address the issues of vaccine inequality that contribute to both hesitancy and conspiracy globally and will likely prove financially prohibitive in certain markets. These obstacles are not insurmountable, however, provided that comparative research is centrally subsidized, regulations ensure that vaccine development trials explore differentiated outcomes, especially amongst high-risk or rare groups, and findings are used to prioritize global vaccine allocation to those that stand to benefit most from them.

Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

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.

Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Emergent Variants Following AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) for Early Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19 (TACKLE Trial).

INTRODUCTION: AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) comprises neutralising monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to distinct non-overlapping epitopes on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein. Viral evolution during mAb therapy can select for variants with reduced neutralisation susceptibility. We examined treatment-emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants during TACKLE (NCT04723394), a phase 3 study of AZD7442 for early outpatient treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Non-hospitalised adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomised and dosed ≤ 7 days from symptom onset with AZD7442 (n = 452) or placebo (n = 451). Next-generation sequencing of the spike gene was performed on SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction-positive nasopharyngeal swabs at baseline and study days 3, 6, and 15 post dosing. SARS-CoV-2 lineages were assigned using spike nucleotide sequences. Amino acid substitutions were analysed at allele fractions (AF; % of sequence reads represented by substitution) ≥ 25% and 3% to 25%. In vitro susceptibility to tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and AZD7442 was evaluated for all identified treatment-emergent variants using a pseudotyped microneutralisation assay. RESULTS: Longitudinal spike sequences were available for 461 participants (AZD7442, n = 235; placebo, n = 226) and showed that treatment-emergent variants at any time were rare, with 5 (2.1%) AZD7442 participants presenting ≥ 1 substitution in tixagevimab/cilgavimab binding sites at AF ≥ 25%. At AF 3% to 25%, treatment-emergent variants were observed in 15 (6.4%) AZD7442 and 12 (5.3%) placebo participants. All treatment-emergent variants showed in vitro susceptibility to AZD7442. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that AZD7442 creates a high genetic barrier for resistance and is a feasible option for COVID-19 treatment.

Thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events following second dose with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1: self-controlled case series analysis of the English national sentinel cohort.

Background: Thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia was a matter of concern post first and second doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, it is important to investigate the risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events following a second dose of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: We conducted a large-scale self-controlled case series analysis, using routine primary care data linked to hospital data, among 12.3 million individuals (16 years old and above) in England. We used the nationally representative Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) sentinel network database with baseline and risk periods between 8th December 2020 and 11th June 2022. We included individuals who received two vaccine (primary) doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and two vaccine doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our analyses. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis for each outcome using a conditional Poisson regression model with an offset for the length of risk period. We reported the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic (including arterial and venous events) and haemorrhagic events, in the period of 0-27 days after receiving a second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines compared to the baseline period (14 or more days prior to first dose, 28 or more days after the second dose and the time between 28 or more days after the first and 14 or more days prior to the second dose). We adjusted for a range of potential confounders, including age, sex, comorbidities and deprivation. Findings: Between December 8, 2020 and February 11, 2022, 6,306,306 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 and 6,046,785 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of ChAdOx1. Compared to the baseline, our analysis show no increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.770) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-0.98); and similarly there was no increased risk for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.41-1.85) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 1.73, 95% CI: 0.82-3.68). We additionally report no difference in IRR for pulmonary embolus, and deep vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, including idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), and haemorrhagic events post second dose for both BNT162b2. Interpretation: Reassuringly, we found no associations between increased risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events post vaccination with second dose for either of these vaccines. Funding: Data and Connectivity: COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance study.

Outpatient Treatment with AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) Prevented COVID-19 Hospitalizations over 6 Months and Reduced Symptom Progression in the TACKLE Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed effects of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) on deaths from any cause or hospitalizations due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptom severity and longer-term safety in the TACKLE adult outpatient treatment study. METHODS: Participants received 600 mg AZD7442 (n = 452) or placebo (n = 451) ≤ 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset. RESULTS: Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 (key secondary endpoint) occurred in 20/399 (5.0%) participants receiving AZD7442 versus 40/407 (9.8%) receiving placebo [relative risk reduction (RRR) 49.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.5, 69.7; p = 0.009] or 50.7% (95% CI 17.5, 70.5; p = 0.006) after excluding participants unblinded before day 169 for consideration of vaccination). AZD7442 reduced progression of COVID-19 symptoms versus placebo through to day 29 (RRR 12.5%; 95% CI 0.5, 23.0) and improved most symptoms within 1-2 weeks. Over median safety follow-up of 170 days, adverse events occurred in 174 (38.5%) and 196 (43.5%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively. Cardiac serious adverse events occurred in two (0.4%) and three (0.7%) participants receiving AZD7442 or placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AZD7442 was well tolerated and reduced hospitalization and mortality through 6 months, and symptom burden through 29 days, in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. ( https://beta. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT04723394 ).

Antibodies are proteins produced by the body's immune system to specifically combat foreign substances, such as viruses. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab are a pair of antibodies that bind to a specific part of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). When they bind to the virus, they reduce its ability to cause disease. These antibodies were tested in a clinical trial to see if they could prevent people with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying. Around 900 adults took part in this clinical trial. These people all had COVID-19 but were not sick enough to be in hospital. Half of this group were treated with a dose of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, given as two injections. The other half received a placebo (injections that look exactly like the tixagevimab and cilgavimab injections but contain no medicine). The study found that, over 6 months, people with COVID-19 who received tixagevimab and cilgavimab were less likely to need to go to hospital than people who received the placebo. They were also less likely to die of COVID-19. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab also helped to improve COVID-19 symptoms. People who received the antibodies saw their symptoms improve faster than people who received the placebo. They were also less likely to have symptoms that got worse. Most people felt better within 1­2 weeks of getting treatment. No safety issues were found with tixagevimab and cilgavimab compared with placebo.