Uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in individuals at clinical risk due to immunosuppressive drug therapy or transplantation procedures: a population-based cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in this population. The lack of comprehensive real-world data on vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety in these individuals presents a critical knowledge gap, highlighting the urgency to better understand and address the unique challenges faced by immunocompromised individuals in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We analysed data from 12,274,946 people in the UK aged > 12 years from 01/12/2020 to 11/04/2022. Of these, 583,541 (4.8%) were immunocompromised due to immunosuppressive drugs, organ transplants, dialysis or chemotherapy. We undertook a cohort analysis to determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nested case-control analyses adjusted for comorbidities and sociodemographic characteristics to determine effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission and death, and a self-controlled case series assessing vaccine safety for pre-specified adverse events of interest. RESULTS: Overall, 93.7% of immunocompromised individuals received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, with 80.4% having received three or more doses. Uptake reduced with increasing deprivation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI 0.77-0.79] in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived quintile for the first dose). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation 2-6 weeks after the second and third doses compared to unvaccinated was 78% (95%CI 72-83) and 91% (95%CI 88-93) in the immunocompromised population, versus 85% (95%CI 83-86) and 86% (95%CI 85-89), respectively, for the general population. Results showed COVID-19 vaccines were protective against intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in both populations, with effectiveness of over 92% against COVID-19-related death and up to 95% in reducing ICU admissions for both populations following the third dose. COVID-19 vaccines were generally safe for immunocompromised individuals, though specific doses of ChAdOx1, mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 raised risks of specific cardiovascular/neurological conditions. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is high in immunocompromised individuals on immunosuppressive drug therapy or who have undergone transplantation procedures, with documented disparities by deprivation. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are protective against severe COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable population, and show a similar safety profile in immunocompromised individuals and the general population, despite some increased risk of adverse events. These results underscore the importance of ongoing vaccination prioritisation for this clinically at-risk population to maximise protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination and infection in 5.1 million children in England.

The risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccination in children remains uncertain. A self-controlled case-series study was conducted using linked data of 5.1 million children in England to compare risks of hospitalisation from vaccine safety outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination and infection. In 5-11-year-olds, we found no increased risks of adverse events 1-42 days following vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or ChAdOX1. In 12-17-year-olds, we estimated 3 (95%CI 0-5) and 5 (95%CI 3-6) additional cases of myocarditis per million following a first and second dose with BNT162b2, respectively. An additional 12 (95%CI 0-23) hospitalisations with epilepsy and 4 (95%CI 0-6) with demyelinating disease (in females only, mainly optic neuritis) were estimated per million following a second dose with BNT162b2. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risks of hospitalisation from seven outcomes including multisystem inflammatory syndrome and myocarditis, but these risks were largely absent in those vaccinated prior to infection. We report a favourable safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination in under-18s.

Effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in people with blood cancer.

BACKGROUND: People with blood cancer have increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and poor response to vaccination. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this vulnerable group compared to the general population. METHODS: Individuals aged ≥12 years as of 1st December 2020 in the QResearch primary care database were included. We assessed adjusted COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death in people with blood cancer using a nested matched case-control study. Using the self-controlled case series methodology, we compared the risk of 56 pre-specified adverse events within 1-28 days of a first, second or third COVID-19 vaccine dose in people with and without blood cancer. FINDINGS: The cohort comprised 12,274,948 individuals, of whom 81,793 had blood cancer. COVID-19 vaccines were protective against COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death in people with blood cancer, although they were less effective, particularly against COVID-19-related hospitalisation, compared to the general population. In the blood cancer population, aVE against COVID-19-related hospitalisation was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48%-75%) 14-41 days after a third dose, compared to 80% (95% CI 78%-81%) in the general population. Against COVID-19-related mortality, aVE was >80% in people with blood cancer 14-41 days after a second or third dose. We found no significant difference in risk of adverse events 1-28 days after any vaccine dose between people with and without blood cancer. INTERPRETATION: Our study provides robust evidence which supports the use of COVID-19 vaccinations for people with blood cancer.

Stratification of diabetes in the context of comorbidities, using representation learning and topological data analysis.

Diabetes is a heterogenous, multimorbid disorder with a large variation in manifestations, trajectories, and outcomes. The aim of this study is to validate a novel machine learning method for the phenotyping of diabetes in the context of comorbidities. Data from 9967 multimorbid patients with a new diagnosis of diabetes were extracted from Clinical Practice Research Datalink. First, using BEHRT (a transformer-based deep learning architecture), the embeddings corresponding to diabetes were learned. Next, topological data analysis (TDA) was carried out to test how different areas in high-dimensional manifold correspond to different risk profiles. The following endpoints were considered when profiling risk trajectories: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke (CVA), heart failure (HF), renal failure (RF), diabetic neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, reduced visual acuity and all-cause mortality. Kaplan Meier curves were plotted for each derived phenotype. Finally, we tested the performance of an established risk prediction model (QRISK) by adding TDA-derived features. We identified four subgroups of patients with diabetes and divergent comorbidity patterns differing in their risk of future cardiovascular, renal, and other microvascular outcomes. Phenotype 1 (young with chronic inflammatory conditions) and phenotype 2 (young with CAD) included relatively younger patients with diabetes compared to phenotypes 3 (older with hypertension and renal disease) and 4 (older with previous CVA), and those subgroups had a higher frequency of pre-existing cardio-renal diseases. Within ten years of follow-up, 2592 patients (26%) experienced MACE, 2515 patients (25%) died, and 2020 patients (20%) suffered RF. QRISK3 model's AUC was augmented from 67.26% (CI 67.25-67.28%) to 67.67% (CI 67.66-67.69%) by adding specific TDA-derived phenotype and the distances to both extremities of the TDA graph improving its performance in the prediction of CV outcomes. We confirmed the importance of accounting for multimorbidity when risk stratifying heterogenous cohort of patients with new diagnosis of diabetes. Our unsupervised machine learning method improved the prediction of clinical outcomes.

Sex-Specific Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant-Level Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether the relative effects of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes differ by sex, particularly when BP is not substantially elevated, has been uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant-level data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological BP lowering. We pooled the data and categorized participants by sex, systolic BP categories in 10-mm Hg increments from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg, and age categories spanning from <55 to ≥85 years. We used fixed-effect one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analyses and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyze the data. RESULTS: We included data from 51 randomized controlled trials involving 358 636 (42% women) participants. Over 4.2 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg reduction in systolic BP decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events both in women and men (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.92 [0.89-0.95] for women and 0.90 [0.88-0.93] for men; P for interaction, 1). There was no evidence for heterogeneity of relative treatment effects by sex for the major cardiovascular disease, its components, or across the different baseline BP categories (all P for interaction, ≥0.57). The effects in women and men were consistent across age categories and the types of antihypertensive medications (all P for interaction, ≥0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of BP reduction were similar in women and men across all BP and age categories at randomization and with no evidence to suggest that drug classes had differing effects by sex. This study does not substantiate sex-based differences in BP-lowering treatment.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in people with blood cancer: Population-level cohort study of 12 million patients in England.

BACKGROUND: People with blood cancers have increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were prioritised for vaccination. METHODS: Individuals in the QResearch database aged 12 years and above on 1st December 2020 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis described time to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer and other high-risk disorders. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer. RESULTS: The analysis included 12,274,948 individuals, of whom 97,707 had a blood cancer diagnosis. 92% of people with blood cancer received at least one dose of vaccine, compared to 80% of the general population, but there was lower uptake of each subsequent vaccine dose (31% for fourth dose). Vaccine uptake decreased with social deprivation (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.70, 0.74 for most deprived versus most affluent quintile for first vaccine). Compared with White groups, uptake of all vaccine doses was significantly lower in people of Pakistani and Black ethnicity, and more people in these groups remain unvaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine uptake declines following second dose and there are ethnic and social disparities in uptake in blood cancer populations. Enhanced communication of benefits of vaccination to these groups is needed.

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for prevention of major cardiovascular diseases in people with and without type 2 diabetes: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether the threshold for blood pressure-lowering treatment should differ between people with and without type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate the effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by type 2 diabetes status, as well as by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. METHODS: We conducted a one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analysis of major randomised controlled trials using the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration dataset. Trials with information on type 2 diabetes status at baseline were eligible if they compared blood pressure-lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or an intensive versus a standard blood pressure-lowering strategy, and reported at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively on participants with heart failure or with short-term therapies and acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. We expressed treatment effect per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure on the risk of developing a major cardiovascular event as the primary outcome, defined as the first occurrence of fatal or non-fatal stroke or cerebrovascular disease, fatal or non-fatal ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospitalisation. Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) separately by type 2 diabetes status at baseline, with further stratification by baseline categories of systolic blood pressure (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg). To estimate absolute risk reductions, we used a Poisson regression model over the follow-up duration. The effect of each of the five major blood pressure-lowering drug classes, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, ß blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics, was estimated using a network meta-analysis framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018099283. FINDINGS: We included data from 51 randomised clinical trials published between 1981 and 2014 involving 358 533 participants (58% men), among whom 103 325 (29%) had known type 2 diabetes at baseline. The baseline mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure of those with and without type 2 diabetes was 149/84 mm Hg (SD 19/11) and 153/88 mm Hg (SD 21/12), respectively. Over 4·2 years median follow-up (IQR 3·0-5·0), a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events in both groups, but with a weaker relative treatment effect in participants with type 2 diabetes (HR 0·94 [95% CI 0·91-0·98]) compared with those without type 2 diabetes (0·89 [0·87-0·92]; pinteraction=0·0013). However, absolute risk reductions did not differ substantially between people with and without type 2 diabetes because of the higher absolute cardiovascular risk among participants with type 2 diabetes. We found no reliable evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline systolic blood pressure in either group. In keeping with the primary findings, analysis using stratified network meta-analysis showed no evidence that relative treatment effects differed substantially between participants with type 2 diabetes and those without for any of the drug classes investigated. INTERPRETATION: Although the relative beneficial effects of blood pressure reduction on major cardiovascular events were weaker in participants with type 2 diabetes than in those without, absolute effects were similar. The difference in relative risk reduction was not related to the baseline blood pressure or allocation to different drug classes. Therefore, the adoption of differential blood pressure thresholds, intensities of blood pressure lowering, or drug classes used in people with and without type 2 diabetes is not warranted. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

How Much Lowering of Blood Pressure Is Required to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With and Without Previous Cardiovascular Disease?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the recent large-scale randomised evidence on pharmacologic reduction in blood pressure for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Based on findings of the meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised clinical trials and involving 344,716 participants with mean age of 65 years, the relative reduction in the risk of developing major cardiovascular events was proportional to the magnitude of achieved reduction in blood pressure. For each 5-mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure, the risk of developing cardiovascular events fell by 10% (hazard ratio [HR] (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 [0.88 to 0.92]). When participants were stratified by their history of cardiovascular disease, the HRs (95% CI) in those with and without previous cardiovascular disease were 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92) and 0.91 (0.89 to 0.94), respectively, with no significant heterogeneity in these effects (adjusted P for interaction = 1.0). When these patient groups were further stratified by their baseline systolic blood pressure in increments of 10 mmHg from < 120 to ≥ 170 mmHg, there was no significant heterogeneity in the relative risk reduction across these categories in people with or without previous cardiovascular disease (adjusted P for interaction were 1.00 and 0.28, respectively). Pharmacologic lowering of blood pressure was effective in preventing major cardiovascular disease events both in people with or without previous cardiovascular disease, which was not modified by their baseline blood pressure level. Treatment effects were shown to be proportional to the intensity of blood pressure reduction, but even modest blood pressure reduction, on average, can lead to meaningful gains in the prevention of incident or recurrent cardiovascular disease.

The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration: methodological clarifications of recent reports.

Epidemiological evidence has consistently shown that people with higher systolic or diastolic blood pressure are at greater risk of cardiovascular diseases. However, there has been limited randomized evidence to determine the role of blood pressure level at treatment initiation in the reduction of cardiovascular diseases risk. The extent to which other characteristics of individuals, such as prior disease history, age or sex, should be taken into account has also been controversial. Furthermore, effects on less commonly reported efficacy and safety outcomes remain underexplored. The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration has collected individual-level participant data from 52 randomized clinical trials, with more than 360 000 participants, and is now the largest source of individual-level data from randomized clinical trials of blood pressure-lowering treatment. This resource provides an unprecedented opportunity to address major areas of uncertainty relating to stratified efficacy and safety of antihypertensive therapy. Recent reports have demonstrated the power of pooled analyses of the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration dataset in filling long-standing gaps in our knowledge. However, there have been some misconceptions regarding the methods underpinning the recent reports, which we clarify in this article.

Antihypertensive drug effects on long-term blood pressure: an individual-level data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence from randomised trials of pharmacological treatments on long-term blood pressure (BP) reduction is limited. We investigated the antihypertensive drug effects on BP over time and across different participant characteristics. METHODS: We conducted an individual patient-level data meta-analysis of 52 large-scale randomised clinical trials in the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration using mixed models to examine treatment effects on BP over 4 years of mean follow-up. RESULTS: There were 363 684 participants (42% women), with baseline mean age=65 years and mean systolic/diastolic BP=152/87 mm Hg, and among whom 19% were current smokers, 49% had cardiovascular disease, 28% had diabetes and 69% were taking antihypertensive treatment at baseline. Drugs were effective in lowering BP showing maximal effect after 12 months and gradually attenuating towards later years. Based on measures taken ≥12 months postrandomisation, mean systolic/diastolic BP difference (95% CI) between more and less intense BP-lowering treatment was -11.1 (-11.3 to -10.8)/-5.6 (-5.7 to -5.4) mm Hg; between active treatment and placebo was -5.1 (-5.3 to -5.0)/-2.3 (-2.4 to -2.2) mm Hg; and between active and control arms for drug comparison trials was -1.4 (-1.5 to -1.3)/-0.6 (-0.7 to -0.6) mm Hg. BP reductions were observed across different baseline BP values and ages, and by sex, history of cardiovascular disease and diabetes and prior antihypertensive treatment use. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that BP-lowering pharmacotherapy is effective in lowering BP, up to 4 years on average, in people with different characteristics. Appropriate treatment strategies are needed to sustain substantive long-term BP reductions.

Blood pressure lowering and risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure lowering is an established strategy for preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes, but its role in the prevention of diabetes itself is unclear. We aimed to examine this question using individual participant data from major randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We performed a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis, in which data were pooled to investigate the effect of blood pressure lowering per se on the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes. An individual participant data network meta-analysis was used to investigate the differential effects of five major classes of antihypertensive drugs on the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes. Overall, data from 22 studies conducted between 1973 and 2008, were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We included all primary and secondary prevention trials that used a specific class or classes of antihypertensive drugs versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure lowering medications that had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each randomly allocated arm. Participants with a known diagnosis of diabetes at baseline and trials conducted in patients with prevalent diabetes were excluded. For the one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis we used stratified Cox proportional hazards model and for the individual participant data network meta-analysis we used logistic regression models to calculate the relative risk (RR) for drug class comparisons. FINDINGS: 145 939 participants (88 500 [60·6%] men and 57 429 [39·4%] women) from 19 randomised controlled trials were included in the one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis. 22 trials were included in the individual participant data network meta-analysis. After a median follow-up of 4·5 years (IQR 2·0), 9883 participants were diagnosed with new-onset type 2 diabetes. Systolic blood pressure reduction by 5 mm Hg reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes across all trials by 11% (hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·84-0·95]). Investigation of the effects of five major classes of antihypertensive drugs showed that in comparison to placebo, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (RR 0·84 [95% 0·76-0·93]) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (RR 0·84 [0·76-0·92]) reduced the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes; however, the use of ß blockers (RR 1·48 [1·27-1·72]) and thiazide diuretics (RR 1·20 [1·07-1·35]) increased this risk, and no material effect was found for calcium channel blockers (RR 1·02 [0·92-1·13]). INTERPRETATION: Blood pressure lowering is an effective strategy for the prevention of new-onset type 2 diabetes. Established pharmacological interventions, however, have qualitatively and quantitively different effects on diabetes, likely due to their differing off-target effects, with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers having the most favourable outcomes. This evidence supports the indication for selected classes of antihypertensive drugs for the prevention of diabetes, which could further refine the selection of drug choice according to an individual's clinical risk of diabetes. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised evidence on the efficacy of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of BP-lowering drugs in patients with and without AF at baseline. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study was based on the resource provided by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC), in which individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from trials with over 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each arm, and that had randomly assigned patients to different classes of BP-lowering drugs, BP-lowering drugs versus placebo, or more versus less intensive BP-lowering regimens. For this study, only trials that had collected information on AF status at baseline were included. The effects of BP-lowering treatment on a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events (stroke, ischaemic heart disease or heart failure) according to AF status at baseline were estimated using fixed-effect one-stage IPD meta-analyses based on Cox proportional hazards models stratified by trial. Furthermore, to assess whether the associations between the intensity of BP reduction and cardiovascular outcomes are similar in those with and without AF at baseline, we used a meta-regression. From the full BPLTTC database, 28 trials (145,653 participants) were excluded because AF status at baseline was uncertain or unavailable. A total of 22 trials were included with 188,570 patients, of whom 13,266 (7%) had AF at baseline. Risk of bias assessment showed that 20 trials were at low risk of bias and 2 trials at moderate risk. Meta-regression showed that relative risk reductions were proportional to trial-level intensity of BP lowering in patients with and without AF at baseline. Over 4.5 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg systolic BP (SBP) reduction lowered the risk of major cardiovascular events both in patients with AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.00) and in patients without AF at baseline (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), with no difference between subgroups. There was no evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP or drug class in patients with AF at baseline. The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of its potential limitations, such as the limited number of trials, limitation in ascertaining AF cases due to the nature of the arrhythmia and measuring BP in patients with AF. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found that BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events similarly in individuals with and without AF. Pharmacological BP lowering for prevention of cardiovascular events should be recommended in patients with AF.

Antihypertensive treatment and risk of cancer: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), ß blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283). FINDINGS: 33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·95-1·04] for ACEIs; 0·96 [0·92-1·01] for ARBs; 0·98 [0·89-1·07] for ß blockers; 1·01 [0·95-1·07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1·06 [1·01-1·11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·93-1·09] for ACEIs; 0·99 [0·92-1·06] for ARBs; 0·99 [0·89-1·11] for ß blockers; 1·04 [0·96-1·13] for calcium channel blockers; 1·00 [0·90-1·10] for thiazides). INTERPRETATION: We found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Martin School.

Long-Term Exposure to Elevated Systolic Blood Pressure in Predicting Incident Cardiovascular Disease: Evidence From Large-Scale Routine Electronic Health Records.

Background How measures of long-term exposure to elevated blood pressure might add to the performance of "current" blood pressure in predicting future cardiovascular disease is unclear. We compared incident cardiovascular disease risk prediction using past, current, and usual systolic blood pressure alone or in combination. Methods and Results Using data from UK primary care linked electronic health records, we applied a landmark cohort study design and identified 80 964 people, aged 50 years (derivation cohort=64 772; validation cohort=16 192), who, at study entry, had recorded blood pressure, no prior cardiovascular disease, and no previous antihypertensive or lipid-lowering prescriptions. We used systolic blood pressure recorded up to 10 years before baseline to estimate past systolic blood pressure (mean, time-weighted mean, and variability) and usual systolic blood pressure (correcting current values for past time-dependent blood pressure fluctuations) and examined their prospective relation with incident cardiovascular disease (first hospitalization for or death from coronary heart disease or stroke/transient ischemic attack). We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios and applied Bayesian analysis within a machine learning framework in model development and validation. Predictive performance of models was assessed using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration metrics. We found that elevated past, current, and usual systolic blood pressure values were separately and independently associated with increased incident cardiovascular disease risk. When used alone, the hazard ratio (95% credible interval) per 20-mm Hg increase in current systolic blood pressure was 1.22 (1.18-1.30), but associations were stronger for past systolic blood pressure (mean and time-weighted mean) and usual systolic blood pressure (hazard ratio ranging from 1.39-1.45). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for a model that included current systolic blood pressure, sex, smoking, deprivation, diabetes mellitus, and lipid profile was 0.747 (95% credible interval, 0.722-0.811). The addition of past systolic blood pressure mean, time-weighted mean, or variability to this model increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% credible interval) to 0.750 (0.727-0.811), 0.750 (0.726-0.811), and 0.748 (0.723-0.811), respectively, with all models showing good calibration. Similar small improvements in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were observed when testing models on the validation cohort, in sex-stratified analyses, or by using different landmark ages (40 or 60 years). Conclusions Using multiple blood pressure recordings from patients' electronic health records showed stronger associations with incident cardiovascular disease than a single blood pressure measurement, but their addition to multivariate risk prediction models had negligible effects on model performance.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering drugs in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

: We aimed to combine evidence from all heart failure trials that have investigated the effects of drugs with blood pressure (BP)-lowering properties to assess the extent to which such drugs reduce BP in heart failure, the association between the net change in BP between treatment arms and cause-specific outcomes and whether treatment effects (efficacy and safety) vary according to baseline BP. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized clinical trials of drugs with BP-lowering properties in patients with chronic heart failure with at least 300 patient-years follow-up. We included a total of 37 trials (91 950 patients) and showed that treatment with drugs with BP-lowering properties resulted in a small but significant decrease in SBP in patients with heart failure with no evidence that the efficacy and safety of those drugs varied according to baseline BP.

A Further Decrease in the Rates of Administration of Electroconvulsive Therapy in England.

OBJECTIVES: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment of major depression, and there have been consistent improvements in the administration of ECT in the past decade. However, studies have reported a steady decline in the rates of use of ECT in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Despite this, there has been no consistent record of how much ECT is being given or to whom it is given, for more than 20 years. The purpose of this study is to estimate the change in frequency of ECT use, the length of courses, patient demographics, and clinical outcomes between 2006 and 2 periods of 2012/2013 and 2014/2015. METHODS: In 2012/2013, clinics were asked to complete an online survey giving details of every patient who started a course of ECT between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. This was repeated for the same period in 2014/2015. RESULTS: There continues to be a striking decline in the number of courses of ECT prescribed. Course length has increased. Women are twice as likely to be prescribed ECT as men. Modal age is 60 to 80 years, and the most common diagnosis is depression. Most courses were rated as clinically effective, especially for people with severe illnesses. Maintenance ECT is used at half the clinics surveyed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECT in England continues to decline. The reasons for this are unclear and need investigation.