Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 among patients in the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre primary care network: a cross-sectional studySimon de Lusignan, Jienchi Dorward, Ana Correa et al.|The Lancet Infectious Diseases|2020 BACKGROUND: There are few primary care studies of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify demographic and clinical risk factors for testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre primary care network. METHODS: We analysed routinely collected, pseudonymised data for patients in the RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre primary care sentinel network who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Jan 28 and April 4, 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression models with multiple imputation to identify risk factors for positive SARS-CoV-2 tests within this surveillance network. FINDINGS: We identified 3802 SARS-CoV-2 test results, of which 587 were positive. In multivariable analysis, male sex was independently associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (296 [18·4%] of 1612 men vs 291 [13·3%] of 2190 women; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·55, 95% CI 1·27-1·89). Adults were at increased risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared with children, and people aged 40-64 years were at greatest risk in the multivariable model (243 [18·5%] of 1316 adults aged 40-64 years vs 23 [4·6%] of 499 children; adjusted OR 5·36, 95% CI 3·28-8·76). Compared with white people, the adjusted odds of a positive test were greater in black people (388 [15·5%] of 2497 white people vs 36 [62·1%] of 58 black people; adjusted OR 4·75, 95% CI 2·65-8·51). People living in urban areas versus rural areas (476 [26·2%] of 1816 in urban areas vs 111 [5·6%] of 1986 in rural areas; adjusted OR 4·59, 95% CI 3·57-5·90) and in more deprived areas (197 [29·5%] of 668 in most deprived vs 143 [7·7%] of 1855 in least deprived; adjusted OR 2·03, 95% CI 1·51-2·71) were more likely to test positive. People with chronic kidney disease were more likely to test positive in the adjusted analysis (68 [32·9%] of 207 with chronic kidney disease vs 519 [14·4%] of 3595 without; adjusted OR 1·91, 95% CI 1·31-2·78), but there was no significant association with other chronic conditions in that analysis. We found increased odds of a positive test among people who are obese (142 [20·9%] of 680 people with obesity vs 171 [13·2%] of 1296 normal-weight people; adjusted OR 1·41, 95% CI 1·04-1·91). Notably, active smoking was linked with decreased odds of a positive test result (47 [11·4%] of 413 active smokers vs 201 [17·9%] of 1125 non-smokers; adjusted OR 0·49, 95% CI 0·34-0·71). INTERPRETATION: A positive SARS-CoV-2 test result in this primary care cohort was associated with similar risk factors as observed for severe outcomes of COVID-19 in hospital settings, except for smoking. We provide evidence of potential sociodemographic factors associated with a positive test, including deprivation, population density, ethnicity, and chronic kidney disease. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.
Survival of Patients with Chronic Heart Failure in the Community: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisNicholas Jones, Andrea Roalfe, Ibiye Adoki et al.|European Journal of Heart Failure|2019 AIM: To provide reliable survival estimates for people with chronic heart failure and explain variation in survival by key factors including age at diagnosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, decade of diagnosis, and study setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched in relevant databases from inception to August 2018 for non-interventional studies reporting survival rates for patients with chronic or stable heart failure in any ambulatory setting. Across the 60 included studies, there was survival data for 1.5 million people with heart failure. In our random effects meta-analyses the pooled survival rates at 1 month, 1, 2, 5 and 10 years were 95.7% (95% confidence interval 94.3-96.9), 86.5% (85.4-87.6), 72.6% (67.0-76.6), 56.7% (54.0-59.4) and 34.9% (24.0-46.8), respectively. The 5-year survival rates improved between 1970-1979 and 2000-2009 across healthcare settings, from 29.1% (25.5-32.7) to 59.7% (54.7-64.6). Increasing age at diagnosis was significantly associated with a reduced survival time. Mortality was lowest in studies conducted in secondary care, where there were higher reported prescribing rates of key heart failure medications. There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies in terms of heart failure diagnostic criteria, participant co-morbidities, and treatment rates. CONCLUSION: These results can inform health policy and individual patient advanced care planning. Mortality associated with chronic heart failure remains high despite steady improvements in survival. There remains significant scope to improve prognosis through greater implementation of evidence-based treatments. Further research exploring the barriers and facilitators to treatment is recommended.
Trends in survival after a diagnosis of heart failure in the United Kingdom 2000-2017: population based cohort studyAbstract Objectives To report reliable estimates of short term and long term survival rates for people with a diagnosis of heart failure and to assess trends over time by year of diagnosis, hospital admission, and socioeconomic group. Design Population based cohort study. Setting Primary care, United Kingdom. Participants Primary care data for 55 959 patients aged 45 and over with a new diagnosis of heart failure and 278 679 age and sex matched controls in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2017 and linked to inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Main outcome measures Survival rates at one, five, and 10 years and cause of death for people with and without heart failure; and temporal trends in survival by year of diagnosis, hospital admission, and socioeconomic group. Results Overall, one, five, and 10 year survival rates increased by 6.6% (from 74.2% in 2000 to 80.8% in 2016), 7.2% (from 41.0% in 2000 to 48.2% in 2012), and 6.4% (from 19.8% in 2000 to 26.2% in 2007), respectively. There were 30 906 deaths in the heart failure group over the study period. Heart failure was listed on the death certificate in 13 093 (42.4%) of these patients, and in 2237 (7.2%) it was the primary cause of death. Improvement in survival was greater for patients not requiring admission to hospital around the time of diagnosis (median difference 2.4 years; 5.3 v 2.9 years, P<0.001). There was a deprivation gap in median survival of 0.5 years between people who were least deprived and those who were most deprived (4.6 v 4.1 years, P<0.001). Conclusions Survival after a diagnosis of heart failure has shown only modest improvement in the 21st century and lags behind other serious conditions, such as cancer. New strategies to achieve timely diagnosis and treatment initiation in primary care for all socioeconomic groups should be a priority for future research and policy.
Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19?andcolleagues
Diagnosis and management of hypertension in adults: NICE guideline update 2019Nicholas Jones, Terry McCormack, Margaret Constanti et al.|British Journal of General Practice|2020 In August 2019, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) released its new hypertension guidelines. This article highlights the key recommendations and changes since 2011.