Enti Spata

<h2>Summary</h2><h3>Background</h3> Statin therapy has been shown to reduce major vascular events and vascular mortality in a wide range of individuals, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety among older people. We undertook a meta-analysis of data from all large statin trials to compare the effects of statin therapy at different ages. <h3>Methods</h3> In this meta-analysis, randomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years. We analysed individual participant data from 22 trials (n=134 537) and detailed summary data from one trial (n=12 705) of statin therapy versus control, plus individual participant data from five trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (n=39 612). We subdivided participants into six age groups (55 years or younger, 56–60 years, 61–65 years, 66–70 years, 71–75 years, and older than 75 years). We estimated effects on major vascular events (ie, major coronary events, strokes, and coronary revascularisations), cause-specific mortality, and cancer incidence as the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We compared proportional risk reductions in different age subgroups by use of standard χ² tests for heterogeneity when there were two groups, or trend when there were more than two groups. <h3>Findings</h3> 14 483 (8%) of 186 854 participants in the 28 trials were older than 75 years at randomisation, and the median follow-up duration was 4·9 years. Overall, statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen produced a 21% (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77–0·81) proportional reduction in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We observed a significant reduction in major vascular events in all age groups. Although proportional reductions in major vascular events diminished slightly with age, this trend was not statistically significant (p_trend=0·06). Overall, statin or more intensive therapy yielded a 24% (RR 0·76, 95% CI 0·73–0·79) proportional reduction in major coronary events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, and with increasing age, we observed a trend towards smaller proportional risk reductions in major coronary events (p_trend=0·009). We observed a 25% (RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·73–0·78) proportional reduction in the risk of coronary revascularisation procedures with statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen per 1·0 mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol, which did not differ significantly across age groups (p_trend=0·6). Similarly, the proportional reductions in stroke of any type (RR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·89) did not differ significantly across age groups (p_trend=0·7). After exclusion of four trials which enrolled only patients with heart failure or undergoing renal dialysis (among whom statin therapy has not been shown to be effective), the trend to smaller proportional risk reductions with increasing age persisted for major coronary events (p_trend=0·01), and remained non-significant for major vascular events (p_trend=0·3). The proportional reduction in major vascular events was similar, irrespective of age, among patients with pre-existing vascular disease (p_trend=0·2), but appeared smaller among older than among younger individuals not known to have vascular disease (p_trend=0·05). We found a 12% (RR 0·88, 95% CI 0·85–0·91) proportional reduction in vascular mortality per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, with a trend towards smaller proportional reductions with older age (p_trend=0·004), but this trend did not persist after exclusion of the heart failure or dialysis trials (p_trend=0·2). Statin therapy had no effect at any age on non-vascular mortality, cancer death, or cancer incidence. <h3>Interpretation</h3> Statin therapy produces significant reductions in major vascular events irrespective of age, but there is less direct evidence of benefit among patients older than 75 years who do not already have evidence of occlusive vascular disease. This limitation is now being addressed by further trials. <h3>Funding</h3> Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Several countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have reported a substantial drop in the number of patients attending the emergency department with acute coronary syndromes and a reduced number of cardiac procedures. We aimed to understand the scale, nature, and duration of changes to admissions for different types of acute coronary syndrome in England and to evaluate whether in-hospital management of patients has been affected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analysed data on hospital admissions in England for types of acute coronary syndrome from Jan 1, 2019, to May 24, 2020, that were recorded in the Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care database. Admissions were classified as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), myocardial infarction of unknown type, or other acute coronary syndromes (including unstable angina). We identified revascularisation procedures undertaken during these admissions (ie, coronary angiography without percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery). We calculated the numbers of weekly admissions and procedures undertaken; percentage reductions in weekly admissions and across subgroups were also calculated, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: Hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome declined from mid-February, 2020, falling from a 2019 baseline rate of 3017 admissions per week to 1813 per week by the end of March, 2020, a reduction of 40% (95% CI 37-43). This decline was partly reversed during April and May, 2020, such that by the last week of May, 2020, there were 2522 admissions, representing a 16% (95% CI 13-20) reduction from baseline. During the period of declining admissions, there were reductions in the numbers of admissions for all types of acute coronary syndrome, including both STEMI and NSTEMI, but relative and absolute reductions were larger for NSTEMI, with 1267 admissions per week in 2019 and 733 per week by the end of March, 2020, a percent reduction of 42% (95% CI 38-46). In parallel, reductions were recorded in the number of PCI procedures for patients with both STEMI (438 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 346 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 21%, 95% CI 12-29) and NSTEMI (383 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 240 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 37%, 29-45). The median length of stay among patients with acute coronary syndrome fell from 4 days (IQR 2-9) in 2019 to 3 days (1-5) by the end of March, 2020. INTERPRETATION: Compared with the weekly average in 2019, there was a substantial reduction in the weekly numbers of patients with acute coronary syndrome who were admitted to hospital in England by the end of March, 2020, which had been partly reversed by the end of May, 2020. The reduced number of admissions during this period is likely to have resulted in increases in out-of-hospital deaths and long-term complications of myocardial infarction and missed opportunities to offer secondary prevention treatment for patients with coronary heart disease. The full extent of the effect of COVID-19 on the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome will continue to be assessed by updating these analyses. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on cancer care but there is little direct evidence to quantify any effect. This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England. METHODS: Data were extracted from four population-based datasets spanning NHS England (the National Cancer Cancer Waiting Time Monitoring, Monthly Diagnostic, Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care and the National Radiotherapy datasets) for all referrals, colonoscopies, surgical procedures, and courses of rectal radiotherapy from Jan 1, 2019, to Oct 31, 2020, related to colorectal cancer in England. Differences in patterns of care were investigated between 2019 and 2020. Percentage reductions in monthly numbers and proportions were calculated. FINDINGS: As compared to the monthly average in 2019, in April, 2020, there was a 63% (95% CI 53-71) reduction (from 36 274 to 13 440) in the monthly number of 2-week referrals for suspected cancer and a 92% (95% CI 89-95) reduction in the number of colonoscopies (from 46 441 to 3484). Numbers had just recovered by October, 2020. This resulted in a 22% (95% CI 8-34) relative reduction in the number of cases referred for treatment (from a monthly average of 2781 in 2019 to 2158 referrals in April, 2020). By October, 2020, the monthly rate had returned to 2019 levels but did not exceed it, suggesting that, from April to October, 2020, over 3500 fewer people had been diagnosed and treated for colorectal cancer in England than would have been expected. There was also a 31% (95% CI 19-42) relative reduction in the numbers receiving surgery in April, 2020, and a lower proportion of laparoscopic and a greater proportion of stoma-forming procedures, relative to the monthly average in 2019. By October, 2020, laparoscopic surgery and stoma rates were similar to 2019 levels. For rectal cancer, there was a 44% (95% CI 17-76) relative increase in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in April, 2020, relative to the monthly average in 2019, due to greater use of short-course regimens. Although in June, 2020, there was a drop in the use of short-course regimens, rates remained above 2019 levels until October, 2020. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sustained reduction in the number of people referred, diagnosed, and treated for colorectal cancer. By October, 2020, achievement of care pathway targets had returned to 2019 levels, albeit with smaller volumes of patients and with modifications to usual practice. As pressure grows in the NHS due to the second wave of COVID-19, urgent action is needed to address the growing burden of undetected and untreated colorectal cancer in England. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, NHS Digital, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

BackgroundGastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 1950, to Dec 31, 2015, to identify unconfounded, randomised trials of a gastroprotectant drug (defined as a PPI, prostaglandin analogue, or H2RA) versus control, or versus another gastroprotectant. Two independent researchers reviewed the search results and extracted the prespecified outcomes and key characteristics for each trial. We did meta-analyses of the effects of gastroprotectant drugs on ulcer development, bleeding, and mortality overall, according to the class of gastroprotectant, and according to the individual drug within a gastroprotectant class.FindingsWe identified comparisons of gastroprotectant versus control in 849 trials (142 485 participants): 580 prevention trials (110 626 participants), 233 healing trials (24 033 participants), and 36 trials for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (7826 participants). Comparisons of one gastroprotectant drug versus another were available in 345 trials (64 905 participants), comprising 160 prevention trials (32 959 participants), 167 healing trials (28 306 participants), and 18 trials for treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (3640 participants). The median number of patients in each trial was 78 (IQR 44·0–210·5) and the median duration was 1·4 months (0·9–2·8). In prevention trials, gastroprotectant drugs reduced development of endoscopic ulcers (odds ratio [OR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·25–0·29; p<0·0001), symptomatic ulcers (0·25, 0·22–0·29; p<0·0001), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (0·40, 0·32–0·50; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (0·85, 0·69–1·04; p=0·11). Larger proportional reductions in upper gastrointestinal bleeding were observed for PPIs than for other gastroprotectant drugs (PPIs 0·21, 99% CI 0·12–0·36; prostaglandin analogues 0·63, 0·35–1·12; H2RAs 0·49, 0·30–0·80; phet=0·0005). Gastroprotectant drugs were effective in preventing bleeding irrespective of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (phet=0·56). In healing trials, gastroprotectants increased endoscopic ulcer healing (3·49, 95% CI 3·28–3·72; p<0·0001), with PPIs more effective (5·22, 99% CI 4·00–6·80) than prostaglandin analogues (2·27, 1·91–2·70) and H2RAs (3·80, 3·44–4·20; phet<0·0001). In trials among patients with acute bleeding, gastroprotectants reduced further bleeding (OR 0·68, 95% CI 0·60–0·78; p<0·0001), blood transfusion (0·75, 0·65–0·88; p=0·0003), further endoscopic intervention (0·56, 0·45–0·70; p<0·0001), and surgery (0·72, 0·61–0·84; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (OR 0·90, 0·72–1·11; p=0·31). PPIs had larger protective effects than did H2RAs for further bleeding (phet=0·0107) and blood transfusion (phet=0·0130).InterpretationGastroprotectants, in particular PPIs, reduce the risk of peptic ulcer disease and its complications and promote healing of peptic ulcers in a wide range of clinical circumstances. However, this meta-analysis might have overestimated the benefits owing to small study bias.FundingUK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy is effective for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and is widely prescribed, but there are persisting concerns that statin therapy might frequently cause muscle pain or weakness. We aimed to address these through an individual participant data meta-analysis of all recorded adverse muscle events in large, long-term, randomised, double-blind trials of statin therapy. METHODS: Randomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years, and involved a double-blind comparison of statin versus placebo or of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen. We analysed individual participant data from 19 double-blind trials of statin versus placebo (n=123 940) and four double-blind trials of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen (n=30 724). Standard inverse-variance-weighted meta-analyses of the effects on muscle outcomes were conducted according to a prespecified protocol. FINDINGS: Among 19 placebo-controlled trials (mean age 63 years [SD 8], with 34 533 [27·9%] women, 59 610 [48·1%] participants with previous vascular disease, and 22 925 [18·5%] participants with diabetes), during a weighted average median follow-up of 4·3 years, 16 835 (27·1%) allocated statin versus 16 446 (26·6%) allocated placebo reported muscle pain or weakness (rate ratio [RR] 1·03; 95% CI 1·01-1·06). During year 1, statin therapy produced a 7% relative increase in muscle pain or weakness (1·07; 1·04-1·10), corresponding to an absolute excess rate of 11 (6-16) events per 1000 person-years, which indicates that only one in 15 ([1·07-1·00]/1·07) of these muscle-related reports by participants allocated to statin therapy were actually due to the statin. After year 1, there was no significant excess in first reports of muscle pain or weakness (0·99; 0·96-1·02). For all years combined, more intensive statin regimens (ie, 40-80 mg atorvastatin or 20-40 mg rosuvastatin once per day) yielded a higher RR than less intensive or moderate-intensity regimens (1·08 [1·04-1·13] vs 1·03 [1·00-1·05]) compared with placebo, and a small excess was present (1·05 [0·99-1·12]) for more intensive regimens after year 1. There was no clear evidence that the RR differed for different statins, or in different clinical circumstances. Statin therapy yielded a small, clinically insignificant increase in median creatine kinase values of approximately 0·02 times the upper limit of normal. INTERPRETATION: Statin therapy caused a small excess of mostly mild muscle pain. Most (>90%) of all reports of muscle symptoms by participants allocated statin therapy were not due to the statin. The small risks of muscle symptoms are much lower than the known cardiovascular benefits. There is a need to review the clinical management of muscle symptoms in patients taking a statin. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.