Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: Screening versus routine practice in detection cluster randomised controlled trial

Objectives : To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening. Design : Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm. Setting : 50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices. Participants : 14,802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices. Interventions : Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices. Main outcome measure : Newly identified atrial fibrillation. Results : The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, −0.5% to 0.5%). Conclusion : Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732

Direct detection of black hole-driven turbulence in the centers of galaxy clusters

Galaxie

Cabotegravir for HIV Prevention in Cisgender Men and Transgender Women

Background: Safe and effective long-acting injectable agents for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are needed to increase the options for preventing HIV infection. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial to compare long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA, an integrase strand-transfer inhibitor [INSTI]) at a dose of 600 mg, given intramuscularly every 8 weeks, with daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) for the prevention of HIV infection in at-risk cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) and in at-risk transgender women who have sex with men. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one of the two regimens and were followed for 153 weeks. HIV testing and safety evaluations were performed. The primary end point was incident HIV infection. Results: The intention-to-treat population included 4566 participants who underwent randomization; 570 (12.5%) identified as transgender women, and the median age was 26 years (interquartile range, 22 to 32). The trial was stopped early for efficacy on review of the results of the first preplanned interim end-point analysis. Among 1698 participants from the United States, 845 (49.8%) identified as Black. Incident HIV infection occurred in 52 participants: 13 in the cabotegravir group (incidence, 0.41 per 100 person-years) and 39 in the TDF-FTC group (incidence, 1.22 per 100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.62). The effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups. Injection-site reactions were reported in 81.4% of the participants in the cabotegravir group and in 31.3% of those in the TDF-FTC group. In the participants in whom HIV infection was diagnosed after exposure to CAB-LA, INSTI resistance and delays in the detection of HIV infection were noted. No safety concerns were identified. Conclusions: CAB-LA was superior to daily oral TDF-FTC in preventing HIV infection among MSM and transgender women. Strategies are needed to prevent INSTI resistance in cases of CAB-LA PrEP failure

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening. DESIGN: Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm. SETTING: 50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices. PARTICIPANTS: 14,802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Newly identified atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, -0.5% to 0.5%). CONCLUSION: Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732 [controlled-trials.com