Initial impacts of global risk mitigation measures taken during the combatting of the COVID-19 pandemic

This paper presents an analysis of risk mitigation measures taken by countries around the world facing the current COVID-19 outbreak. In light of the current pandemic the authors collated and clustered (using harmonised terminology) the risk mitigation measures taken around the globe in the combat to contain, and since March 11 2020, to limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus known to cause the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This overview gathers lessons learnt, provides an update on the current knowledge for authorities, sectors and first responders on the effectiveness and may allow enhanced prevention, preparedness and response for future outbreaks. Various measures such as mobility restrictions, physical distancing, hygienic measures, socio economic restrictions, communication and international support mechanisms have been clustered and are reviewed in terms of the nature of the actions taken and their qualitative early-perceived impact. At the time of writing, it is still too premature to express the quantitative effectiveness of each risk mitigation cluster, but it seems that the best mitigation results are reported when applying a combination of voluntary and enforceable measures.JRC.E.7-Knowledge for Security and Migratio

Adverse events and overall health and wellbeing after COVID-19 vaccination:interim results from the VAC4COVID cohort safety study

OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidence of adverse events (AEs), reactogenicity symptoms, menstrual changes and overall self-rated improvement in health and well-being after COVID-19 vaccination. DESIGN: VAC4COVID is an ongoing prospective, active observational, post-authorisation cohort safety study (PASS) of UK-approved vaccines for COVID-19 disease. SETTING: The study is conducted through a secure website (www.vac4covid.com) by MEMO Research, University of Dundee, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 16 265 adult (18 years or older) UK residents with a valid email address and internet access. INTERVENTIONS: Any UK-authorised COVID-19 vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes reported in this interim analysis include AEs, reactogenicity-type AEs (headache, fatigue, muscle or joint pain, fever, nausea, dizziness or local vaccine reaction), menstrual changes and reported improvement in overall health and well-being. RESULTS: 11 475 consented participants (mean age 54.8 years) provided follow-up data between 2 February and 5 October 2021 (mean follow-up duration 184 days), by which date 89.2% of participants had received two vaccine doses. 89.8% of 5222 participants who completed a follow-up questionnaire in the 7 days after any COVID-19 vaccination reported no AEs. The risk of experiencing any event (not necessarily vaccine-related) requiring hospitalisation was less than 0.2%. 43.7% of post-vaccination follow-up records reported improvement in health and well-being. Reactogenicity-type reactions were more common in the week after the first dose of ChAdOx1 than BNT162b2 (7.8% vs 1.6%), but this relationship was reversed after the second dose (1.3% vs 3.1%). 0.3% of women reported menstrual symptoms after vaccination; no differences between vaccine type or dose order were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides reassuring data on low rates of AEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Differences in reactogenicity-type AE profiles between ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 and between first and second doses of these vaccines were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN95881792; Pre-results

Effect of timed dosing of usual antihypertensives according to patient chronotype on cardiovascular outcomes:the Chronotype sub-study cohort of the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study

Background: Timing drug administration to endogenous circadian rhythms may enhance treatment efficacy. In the Chronotype sub-study of the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) clinical trial we examined whether timing of usual antihypertensive medications according to patient chronotype (a behavioural marker of personal circadian rhythm) may influence clinical cardiovascular outcomes.Methods: This was a cohort sub-study of TIME, a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, UK clinical trial of morning versus evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medications and cardiovascular outcomes. On August 3rd, 2020, all active TIME participants were invited to complete a validated chronotype questionnaire. Chronotype was quantitatively assessed as the mid sleep time on free days corrected for sleep debt on workdays (MSFsc). We analysed associations between chronotype and antihypertensive dosing time and explored their combined effect on cardiovascular outcomes (a composite endpoint of hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or non-fatal stroke, and single components) using proportional hazard time-to-event models adjusted for baseline covariates. These were used to specifically test for interactions between dosing time and chronotype.Findings: Between August 3, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 5358 TIME participants completed the online questionnaire. 2778 were previously randomised to morning dosing and 2580 to evening dosing of their usual antihypertensives. Chronotype was symmetrically distributed around a median MSFsc of 3:07 am. The composite endpoint increased for later MSFsc (later chronotype) dosed in the morning but not in those dosed in the evening (hazard ratios 1.46 [95% CI 1.14-1.86] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.70-1.30] per hour of MSFsc, respectively; interaction p = 0.036). Later chronotype was associated with increased risk of hospitalisation for non-fatal MI in the morning dosing group, and reduced risk in the evening dosing group (hazard ratios 1.62 [95% CI 1.18-2.22] and 0.66 [95% CI 0.44-1.00] per hour of MSFsc, respectively; interaction p &lt; 0.001). No interaction between chronotype and antihypertensive dosing time was observed for stroke events.Interpretation: Alignment of dosing time of usual antihypertensives with personal chronotype could lower the incidence of non-fatal MI compared to a 'misaligned' dosing time regimen. Future studies are warranted to establish whether synchronizing administration time of antihypertensive therapy with individual chronotype reduces risk of MI.</p

Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening versus morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study):a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial

Background: Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension. Methods: The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600–1000 h) or in the evening (2000–0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete. Findings: Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9–5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62–0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65–0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83–1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified. Interpretation: Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects. Funding: British Heart Foundation

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease:the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Background: Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol. Objective: To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Design: Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial. Setting: Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices. Participants: Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Interventions: Participants were randomised (1: 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Results: From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a ‘within trial’ cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval −0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective. Limitations: The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis. Conclusions: The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout.</p

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease : the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.Peer reviewe

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial.

Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77). In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.