The role of the muscle metaboreflex in patients with chronic disease

Exercising muscle needs a constant supply of oxygen for the aerobic metabolism of carbohydrate and fat, and regulation of the blood supply to muscle during exercise is therefore critical. Heart rate, stroke volume and minute ventilation all increase during exercise, and sympathetic vasoconstriction diverts blood to exercising muscle. It is well recognised that receptors in skeletal muscle play a vital role in the regulation of blood flow, including receptors sensitive to products of anaerobic metabolism such as lactate and hydrogen ions: metaboreceptors. Activation of the muscle metaboreflex signals the need for an increase in blood flow, and leads to an increase in cardiac output, ventilation and sympathetic vasoconstriction to non-essential organs. Exercise intolerance is one of the most disabling symptoms in patients with a range of cardiorespiratory diseases. Abnormalities of skeletal muscle favouring anaerobic metabolism have been documented in both chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and this is thought to be relevant to exercise limitation in these diseases. Studies looking at patients with chronic heart failure have demonstrated an increase in muscle metaboreflex activity. It is thought that abnormal skeletal muscle generates greater quantities of anaerobic metabolites, leading to increased metaboreceptor activation. This in turn causes an increased sympathetic nervous system and ventilatory response to exercise. Patients with COPD have been shown to demonstrate similar skeletal muscle abnormalities, so we hypothesised that we would also find an increase in muscle metaboreflex activity in this group. It is possible to quantify muscle metaboreflex activity by exercising a small muscle group to fatigue then isolating it from the rest of the circulation with a sphygmomanometer cuff. This traps the metabolic products of exercise in the muscle and leads to prolonged stimulation of metaboreceptors. This can be measured as a sustained increase in blood pressure and ventilation when compared with control recovery without cuff inflation. The aims of this thesis were as follows: (i) to assess if it is possible to quantify the muscle metaboreflex in a group of patients with COPD and to determine whether muscle metaboreflex activity is increased in patients with more severe disease, (ii) to determine whether supplementation with oral creatine monohydrate alters muscle metaboreflex activity, upper limb strength or endurance and respiratory muscle strength in patients with COPD, (iii) to assess the effects of diabetic autonomic neuropathy on muscle metaboreflex function, and (iv) to evaluate whether pulse transit time is of use in the measurement of muscle metaboreflex activity. In our first study, we looked at a group of patients with stable COPD and found that rhythmic forearm exercise followed by post-exercise forearm ischaemia led to a sustained increase in blood pressure and minute ventilation when compared with control recovery. These findings are in keeping with previously published observations in normal subjects and in patients with chronic heart failure. We found that there was no difference in muscle metaboreflex activity between the groups of patients with moderate or severe disease. We then performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial looking at the effects of loading a group of patients with stable COPD with creatine monohydrate. We demonstrated a small increase in body weight and an increase in peak inspiratory and expiratory mouth pressures, but there were no effects on muscle metaboreflex activity or forearm muscle strength, endurance or recovery. A group of patients with type I diabetes mellitus was then used to study the effects of autonomic neuropathy on muscle metaboreflex function. We found that there was no difference in metaboreflex activity between subjects with diabetic autonomic neuropathy and subjects with diabetes but no evidence of autonomic neuropathy, suggesting that the afferent and efferent limbs of the muscle metaboreflex were intact. Our final study evaluated whether pulse transit time could be used to assess muscle metaboreflex activity. Pulse transit time is defined as the time taken for a pulse wave to travel between two arterial sites, and can be easily and non-invasively measured. It is thought to reflect blood pressure and arterial tone. In a group of healthy subjects, we found that pulse transit time fell with rhythmic handgrip exercise, and post-exercise muscle ischaemia led to a sustained fall in pulse transit time when compared with control recovery. Pulse transit time therefore shows promise in the measurement of muscle metaboreflex activity, but further studies are required. Studies comparing pulse transit time with more invasive measurements such as muscle sympathetic nerve activity would be of particular interest

Protocol for an observational cohort study investigating personalised medicine for intensification of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the PERMIT study

INTRODUCTION: For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require an antidiabetic drug as an add-on to metformin, there is controversy about whether newer drug classes such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce the risk of long-term complications compared with sulfonylureas (SU). There is widespread variation across National Health Service Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in drug choice for second-line treatment in part because National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not specify a single preferred drug class, either overall or within specific patient subgroups. This study will evaluate the relative effectiveness of the three most common second-line treatments in the UK (SU, DPP4i and SGLT2i as add-ons to metformin) and help target treatments according to individual risk profiles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study includes people with T2DM prescribed one of the second-line treatments-of-interest between 2014 and 2020 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics. We will use an instrumental variable (IV) method to estimate short-term and long-term relative effectiveness of second-line treatments according to individuals' risk profiles. This method minimises bias from unmeasured confounders by exploiting the natural variation in second-line prescribing across CCGs as an IV for the choice of prescribed treatment. The primary outcome to assess short-term effectiveness will be change in haemoglobin A1c (%) 12 months after treatment initiation. Outcome measures to assess longer-term effectiveness (maximum ~6 years) will include microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality and hospital admissions during follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (20-064) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (21395). Results, codelists and other analysis code will be made available to patients, clinicians, policy-makers and researchers

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice. Design: Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial). Setting: Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21. Participants: 75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures. Results: 75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were −2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) −3.7 to −1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and −3.2 mmol/mol (−4.6 to −1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking—the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43). Conclusions: This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints

Protocol for an observational cohort study investigating personalised medicine for intensification of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the PERMIT study.

INTRODUCTION: For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require an antidiabetic drug as an add-on to metformin, there is controversy about whether newer drug classes such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce the risk of long-term complications compared with sulfonylureas (SU). There is widespread variation across National Health Service Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in drug choice for second-line treatment in part because National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not specify a single preferred drug class, either overall or within specific patient subgroups. This study will evaluate the relative effectiveness of the three most common second-line treatments in the UK (SU, DPP4i and SGLT2i as add-ons to metformin) and help target treatments according to individual risk profiles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study includes people with T2DM prescribed one of the second-line treatments-of-interest between 2014 and 2020 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics. We will use an instrumental variable (IV) method to estimate short-term and long-term relative effectiveness of second-line treatments according to individuals' risk profiles. This method minimises bias from unmeasured confounders by exploiting the natural variation in second-line prescribing across CCGs as an IV for the choice of prescribed treatment. The primary outcome to assess short-term effectiveness will be change in haemoglobin A1c (%) 12 months after treatment initiation. Outcome measures to assess longer-term effectiveness (maximum ~6 years) will include microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality and hospital admissions during follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (20-064) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (21395). Results, codelists and other analysis code will be made available to patients, clinicians, policy-makers and researchers

Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatment in people with type 2 diabetes in England: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: To assess any disparities in the initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatments prescribed among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in England according to ethnicity and social deprivation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics), and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). We included people aged 18 years or older with T2DM who intensified to second-line oral antidiabetic medication between 2014-2020 to investigate disparities in second-line antidiabetic treatment prescribing (one of sulfonylureas (SU), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), in combination with metformin) by ethnicity (white, South Asian, black, mixed/other) and deprivation (IMD quintiles). We reported prescriptions of the alternative treatments by ethnicity and deprivation according to predicted percentages derived from multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 36,023 people, 85% were white, 10% South Asian, 4% black, and 1% mixed/other. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2i prescribing by ethnicity were 21% [95% CI 19-23%], 20% [95% CI 18-22%], 19% [95% CI 16-22%], and 17% [95% CI 14-21%) among people with white, South Asian, black, and mixed/other ethnicity, respectively. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2i prescribing by deprivation were 22% [95% CI 20-25%] and 19% [95% CI 17-21%] for the least deprived and the most deprived quintiles, respectively. When stratifying by prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) status, we found lower predicted percentages of people with prevalent CVD prescribed SGLT2i compared with people without prevalent CVD across all ethnicity groups and all levels of social deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with T2DM, there were no substantial differences by ethnicity or deprivation in the percentage prescribed either SGLT2i, DPP4i, or SU as second-line antidiabetic treatment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FINDINGS: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories. INTERPRETATION: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination. FUNDING: Medical Research Council

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial). SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21. PARTICIPANTS: 75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures. RESULTS: 75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were -2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and -3.2 mmol/mol (-4.6 to -1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking-the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints

Study protocol: Comparison of different risk prediction modelling approaches for COVID-19 related death using the OpenSAFELY platform

On March 11th 2020, the World Health Organization characterised COVID-19 as a pandemic. Responses to containing the spread of the virus have relied heavily on policies involving restricting contact between people. Evolving policies regarding shielding and individual choices about restricting social contact will rely heavily on perceived risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In order to make informed decisions, both individual and collective, good predictive models are required.   For outcomes related to an infectious disease, the performance of any risk prediction model will depend heavily on the underlying prevalence of infection in the population of interest. Incorporating measures of how this changes over time may result in important improvements in prediction model performance.  This protocol reports details of a planned study to explore the extent to which incorporating time-varying measures of infection burden over time improves the quality of risk prediction models for COVID-19 death in a large population of adult patients in England. To achieve this aim, we will compare the performance of different modelling approaches to risk prediction, including static cohort approaches typically used in chronic disease settings and landmarking approaches incorporating time-varying measures of infection prevalence and policy change, using COVID-19 related deaths data linked to longitudinal primary care electronic health records data within the OpenSAFELY secure analytics platform.</ns4:p

The Chief Scientist Office cardiovascular and pulmonary imaging in SARS Coronavirus disease-19 (CISCO-19) study

Background: COVID-19 is typically a primary respiratory illness with multisystem involvement. The prevalence and clinical significance of cardiovascular and multisystem involvement in COVID-19 remain unclear. Methods: This is a prospective, observational, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study with minimal selection criteria and a near-consecutive approach to screening. Patients who have received hospital care for COVID-19 will be enrolled within 28 days of discharge. Myocardial injury will be diagnosed according to the peak troponin I in relation to the upper reference limit (URL, 99th centile) (Abbott Architect troponin I assay; sex-specific URL, male: &gt;34 ng/L; female: &gt;16 ng/L). Multisystem, multimodality imaging will be undertaken during the convalescent phase at 28 days post-discharge (Visit 2). Imaging of the heart, lung, and kidneys will include multiparametric, stress perfusion, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography coronary angiography. Health and well-being will be assessed in the longer term. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of myocardial inflammation. Conclusion: CISCO-19 will provide detailed insights into cardiovascular and multisystem involvement of COVID-19. Our study will inform the rationale and design of novel therapeutic and management strategies for affected patients