Common risk factors for major noncommunicable disease, a systematic overview of reviews and commentary : the implied potential for targeted risk reduction

Noncommunicable disease now contributes to the World Health Organization top 10 causes of death in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Particular examples include stroke, coronary heart disease, dementia and certain cancers. Research linking clinical and lifestyle risk factors to increased risk of noncommunicable disease is now well established with examples of confirmed risk factors, including smoking, physical inactivity, obesity and hypertension. However, despite a need to target our resources to achieve risk reduction, relatively little work has examined the overlap between the risk factors for these main noncommunicable diseases. Our high-level review draws together the evidence in this area. Using a systematic overview of reviews, we demonstrate the likely commonality of established risk factors having an impact on multiple noncommunicable disease outcomes. For example, systematic reviews of the evidence on physical inactivity and poor diet found each to be associated with increased risk of cancers, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus and dementia. We highlight the potential for targeted risk reduction to simultaneously impact multiple noncommunicable disease areas. These relationships now need to be further quantified to allow the most effective development of public health interventions in this area

Orthostatic hypotension and symptomatic subclinical orthostatic hypotension increase risk of cognitive impairment: an integrated evidence review and analysis of a large older adult hypertensive cohort.

Aims: Systematically reviewing the literature found orthostatic hypotension (OH) to be associated with an increased risk of incident dementia but limited data were available in those at highest risk, the hypertensive oldest-old. Our aim was to analyse the relationship between OH and incident cognitive decline or dementia in this group and to synthesize the evidence base overall. Method and results: Participants aged ≥80 years, with hypertension, were from the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) cohort. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a fall of ≥15 mmHg in systolic and or ≥7 mmHg in diastolic pressure after 2 min standing from a sitting position. Subclinical orthostatic hypotension with symptoms (SOH) was defined as a fall <OH but with unsteadiness, light-headedness, or faintness in the week before blood pressure measurement. Proportional hazard regression was used to examine the relationship between baseline OH, SOH, and cognitive outcomes. There were 3121 in the analytical sample, 538 with OH. Orthostatic hypotension was associated with increased risk of cognitive decline (906 events), hazard ratio (HR) 1.36 (95% confidence interval 1.14-1.59). For incident dementia (241 events), HR 1.34 (0.98-1.84). When competing risk of cardiovascular events were taken into account results were HR 1.39 (1.19-1.62) and HR 1.34 (1.05-1.73), respectively. Subclinical orthostatic hypotension was associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline HR 1.56 (1.12-2.17) and dementia HR 1.79 (1.00-3.20). Combining the results from the HYVET cohort in a meta-analysis with the existing published literature in this area found a 21% (9-35%) increased risk of dementia with OH. Conclusion: Orthostatic hypotension indicates an increased risk of dementia and cognitive decline. SOH may also be considered a risk factor, at least in older hypertensive adults. Questions remain regarding the mechanisms and whether interventions to reduce impact of OH could protect cognition

Evaluating the Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Mutation D614G on Transmissibility and Pathogenicity

Global dispersal and increasing frequency of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variant D614G are suggestive of a selective advantage but may also be due to a random founder effect. We investigate the hypothesis for positive selection of spike D614G in the United Kingdom using more than 25,000 whole genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences. Despite the availability of a large dataset, well represented by both spike 614 variants, not all approaches showed a conclusive signal of positive selection. Population genetic analysis indicates that 614G increases in frequency relative to 614D in a manner consistent with a selective advantage. We do not find any indication that patients infected with the spike 614G variant have higher COVID-19 mortality or clinical severity, but 614G is associated with higher viral load and younger age of patients. Significant differences in growth and size of 614G phylogenetic clusters indicate a need for continued study of this variant

Changes in symptomatology, reinfection, and transmissibility associated with the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: an ecological study

Background The SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was first identified in December, 2020, in England. We aimed to investigate whether increases in the proportion of infections with this variant are associated with differences in symptoms or disease course, reinfection rates, or transmissibility. Methods We did an ecological study to examine the association between the regional proportion of infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. Data on types and duration of symptoms were obtained from longitudinal reports from users of the COVID Symptom Study app who reported a positive test for COVID-19 between Sept 28 and Dec 27, 2020 (during which the prevalence of B.1.1.7 increased most notably in parts of the UK). From this dataset, we also estimated the frequency of possible reinfection, defined as the presence of two reported positive tests separated by more than 90 days with a period of reporting no symptoms for more than 7 days before the second positive test. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the B.1.1.7 variant across the UK was estimated with use of genomic data from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium and data from Public Health England on spike-gene target failure (a non-specific indicator of the B.1.1.7 variant) in community cases in England. We used linear regression to examine the association between reported symptoms and proportion of B.1.1.7. We assessed the Spearman correlation between the proportion of B.1.1.7 cases and number of reinfections over time, and between the number of positive tests and reinfections. We estimated incidence for B.1.1.7 and previous variants, and compared the effective reproduction number, Rt, for the two incidence estimates. Findings From Sept 28 to Dec 27, 2020, positive COVID-19 tests were reported by 36 920 COVID Symptom Study app users whose region was known and who reported as healthy on app sign-up. We found no changes in reported symptoms or disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. For the same period, possible reinfections were identified in 249 (0·7% [95% CI 0·6–0·8]) of 36 509 app users who reported a positive swab test before Oct 1, 2020, but there was no evidence that the frequency of reinfections was higher for the B.1.1.7 variant than for pre-existing variants. Reinfection occurrences were more positively correlated with the overall regional rise in cases (Spearman correlation 0·56–0·69 for South East, London, and East of England) than with the regional increase in the proportion of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant (Spearman correlation 0·38–0·56 in the same regions), suggesting B.1.1.7 does not substantially alter the risk of reinfection. We found a multiplicative increase in the Rt of B.1.1.7 by a factor of 1·35 (95% CI 1·02–1·69) relative to pre-existing variants. However, Rt fell below 1 during regional and national lockdowns, even in regions with high proportions of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant. Interpretation The lack of change in symptoms identified in this study indicates that existing testing and surveillance infrastructure do not need to change specifically for the B.1.1.7 variant. In addition, given that there was no apparent increase in the reinfection rate, vaccines are likely to remain effective against the B.1.1.7 variant. Funding Zoe Global, Department of Health (UK), Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (UK), Medical Research Council (UK), Alzheimer's Society

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 &lt;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&lt;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&lt;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

The association between blood pressure variability (BPV) with dementia and cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND:A body of empirical work demonstrates that wide fluctuations in a person's blood pressure across consecutive measures, known as blood pressure variability (BPV), hold prognostic value to predict stroke and transient ischemic attack. However, the magnitude of association between BPV and other neurological outcomes remains less clear. This systematic review aims to pool together data regarding BPV with respect to incident dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive function. METHODS:Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS) will be searched for the key words blood pressure variability and outcomes of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive function. Authors and reference lists of included studies will also be contacted to identify additional published and unpublished studies. Eligibility criteria are as follows: population-adult humans (over 18 years but with no upper age limit) without dementia at baseline, with or without elevated blood pressure, or from hypertensive populations (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg or use of antihypertensive drug for hypertension) and from primary care, community cohort, electronic database registry, or randomized controlled trial (RCT); exposure-any metric of BPV (systolic, diastolic or both) over any duration; comparison-persons without dementia who do not have elevated BPV; and outcome-dementia, cognitive impairment, cognitive function at follow-up from standardized neurological assessment, or cognitive testing. Article screening will be undertaken by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extraction will include original data specified as hazard ratios, odds ratios, correlations, regression coefficients, and original cell data if available. Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers. Meta-analytic methods will be used to synthesize the data collected relating to the neurological outcomes with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2.0 (Biostat Inc., Engelwood, NJ). DISCUSSION:This systematic review aims to clarify whether BPV is associated with elevated risk for dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive function. An evaluation of the etiological links between BPV with incident dementia might inform evidence-based clinical practice and policy concerning blood pressure measurement and hypertension management. The review will identify sources of heterogeneity and may inform decisions on whether it is feasible and desirable to proceed with an individual participant data meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017081977.Phillip J. Tully, Deborah A. Turnbull ... Nicholas R. Burns, Suzanne Cosh ... Diana Dorstyn ... Rajiv Mahajan ... Kristy Giles ... Phoebe Drioli-Phillips, Umama Aaimir, Frank Connolly ... et al. (VARIABLE BRAIN consortium