Randomised controlled trial of population screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the SAFER trial

Introduction: There is a lack of evidence that the benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) outweigh the harms. Following the completion of the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) pilot trial, the aim of the main SAFER trial is to establish whether population screening for AF reduces incidence of stroke risk. Methods and analysis: Approximately 82 000 people aged 70 years and over and not on oral anticoagulation are being recruited from general practices in England. Patients on the palliative care register or residents in a nursing home are excluded. Eligible people are identified using electronic patient records from general practices and sent an invitation and consent form to participate by post. Consenting participants are randomised at a ratio of 2:1 (control:intervention) with clustering by household. Those randomised to the intervention arm are sent an information leaflet inviting them to participate in screening, which involves use of a handheld single-lead ECG four times a day for 3 weeks. ECG traces identified by an algorithm as possible AF are reviewed by cardiologists. Participants with AF are seen by a general practitioner for consideration of anticoagulation. The primary outcome is stroke. Major secondary outcomes are: death, major bleeding and cardiovascular events. Follow-up will be via electronic health records for an average of 4 years. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat using time-to-event modelling. Results from this trial will be combined with follow-up data from the cluster-randomised pilot trial by fixed-effects meta-analysis. Ethics and dissemination: The London—Central National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will include public-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. Trial registration number: ISRCTN72104369

The Central-Bank Balance Sheet as an Instrument of Monetary Policy

While many analyses of monetary policy consider only a target for a short-term nominal interest rate, other dimensions of policy have recently been of greater importance: changes in the supply of bank reserves, changes in the assets acquired by central banks, and changes in the interest rate paid on reserves. We extend a standard New Keynesian model to allow a role for the central bank's balance sheet in equilibrium determination, and consider the connections between these alternative dimensions of policy and traditional interest-rate policy. We distinguish between "quantitative easing" in the strict sense and targeted asset purchases by a central bank, and argue that while the former is likely be ineffective at all times, the latter dimension of policy can be effective when financial markets are sufficiently disrupted. Neither is a perfect substitute for conventional interest-rate policy, but purchases of illiquid assets are particularly likely to improve welfare when the zero lower bound on the policy rate is reached. We also consider optimal policy with regard to the payment of interest on reserves; in our model, this requires that the interest rate on reserves be kept near the target for the policy rate at all times

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.MethodsPANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.FindingsBetween Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.InterpretationMolnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Managing Chronic Cough as a Symptom in Children and Management Algorithms. CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

Background: Cough is one of the most common presenting symptoms to general practitioners. The objective of this article is to collate the pediatric components of the CHEST chronic cough guidelines that have recently updated the 2006 guidelines to assist general and specialist medical practitioners in the evaluation and management of children who present with chronic cough. Methods: We reviewed all current CHEST Expert Cough Panel's statements and extracted recommendations and suggestions relating to children aged ≤ 14 years with chronic cough (> 4 weeks duration). Additionally, we undertook systematic reviews to update other sections we considered relevant and important. Results: The eight recent CHEST guidelines relevant to children, based on systematic reviews, reported some high-quality evidence in the management of chronic cough in children (eg, use of algorithms and management of wet/productive cough using appropriate antibiotics). However, much evidence is still inadequate, particularly in the management of non-specific cough in the community. Conclusions: The recommendations and suggestions related to the management of chronic cough in the pediatric age group have been based upon high-quality systematic reviews and are summarized in this article. Compared to the 2006 Cough Guidelines, there is now high-quality evidence for some aspects of the management of chronic cough in children. However, further studies particularly in primary health care are required.</p

Association of frontal QRS-T angle--age risk score on admission electrocardiogram with mortality in patients admitted with an acute coronary syndrome

Risk assessment is central to the management of acute coronary syndromes. Often, however, assessment is not complete until the troponin concentration is available. Using 2 multicenter prospective observational studies (Evaluation of Methods and Management of Acute Coronary Events [EMMACE] 2, test cohort, 1,843 patients; and EMMACE-1, validation cohort, 550 patients) of unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes, a point-of-admission risk stratification tool using frontal QRS-T angle derived from automated measurements and age for the prediction of 30-day and 2-year mortality was evaluated. Two-year mortality was lowest in patients with frontal QRS-T angles &lt;38° and highest in patients with frontal QRS-T angles &gt;104° (44.7% vs 14.8%, p &lt;0.001). Increasing frontal QRS-T angle-age risk (FAAR) scores were associated with increasing 30-day and 2-year mortality (for 2-year mortality, score 0 = 3.7%, score 4 = 57%; p &lt;0.001). The FAAR score was a good discriminator of mortality (C statistics 0.74 [95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.78] at 30 days and 0.77 [95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.79] at 2 years), maintained its performance in the EMMACE-1 cohort at 30 days (C statistics 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.8] at 30 days and 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.83] at 2 years), in men and women, in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and compared favorably with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score. The integrated discrimination improvement (age to FAAR score at 30 days and at 2 years in EMMACE-1 and EMMACE-2) was p &lt;0.001. In conclusion, the FAAR score is a point-of-admission risk tool that predicts 30-day and 2-year mortality from 2 variables across a spectrum of patients with acute coronary syndromes. It does not require the results of biomarker assays or rely on the subjective interpretation of electrocardiograms.</p