The Lipid Paradox is present in ST-elevation but not in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients:Insights from the Singapore Myocardial Infarction Registry

Lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) and triglyceride (TG) levels form the cornerstone approach of cardiovascular risk reduction, and a higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) is thought to be protective. However, in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, higher admission LDL-C and TG levels have been shown to be associated with better clinical outcomes - termed the 'lipid paradox'. We studied the relationship between lipid profile obtained within 72 hours of presentation, and all-cause mortality (during hospitalization, at 30-days and 12-months), and rehospitalization for heart failure and non-fatal AMI at 12-months in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We included 11543 STEMI and 8470 NSTEMI patients who underwent PCI in the Singapore Myocardial Infarction Registry between 2008-2015. NSTEMI patients were older (60.3 years vs 57.7 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to be female (22.4% vs 15.0%, p < 0.001). In NSTEMI, a lower LDL-C was paradoxically associated with worse outcomes for death during hospitalization, within 30-days and within 12-months (all p < 0.001), but adjustment eliminated this paradox. In contrast, the paradox for LDL-C persisted for all primary outcomes after adjustment in STEMI. For NSTEMI patients, a lower HDL-C was associated with a higher risk of death during hospitalization but in STEMI patients a lower HDL-C was paradoxically associated with a lower risk of death during hospitalization. For this endpoint, the interaction term for HDL-C and type of MI was significant even after adjustment. An elevated TG level was not protective after adjustment. These observations may be due to differing characteristics and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in NSTEMI and STEMI

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

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

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research