May Measurement Month 2018: a pragmatic global screening campaign to raise awareness of blood pressure by the International Society of Hypertension

Aims Raised blood pressure (BP) is the biggest contributor to mortality and disease burden worldwide and fewer than half of those with hypertension are aware of it. May Measurement Month (MMM) is a global campaign set up in 2017, to raise awareness of high BP and as a pragmatic solution to a lack of formal screening worldwide. The 2018 campaign was expanded, aiming to include more participants and countries. Methods and results Eighty-nine countries participated in MMM 2018. Volunteers (≥18 years) were recruited through opportunistic sampling at a variety of screening sites. Each participant had three BP measurements and completed a questionnaire on demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Hypertension was defined as a systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg, or taking antihypertensive medication. In total, 74.9% of screenees provided three BP readings. Multiple imputation using chained equations was used to impute missing readings. 1 504 963 individuals (mean age 45.3 years; 52.4% female) were screened. After multiple imputation, 502 079 (33.4%) individuals had hypertension, of whom 59.5% were aware of their diagnosis and 55.3% were taking antihypertensive medication. Of those on medication, 60.0% were controlled and of all hypertensives, 33.2% were controlled. We detected 224 285 individuals with untreated hypertension and 111 214 individuals with inadequately treated (systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg) hypertension. Conclusion May Measurement Month expanded significantly compared with 2017, including more participants in more countries. The campaign identified over 335 000 adults with untreated or inadequately treated hypertension. In the absence of systematic screening programmes, MMM was effective at raising awareness at least among these individuals at risk

Evidence-based guidelines for hypertension and diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review

Objective The Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in sub-Saharan Africa (CEBHA+), a research network, aims to build capacities for evidence-based healthcare. Hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are two priority areas of the network, both are major causes of burden of disease in this region. This review aimed to: (1) identify existing evidence-based guidelines for HTN and DM, (2) map their recommendations and (3) assess their quality.Setting Sub-Saharan Africa.Design Scoping review.Methods Systematic searches for evidence-based guidelines, developed with systematic review of evidence and certainty of evidence assessment, were undertaken in electronic databases and grey literature, and ministries of health of all countries in this region were contacted. Included guidelines were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool. Searches were conducted between 7 December 2021 and 14 January 2022. Results are presented descriptively.Results 66 potentially relevant guidelines were identified, developed in 23, out of 49 sub-Saharan African countries. Of these, only two guidelines (on DM) reported the use of systematic review of evidence and certainty of evidence assessment. Their quality appraisal showed that both have relatively similar scores on domains of AGREE-II, with higher scores on Scope and Purpose and Clarity and Presentation domains, and lower on Stakeholder Involvement, Applicability, Rigour of Development and Editorial independence domains. The overall scores of both guidelines were 50% and 58%, respectively.Conclusions Less than half of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa developed and published their own guidelines for HTN or DM. The quality appraisal showed that the two included guidelines scored relatively low in several crucial domains of AGREE-II. Countries in this region could consider adopting or adapting already published high-quality recommendations, in order to facilitate a more efficient and faster development of much needed trustworthy evidence-based guidance

Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19

Background Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022. Selection criteria We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. Data collection and analysis We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt. Main results We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in BraziE (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacologica interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% Cl 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt. Authors' conclusions Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence

GWAS and meta-analysis identifies 49 genetic variants underlying critical COVID-19

Data availability: Downloadable summary data are available through the GenOMICC data site (https://genomicc.org/data). Summary statistics are available, but without the 23andMe summary statistics, except for the 10,000 most significant hits, for which full summary statistics are available. The full GWAS summary statistics for the 23andMe discovery dataset will be made available through 23andMe to qualified researchers under an agreement with 23andMe that protects the privacy of the 23andMe participants. For further information and to apply for access to the data, see the 23andMe website (https://research.23andMe.com/dataset-access/). All individual-level genotype and whole-genome sequencing data (for both academic and commercial uses) can be accessed through the UKRI/HDR UK Outbreak Data Analysis Platform (https://odap.ac.uk). A restricted dataset for a subset of GenOMICC participants is also available through the Genomics England data service. Monocyte RNA-seq data are available under the title ‘Monocyte gene expression data’ within the Oxford University Research Archives (https://doi.org/10.5287/ora-ko7q2nq66). Sequencing data will be made freely available to organizations and researchers to conduct research in accordance with the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research through a data access agreement. Sequencing data have been deposited at the European Genome–Phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGAS00001007111.Extended data figures and tables are available online at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06034-3#Sec21 .Supplementary information is available online at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06034-3#Sec22 .Code availability: Code to calculate the imputation of P values on the basis of SNPs in linkage disequilibrium is available at GitHub (https://github.com/baillielab/GenOMICC_GWAS).Acknowledgements: We thank the members of the Banco Nacional de ADN and the GRA@CE cohort group; and the research participants and employees of 23andMe for making this work possible. A full list of contributors who have provided data that were collated in the HGI project, including previous iterations, is available online (https://www.covid19hg.org/acknowledgements).Change history: 11 July 2023: A Correction to this paper has been published at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06383-z. -- In the version of this article initially published, the name of Ana Margarita Baldión-Elorza, of the SCOURGE Consortium, appeared incorrectly (as Ana María Baldion) and has now been amended in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023, Critical illness in COVID-19 is an extreme and clinically homogeneous disease phenotype that we have previously shown1 to be highly efficient for discovery of genetic associations2. Despite the advanced stage of illness at presentation, we have shown that host genetics in patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 can identify immunomodulatory therapies with strong beneficial effects in this group3. Here we analyse 24,202 cases of COVID-19 with critical illness comprising a combination of microarray genotype and whole-genome sequencing data from cases of critical illness in the international GenOMICC (11,440 cases) study, combined with other studies recruiting hospitalized patients with a strong focus on severe and critical disease: ISARIC4C (676 cases) and the SCOURGE consortium (5,934 cases). To put these results in the context of existing work, we conduct a meta-analysis of the new GenOMICC genome-wide association study (GWAS) results with previously published data. We find 49 genome-wide significant associations, of which 16 have not been reported previously. To investigate the therapeutic implications of these findings, we infer the structural consequences of protein-coding variants, and combine our GWAS results with gene expression data using a monocyte transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) model, as well as gene and protein expression using Mendelian randomization. We identify potentially druggable targets in multiple systems, including inflammatory signalling (JAK1), monocyte–macrophage activation and endothelial permeability (PDE4A), immunometabolism (SLC2A5 and AK5), and host factors required for viral entry and replication (TMPRSS2 and RAB2A).GenOMICC was funded by Sepsis Research (the Fiona Elizabeth Agnew Trust), the Intensive Care Society, a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship (to J.K.B., 223164/Z/21/Z), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Illumina, LifeArc, the Medical Research Council, UKRI, a BBSRC Institute Program Support Grant to the Roslin Institute (BBS/E/D/20002172, BBS/E/D/10002070 and BBS/E/D/30002275) and UKRI grants MC_PC_20004, MC_PC_19025, MC_PC_1905 and MRNO2995X/1. A.D.B. acknowledges funding from the Wellcome PhD training fellowship for clinicians (204979/Z/16/Z), the Edinburgh Clinical Academic Track (ECAT) programme. This research is supported in part by the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant MC_PC_20029). Laboratory work was funded by a Wellcome Intermediate Clinical Fellowship to B.F. (201488/Z/16/Z). We acknowledge the staff at NHS Digital, Public Health England and the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre who provided clinical data on the participants; and the National Institute for Healthcare Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) and the Chief Scientist’s Office (Scotland), who facilitate recruitment into research studies in NHS hospitals, and to the global ISARIC and InFACT consortia. GenOMICC genotype controls were obtained using UK Biobank Resource under project 788 funded by Roslin Institute Strategic Programme Grants from the BBSRC (BBS/E/D/10002070 and BBS/E/D/30002275) and Health Data Research UK (HDR-9004 and HDR-9003). UK Biobank data were used in the GSMR analyses presented here under project 66982. The UK Biobank was established by the Wellcome Trust medical charity, Medical Research Council, Department of Health, Scottish Government and the Northwest Regional Development Agency. It has also had funding from the Welsh Assembly Government, British Heart Foundation and Diabetes UK. The work of L.K. was supported by an RCUK Innovation Fellowship from the National Productivity Investment Fund (MR/R026408/1). J.Y. is supported by the Westlake Education Foundation. SCOURGE is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (COV20_00622 to A.C., PI20/00876 to C.F.), European Union (ERDF) ‘A way of making Europe’, Fundación Amancio Ortega, Banco de Santander (to A.C.), Cabildo Insular de Tenerife (CGIEU0000219140 ‘Apuestas científicas del ITER para colaborar en la lucha contra la COVID-19’ to C.F.) and Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (PIFIISC20/57 to C.F.). We also acknowledge the contribution of the Centro National de Genotipado (CEGEN) and Centro de Supercomputación de Galicia (CESGA) for funding this project by providing supercomputing infrastructures. A.D.L. is a recipient of fellowships from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)-Brazil (309173/2019-1 and 201527/2020-0)

Effect of Amoxicillin dose and treatment duration on the need for antibiotic re-treatment in children with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: The CAP-IT randomized clinical trial

Importance: The optimal dose and duration of oral amoxicillin for children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are unclear. Objective: To determine whether lower-dose amoxicillin is noninferior to higher dose and whether 3-day treatment is noninferior to 7 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, 2 × 2 factorial noninferiority trial enrolling 824 children, aged 6 months and older, with clinically diagnosed CAP, treated with amoxicillin on discharge from emergency departments and inpatient wards of 28 hospitals in the UK and 1 in Ireland between February 2017 and April 2019, with last trial visit on May 21, 2019. Interventions: Children were randomized 1:1 to receive oral amoxicillin at a lower dose (35-50 mg/kg/d; n = 410) or higher dose (70-90 mg/kg/d; n = 404), for a shorter duration (3 days; n = 413) or a longer duration (7 days; n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinically indicated antibiotic re-treatment for respiratory infection within 28 days after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 8%. Secondary outcomes included severity/duration of 9 parent-reported CAP symptoms, 3 antibiotic-related adverse events, and phenotypic resistance in colonizing Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates. Results: Of 824 participants randomized into 1 of the 4 groups, 814 received at least 1 dose of trial medication (median [IQR] age, 2.5 years [1.6-2.7]; 421 [52%] males and 393 [48%] females), and the primary outcome was available for 789 (97%). For lower vs higher dose, the primary outcome occurred in 12.6% with lower dose vs 12.4% with higher dose (difference, 0.2% [1-sided 95% CI -∞ to 4.0%]), and in 12.5% with 3-day treatment vs 12.5% with 7-day treatment (difference, 0.1% [1-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.9]). Both groups demonstrated noninferiority with no significant interaction between dose and duration (P =.63). Of the 14 prespecified secondary end points, the only significant differences were 3-day vs 7-day treatment for cough duration (median 12 days vs 10 days; hazard ratio [HR], 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4]; P =.04) and sleep disturbed by cough (median, 4 days vs 4 days; HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4]; P =.03). Among the subgroup of children with severe CAP, the primary end point occurred in 17.3% of lower-dose recipients vs 13.5% of higher-dose recipients (difference, 3.8% [1-sided 95% CI, -∞ to10%]; P value for interaction =.18) and in 16.0% with 3-day treatment vs 14.8% with 7-day treatment (difference, 1.2% [1-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 7.4%]; P value for interaction =.73). Conclusions and Relevance: Among children with CAP discharged from an emergency department or hospital ward (within 48 hours), lower-dose outpatient oral amoxicillin was noninferior to higher dose, and 3-day duration was noninferior to 7 days, with regard to need for antibiotic re-treatment. However, disease severity, treatment setting, prior antibiotics received, and acceptability of the noninferiority margin require consideration when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN76888927

Enhanced infection prophylaxis reduces mortality in severely immunosuppressed HIV-infected adults and older children initiating antiretroviral therapy in Kenya, Malawi, Uganda and Zimbabwe: the REALITY trial

Meeting abstract FRAB0101LB from 21st International AIDS Conference 18–22 July 2016, Durban, South Africa. Introduction: Mortality from infections is high in the first 6 months of antiretroviral therapy (ART) among HIV‐infected adults and children with advanced disease in sub‐Saharan Africa. Whether an enhanced package of infection prophylaxis at ART initiation would reduce mortality is unknown. Methods: The REALITY 2×2×2 factorial open‐label trial (ISRCTN43622374) randomized ART‐naïve HIV‐infected adults and children >5 years with CD4 <100 cells/mm3. This randomization compared initiating ART with enhanced prophylaxis (continuous cotrimoxazole plus 12 weeks isoniazid/pyridoxine (anti‐tuberculosis) and fluconazole (anti‐cryptococcal/candida), 5 days azithromycin (anti‐bacterial/protozoal) and single‐dose albendazole (anti‐helminth)), versus standard‐of‐care cotrimoxazole. Isoniazid/pyridoxine/cotrimoxazole was formulated as a scored fixed‐dose combination. Two other randomizations investigated 12‐week adjunctive raltegravir or supplementary food. The primary endpoint was 24‐week mortality. Results: 1805 eligible adults (n = 1733; 96.0%) and children/adolescents (n = 72; 4.0%) (median 36 years; 53.2% male) were randomized to enhanced (n = 906) or standard prophylaxis (n = 899) and followed for 48 weeks (3.8% loss‐to‐follow‐up). Median baseline CD4 was 36 cells/mm3 (IQR: 16–62) but 47.3% were WHO Stage 1/2. 80 (8.9%) enhanced versus 108(12.2%) standard prophylaxis died before 24 weeks (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.54–0.97) p = 0.03; Figure 1) and 98(11.0%) versus 127(14.4%) respectively died before 48 weeks (aHR = 0.75 (0.58–0.98) p = 0.04), with no evidence of interaction with the two other randomizations (p > 0.8). Enhanced prophylaxis significantly reduced incidence of tuberculosis (p = 0.02), cryptococcal disease (p = 0.01), oral/oesophageal candidiasis (p = 0.02), deaths of unknown cause (p = 0.02) and (marginally) hospitalisations (p = 0.06) but not presumed severe bacterial infections (p = 0.38). Serious and grade 4 adverse events were marginally less common with enhanced prophylaxis (p = 0.06). CD4 increases and VL suppression were similar between groups (p > 0.2). Conclusions: Enhanced infection prophylaxis at ART initiation reduces early mortality by 25% among HIV‐infected adults and children with advanced disease. The pill burden did not adversely affect VL suppression. Policy makers should consider adopting and implementing this low‐cost broad infection prevention package which could save 3.3 lives for every 100 individuals treated