BACKGROUND:Pharmacologic blood pressure (BP) lowering is typically a lifelong treatment, and both clinicians and patients may have concerns about the long-term use of antihypertensive agents and the risk for cancer. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of long-term pharmacologic BP lowering on the risk for new-onset cancer is limited, with most knowledge derived from observational studies. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to assess whether long-term BP lowering affects the risk for new-onset cancer, cause-specific cancer death, and selected site-specific cancers. METHODS:Individual-level data from 42 RCTs were pooled using a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident cancer of all types, and secondary outcomes were cause-specific cancer death and selected site-specific cancers. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the heterogeneity of the BP-lowering effect by baseline variables and over follow-up time. Cox proportional hazards regression, stratified by trial, was used for the statistical analysis. For site-specific cancers, analyses were complemented with Mendelian randomization, using naturally randomized genetic variants associated with BP lowering to mimic the design of a long-term RCT. RESULTS:Data from 314,016 randomly allocated participants without known cancer at baseline were analyzed. Over a median follow-up of 4 years (Q1-Q3: 3-5 years), 17,954 participants (5.7%) developed cancer, and 4,878 (1.5%) died of cancer. In the individual participant data meta-analysis, no associations were found between reductions in systolic or diastolic BP and cancer risk (HR per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.99-1.06]; HR per 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.98-1.07]). No changes in relative risk for incident cancer were observed over follow-up time, nor was there evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects across baseline subgroups. No effect on cause-specific cancer death was found. For site-specific cancers, no evidence of an effect was observed, except a possible link with lung cancer risk (HR for systolic BP reduction: 1.17; 99.5% CI: 1.02-1.32). Mendelian randomization studies showed no association between systolic or diastolic BP reduction and site-specific cancers, including overall lung cancer and its subtypes. CONCLUSIONS:Randomized data analysis provided no evidence to indicate that pharmacologic BP lowering has a substantial impact, either increasing or decreasing, on the risk for incident cancer, cause-specific cancer death, or selected site-specific cancers.

Pharmacologic blood pressure (BP) lowering is typically a lifelong treatment, and both clinicians and patients may have concerns about the long-term use of antihypertensive agents and the risk for cancer. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of long-term pharmacologic BP lowering on the risk for new-onset cancer is limited, with most knowledge derived from observational studies. The aim of this study was to assess whether long-term BP lowering affects the risk for new-onset cancer, cause-specific cancer death, and selected site-specific cancers. Individual-level data from 42 RCTs were pooled using a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident cancer of all types, and secondary outcomes were cause-specific cancer death and selected site-specific cancers. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the heterogeneity of the BP-lowering effect by baseline variables and over follow-up time. Cox proportional hazards regression, stratified by trial, was used for the statistical analysis. For site-specific cancers, analyses were complemented with Mendelian randomization, using naturally randomized genetic variants associated with BP lowering to mimic the design of a long-term RCT. Data from 314,016 randomly allocated participants without known cancer at baseline were analyzed. Over a median follow-up of 4 years (Q1-Q3: 3-5 years), 17,954 participants (5.7%) developed cancer, and 4,878 (1.5%) died of cancer. In the individual participant data meta-analysis, no associations were found between reductions in systolic or diastolic BP and cancer risk (HR per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.99-1.06]; HR per 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.98-1.07]). No changes in relative risk for incident cancer were observed over follow-up time, nor was there evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects across baseline subgroups. No effect on cause-specific cancer death was found. For site-specific cancers, no evidence of an effect was observed, except a possible link with lung cancer risk (HR for systolic BP reduction: 1.17; 99.5% CI: 1.02-1.32). Mendelian randomization studies showed no association between systolic or diastolic BP reduction and site-specific cancers, including overall lung cancer and its subtypes. Randomized data analysis provided no evidence to indicate that pharmacologic BP lowering has a substantial impact, either increasing or decreasing, on the risk for incident cancer, cause-specific cancer death, or selected site-specific cancers.

Electronic health records are increasingly used to conduct pregnancy-related research as pregnant women are under-represented in research. Creating a register of pregnancies by combining data from primary and secondary care will further facilitate research in pregnancy. This work describes the construction of an algorithm to create a unified pregnancy cohort in the QResearch database during the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. National primary care records in the QResearch® database were linked to patient-level data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) datasets. Females aged 15-50 years with a pregnancy outcome recorded between 30 December 2020 and 30 September 2022 were included. Pregnancy (delivery/loss) episodes were identified and cohort demographics reported using a three-stage algorithm. Pregnancy start dates were derived using a combination of HES and primary care data, or individually estimated where no corresponding date could be identified. 266,758 women with 279,027 pregnancies are captured in the register. 232,673 pregnancies (83.4

Electronic health records can be used to facilitate research in pregnancy. This work describes the construction of a novel algorithm to create a unified pregnancy cohort in the QResearch database, during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, for England. National GP records in the QResearch® database were linked to patient-level data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) datasets. Females aged 15-50 years with a pregnancy recorded between December 2020 and September 2022 were included. Pregnancy (delivery/loss) episodes were identified and cohort demographics reported using a three-stage algorithm. 266,758 women with 279,027 pregnancies were identified. 232,673 pregnancies (83%) resulted in a delivery (99.6% live births and 0.4% stillbirths). 46,354 (17%) pregnancies resulted in a pregnancy loss. Pregnancy losses were highest amongst those of Caribbean (23.1%; n=781) ethnicity and lowest in those of Pakistani ethnicity (14.4%, n=1,579). The QResearch Pregnancy Register offers a useful and adaptable resource for future research on pregnancy exposures, outcomes, and events.

Abstract Background Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in this population. The lack of comprehensive real-world data on vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety in these individuals presents a critical knowledge gap, highlighting the urgency to better understand and address the unique challenges faced by immunocompromised individuals in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We analysed data from 12,274,946 people in the UK aged > 12 years from 01/12/2020 to 11/04/2022. Of these, 583,541 (4.8%) were immunocompromised due to immunosuppressive drugs, organ transplants, dialysis or chemotherapy. We undertook a cohort analysis to determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nested case–control analyses adjusted for comorbidities and sociodemographic characteristics to determine effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission and death, and a self-controlled case series assessing vaccine safety for pre-specified adverse events of interest. Results Overall, 93.7% of immunocompromised individuals received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, with 80.4% having received three or more doses. Uptake reduced with increasing deprivation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI 0.77–0.79] in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived quintile for the first dose). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation 2–6 weeks after the second and third doses compared to unvaccinated was 78% (95%CI 72–83) and 91% (95%CI 88–93) in the immunocompromised population, versus 85% (95%CI 83–86) and 86% (95%CI 85–89), respectively, for the general population. Results showed COVID-19 vaccines were protective against intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in both populations, with effectiveness of over 92% against COVID-19-related death and up to 95% in reducing ICU admissions for both populations following the third dose. COVID-19 vaccines were generally safe for immunocompromised individuals, though specific doses of ChAdOx1, mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 raised risks of specific cardiovascular/neurological conditions. Conclusions COVID-19 vaccine uptake is high in immunocompromised individuals on immunosuppressive drug therapy or who have undergone transplantation procedures, with documented disparities by deprivation. Findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are protective against severe COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable population, and show a similar safety profile in immunocompromised individuals and the general population, despite some increased risk of adverse events. These results underscore the importance of ongoing vaccination prioritisation for this clinically at-risk population to maximise protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Abstract Background The current body of randomised evidence concerning the effect of blood pressure lowering on the risk of cancer remains limited. Purpose We leveraged the strengths of both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and genomic information to examine this question. Methods Individual-level data from 314,016 participants from 42 RCTs were pooled to investigate the effect of blood pressure lowering on the risk of cancer through one-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident cancer, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted to assess heterogeneity in effect by follow-up time and baseline age groups, sex, body mass index categories, smoking status and previous use of antihypertensive drugs. Secondary outcomes were cause-specific cancer death and site-specific cancer risk comprising breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, prostate, and skin. Cox proportional hazard regression, stratified by trials, were used for statistical analyses. For site-specific cancers, analyses were complemented with Mendelian randomisation analyses using naturally randomised genetic variants associated with blood pressure lowering, retrieved from genome-wide association studies involving participants of European ancestry. Results Over a median of 4 years (interquartile range 2), 17,954 participants in RCTs were diagnosed with cancer of any type and 4,878 participants were reported to have died with cancer as the cause of death. In the IPD meta-analysis that compared the treatment arm with the comparator, no associations were identified between reductions in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure and the risk of incident cancer (hazard ratios [HRs] per 5 mmHg reduction in systolic and per 3 mmHg diastolic blood pressure were 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.06) and 1.03 [0.98-1.07], respectively). We also found no pattern of increasing or decreasing relative risk for incident cancer during the follow-up period, nor was there evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects across baseline subgroups. No effect on the risk of cause-specific cancer death was identified for either systolic or diastolic blood pressure lowering. Considering site-specific cancers, we also found no evidence of effect, except for a possible link with lung cancer risk, with HRs of 1.17 [99.5% CI 1.02-1.32] for systolic blood pressure and 1.17 [99.5% CI 0.98-1.36] for diastolic blood pressure lowering. In Mendelian randomisation studies, no association was observed for genetically determined systolic and diastolic blood pressure and all the considered site-specific cancers, including overall lung cancer and its subtypes. Conclusion We found no consistent randomised evidence to suggest that blood pressure-lowering has a substantial effect, whether increasing or decreasing, on incident cancer, cause-specific cancer death, or selected site-specific cancers.

AbstractThe risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccination in children remains uncertain. A self-controlled case-series study was conducted using linked data of 5.1 million children in England to compare risks of hospitalisation from vaccine safety outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination and infection. In 5-11-year-olds, we found no increased risks of adverse events 1–42 days following vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or ChAdOX1. In 12-17-year-olds, we estimated 3 (95%CI 0–5) and 5 (95%CI 3–6) additional cases of myocarditis per million following a first and second dose with BNT162b2, respectively. An additional 12 (95%CI 0–23) hospitalisations with epilepsy and 4 (95%CI 0–6) with demyelinating disease (in females only, mainly optic neuritis) were estimated per million following a second dose with BNT162b2. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risks of hospitalisation from seven outcomes including multisystem inflammatory syndrome and myocarditis, but these risks were largely absent in those vaccinated prior to infection. We report a favourable safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination in under-18s.

BACKGROUND:People with blood cancer have increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and poor response to vaccination. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this vulnerable group compared to the general population.METHODS:Individuals aged ≥12 years as of 1st December 2020 in the QResearch primary care database were included. We assessed adjusted COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death in people with blood cancer using a nested matched case-control study. Using the self-controlled case series methodology, we compared the risk of 56 pre-specified adverse events within 1-28 days of a first, second or third COVID-19 vaccine dose in people with and without blood cancer.FINDINGS:The cohort comprised 12,274,948 individuals, of whom 81,793 had blood cancer. COVID-19 vaccines were protective against COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death in people with blood cancer, although they were less effective, particularly against COVID-19-related hospitalisation, compared to the general population. In the blood cancer population, aVE against COVID-19-related hospitalisation was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48%-75%) 14-41 days after a third dose, compared to 80% (95% CI 78%-81%) in the general population. Against COVID-19-related mortality, aVE was >80% in people with blood cancer 14-41 days after a second or third dose. We found no significant difference in risk of adverse events 1-28 days after any vaccine dose between people with and without blood cancer.INTERPRETATION:Our study provides robust evidence which supports the use of COVID-19 vaccinations for people with blood cancer.

Background: People with blood cancers have increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were prioritised for vaccination. Methods: Individuals in the QResearch database aged 12 years and above on 1st December 2020 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis described time to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer and other high-risk disorders. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer.Results: The analysis included 12,274,948 individuals, of whom 97,707 had a blood cancer diagnosis. 92% of people with blood cancer received at least one dose of vaccine, compared to 80% of the general population, but there was lower uptake of each subsequent vaccine dose (31% for fourth dose). Vaccine uptake decreased with social deprivation (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.70, 0.74 for most deprived versus most affluent quintile for first vaccine). Compared with White groups, uptake of all vaccine doses was significantly lower in people of Pakistani and Black ethnicity, and more people in these groups remain unvaccinated.Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine uptake declines following second dose and there are ethnic and social disparities in uptake in blood cancer populations. Enhanced communication of benefits of vaccination to these groups is needed. (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

BACKGROUND: Whether the relative effects of blood pressure (BP)–lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes differ by sex, particularly when BP is not substantially elevated, has been uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant-level data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological BP lowering. We pooled the data and categorized participants by sex, systolic BP categories in 10-mm Hg increments from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg, and age categories spanning from <55 to ≥85 years. We used fixed-effect one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analyses and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyze the data. RESULTS: We included data from 51 randomized controlled trials involving 358 636 (42% women) participants. Over 4.2 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg reduction in systolic BP decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events both in women and men (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.92 [0.89–0.95] for women and 0.90 [0.88–0.93] for men; P for interaction, 1). There was no evidence for heterogeneity of relative treatment effects by sex for the major cardiovascular disease, its components, or across the different baseline BP categories (all P for interaction, ≥0.57). The effects in women and men were consistent across age categories and the types of antihypertensive medications (all P for interaction, ≥0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of BP reduction were similar in women and men across all BP and age categories at randomization and with no evidence to suggest that drug classes had differing effects by sex. This study does not substantiate sex-based differences in BP-lowering treatment.

Diabetes is a heterogenous, multimorbid disorder with a large variation in manifestations, trajectories, and outcomes. The aim of this study is to validate a novel machine learning method for the phenotyping of diabetes in the context of comorbidities. Data from 9967 multimorbid patients with a new diagnosis of diabetes were extracted from Clinical Practice Research Datalink. First, using BEHRT (a transformer-based deep learning architecture), the embeddings corresponding to diabetes were learned. Next, topological data analysis (TDA) was carried out to test how different areas in high-dimensional manifold correspond to different risk profiles. The following endpoints were considered when profiling risk trajectories: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke (CVA), heart failure (HF), renal failure (RF), diabetic neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, reduced visual acuity and all-cause mortality. Kaplan Meier curves were plotted for each derived phenotype. Finally, we tested the performance of an established risk prediction model (QRISK) by adding TDA-derived features. We identified four subgroups of patients with diabetes and divergent comorbidity patterns differing in their risk of future cardiovascular, renal, and other microvascular outcomes. Phenotype 1 (young with chronic inflammatory conditions) and phenotype 2 (young with CAD) included relatively younger patients with diabetes compared to phenotypes 3 (older with hypertension and renal disease) and 4 (older with previous CVA), and those subgroups had a higher frequency of pre-existing cardio-renal diseases. Within ten years of follow-up, 2592 patients (26%) experienced MACE, 2515 patients (25%) died, and 2020 patients (20%) suffered RF. QRISK3 model’s AUC was augmented from 67.26% (CI 67.25–67.28%) to 67.67% (CI 67.66–67.69%) by adding specific TDA-derived phenotype and the distances to both extremities of the TDA graph improving its performance in the prediction of CV outcomes. We confirmed the importance of accounting for multimorbidity when risk stratifying heterogenous cohort of patients with new diagnosis of diabetes. Our unsupervised machine learning method improved the prediction of clinical outcomes.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of people globally with major health, social and economic consequences, prompting development of vaccines for use in the general population. However, vaccination uptake is lower in some groups, including in pregnant women, because of concerns regarding vaccine safety. There is evidence of increased risk of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but fear of vaccine-associated adverse events on the baby both in short and longer term is one of the main drivers of low uptake for this group. Other vaccines commonly used in pregnancy include influenza and pertussis. These both have reportedly higher uptake compared with COVID-19 vaccination, which may be because they are perceived to be safer. In this study, we will undertake an independent evaluation of the uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant women using the QResearch primary care database in England. Objectives 1. To determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant women compared to uptake of influenza and pertussis vaccinations. 2. To estimate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in pregnant women by evaluating the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes following vaccination. 3. To assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy by evaluating the risks of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes and adverse events of special interest for vaccine safety after COVID-19 vaccination compared with influenza and pertussis vaccinations. Methods This population-based study uses the QResearch® database of primary health care records, linked to individual-level data on hospital admissions, mortality, COVID-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 testing data and congenital anomalies. We will include women aged 16 to 49 years with at least one pregnancy during the study period of 30th December 2020 to the latest date available. Babies born during the study period will be identified and linked to the mother’s record, where possible. We will describe vaccine uptake in pregnant women by trimester and population subgroups defined by demographics and other characteristics. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression will be used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women will be assessed using a nested matched case-control design to assess hospitalisation, intensive care admission and death with COVID-19. Cases who had the outcome will be matched with up to 10 controls who did not have the outcome on that date by age, calendar date and trimester of pregnancy using incidence density sampling for the occurrence of each outcome after each vaccine dose compared with unvaccinated individuals. For the safety analysis, we will we use logistic regression analyses to determine unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for the occurrence of maternal (e.g. miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and gestational diabetes) and perinatal outcomes (e.g. stillbirth, small for gestational age and congenital anomalies) by vaccination status compared to unvaccinated individuals. For the adverse events of special interest for vaccine safety (e.g. venous thromboembolism, myocarditis and Guillain Barre syndrome), we will use time varying Royston-Palmar regression analyses to determine unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios for the occurrence of each outcome by vaccination status to unvaccinated individuals. Ethics and dissemination QResearch is a Research Ethics Approved Research Database with ongoing approval from the East Midlands Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 18/EM/0400). This study was approved by the QResearch Scientific Committee on 9th June 2022. This research protocol has been developed with support from a patient and public involvement panel, who will continue to provide input throughout the duration of the study. Research findings will be submitted to pre-print servers such as MedRxIv, academic publication and disseminated more broadly through media releases and community groups and conference presentations. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study was funded by NIHR School for Primary Care Research ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: QResearch obtained full approval from the Trent Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee [Ref: 03/4/021]. Approval is now confirmed yearly from the East Midlands - Derby Research Ethics Committee. In 2018, an updated application was approved [Ref: 18/EM/0400] in readiness for the transfer of QResearch to the University of Oxford. All previous approval letters can be found in the Downloads section. Research studies which utilise QResearch data need to obtain approval from the QResearch Scientific Committee. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

OBJECTIVE:Evidence from randomised trials of pharmacological treatments on long-term blood pressure (BP) reduction is limited. We investigated the antihypertensive drug effects on BP over time and across different participant characteristics. METHODS:We conducted an individual patient-level data meta-analysis of 52 large-scale randomised clinical trials in the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration using mixed models to examine treatment effects on BP over 4 years of mean follow-up. RESULTS:There were 363 684 participants (42% women), with baseline mean age=65 years and mean systolic/diastolic BP=152/87 mm Hg, and among whom 19% were current smokers, 49% had cardiovascular disease, 28% had diabetes and 69% were taking antihypertensive treatment at baseline. Drugs were effective in lowering BP showing maximal effect after 12 months and gradually attenuating towards later years. Based on measures taken ≥12 months postrandomisation, mean systolic/diastolic BP difference (95% CI) between more and less intense BP-lowering treatment was -11.1 (-11.3 to -10.8)/-5.6 (-5.7 to -5.4) mm Hg; between active treatment and placebo was -5.1 (-5.3 to -5.0)/-2.3 (-2.4 to -2.2) mm Hg; and between active and control arms for drug comparison trials was -1.4 (-1.5 to -1.3)/-0.6 (-0.7 to -0.6) mm Hg. BP reductions were observed across different baseline BP values and ages, and by sex, history of cardiovascular disease and diabetes and prior antihypertensive treatment use. CONCLUSION:These findings suggest that BP-lowering pharmacotherapy is effective in lowering BP, up to 4 years on average, in people with different characteristics. Appropriate treatment strategies are needed to sustain substantive long-term BP reductions.

Purpose of Review To review the recent large-scale randomised evidence on pharmacologic reduction in blood pressure for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Recent Findings Based on findings of the meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised clinical trials and involving 344,716 participants with mean age of 65 years, the relative reduction in the risk of developing major cardiovascular events was proportional to the magnitude of achieved reduction in blood pressure. For each 5-mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure, the risk of developing cardiovascular events fell by 10% (hazard ratio [HR] (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 [0.88 to 0.92]). When participants were stratified by their history of cardiovascular disease, the HRs (95% CI) in those with and without previous cardiovascular disease were 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92) and 0.91 (0.89 to 0.94), respectively, with no significant heterogeneity in these effects (adjusted P for interaction = 1.0). When these patient groups were further stratified by their baseline systolic blood pressure in increments of 10 mmHg from < 120 to ≥ 170 mmHg, there was no significant heterogeneity in the relative risk reduction across these categories in people with or without previous cardiovascular disease (adjusted P for interaction were 1.00 and 0.28, respectively). Summary Pharmacologic lowering of blood pressure was effective in preventing major cardiovascular disease events both in people with or without previous cardiovascular disease, which was not modified by their baseline blood pressure level. Treatment effects were shown to be proportional to the intensity of blood pressure reduction, but even modest blood pressure reduction, on average, can lead to meaningful gains in the prevention of incident or recurrent cardiovascular disease.

Background: People with blood cancers and other haematological disorders have increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were prioritised for vaccination. This study assesses the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in people with high-risk haematological disorders using QResearch, a UK primary care database.Methods: Individuals aged 12 years and above on 1st December 2020 were included in the analysis. Vaccine uptake was described by patient characteristics. Kaplan-Meier analysis described time to vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer and other disorders. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer.Findings: The full population in the dataset was 12,274,948, of whom 97,707 had a blood cancer diagnosis. A higher proportion of people with blood cancer received at least one dose of vaccine compared to the general population (92% versus 80%). There was lower uptake of each subsequent vaccine dose in people with blood cancer (92% for first dose and 31% for fourth dose). Vaccine uptake decreased with increasing social deprivation (hazard ratio 0.72, 95%CI 0.70-0.74 in the most deprived versus most affluent quintile for first vaccine uptake). Multivariable Cox regression showed that compared with those of White ethnicity, uptake of all vaccine doses was significantly lower in people of Pakistani and Black ethnicity, and greater proportions of these groups remain unvaccinated.Interpretation: This population-based study of people with blood cancer shows that there is decline in COVID-19 vaccine uptake following the second dose of vaccine and that there are ethnic and social disparities in uptake. Enhanced communication of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to people with blood cancers is needed. Further work is needed to understand the effectiveness and safety of vaccination in these groups.Funding Information: This study is funded by Blood Cancer UK. The researchers are independent from Blood Cancer UK. QResearch is supported by funds from the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, grants from Cancer Research UK (CR-UK) grant number C5255/A18085, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre during the conduct of the study.Declaration of Interests: JHC reports grants from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, grants from John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, and other research councils, during the conduct of the study. JHC is an unpaid director of QResearch, a not-for-profit organisation which is a partnership between the University of Oxford and EMIS Health who supply the QResearch database used for this work. JHC is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk ltd and was its medical director until 31st May 2019. ClinRisk Ltd produces open and closed source software to implement clinical risk algorithms (outside this work) into clinical computer systems. JHC is chair of the NERVTAG risk stratification subgroup and a member of SAGE COVID-19 groups and the NHS group advising on prioritisation of use of monoclonal antibodies in COVID-19 infection. All other authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The QResearch® ethics approval was provided by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee[reference 18/EM/0400] and reviewed by the QResearch science committee [Project OX300].

Epidemiological evidence has consistently shown that people with higher systolic or diastolic blood pressure are at greater risk of cardiovascular diseases. However, there has been limited randomized evidence to determine the role of blood pressure level at treatment initiation in the reduction of cardiovascular diseases risk. The extent to which other characteristics of individuals, such as prior disease history, age or sex, should be taken into account has also been controversial. Furthermore, effects on less commonly reported efficacy and safety outcomes remain underexplored. The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration has collected individual-level participant data from 52 randomized clinical trials, with more than 360 000 participants, and is now the largest source of individual-level data from randomized clinical trials of blood pressure-lowering treatment. This resource provides an unprecedented opportunity to address major areas of uncertainty relating to stratified efficacy and safety of antihypertensive therapy. Recent reports have demonstrated the power of pooled analyses of the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration dataset in filling long-standing gaps in our knowledge. However, there have been some misconceptions regarding the methods underpinning the recent reports, which we clarify in this article.

Objectives: Evidence from randomised trials on long-term blood pressure (BP) reduction from pharmacologic treatment is limited. To investigate the effects of antihypertensive drugs on long-term BP change and examine its variation over time and among people with different clinical characteristics Design: Individual participant-level data meta-analysis Setting and data source: The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists Collaboration involving 51 large-scale long-term randomised clinical trials Participants: 352,744 people (42% women) with mean age of 65 years and mean baseline systolic/diastolic BP of 152/87 mmHg, of whom 18% were current smokers, 50% had cardiovascular disease, 29% had diabetes, and 72% were taking antihypertensive treatment at baseline Intervention: Pharmacological BP-lowering treatment Outcome: Difference in longitudinal changes in systolic and diastolic BP between randomised treatment arms over an average follow-up of four years Result: Drugs were effective in lowering BP, with the maximum effect becoming apparent after 12-month follow-up and with gradual attenuation towards later years. Based on measures taken [≥]12 months post-randomisation, more intense BP-lowering treatment reduced systolic/diastolic BP (95% confidence interval) by -11.2 (-11.4 to -11.0)/-5.6 (-5.8 to -5.5) mmHg than less intense treatment; active treatment by -5.1 (-5.3 to -5.0)/-2.3 (-2.4 to -2.2) mmHg lower than placebo, and active arm by -1.4 (-1.5 to -1.3)/-0.6 (-0.7 to -0.6) mmHg lower than the control arm for drug class comparison trials. BP reductions were consistently observed across a wide range of baseline BP values and ages, and by sex, history of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and prior antihypertensive treatment use. Conclusion: Pharmacological agents were effective in lowering long-term BP among individuals with a wide range of characteristics, but the net between-group reductions were modest, which is partly attributable to the intended trial goals.

Background The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline. Methods We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (<55 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and >= 85 years) and blood pressure categories (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to >= 170 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and from <70 mm Hg to >= 110 mm Hg diastolic). We used a fixed effects one-stage approach and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyse the data. The primary outcome was defined as either a composite of fatal or non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospital admission. Findings We included data from 358 707 participants from 51 randomised clinical trials. The age of participants at randomisation ranged from 21 years to 105 years (median 65 years [IQR 59-75]), with 42 960 (12.0%) participants younger than 55 years, 128 437 (35.8%) aged 55-64 years, 128 506 (35.8%) 65-74 years, 54 016 (15.1%) 75-84 years, and 4788 (1.3%) 85 years and older. The hazard ratios for the risk of major cardiovascular events per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure for each age group were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.88) in individuals younger than 55 years, 0.91 (0.88-0.95) in those aged 55-64 years, 0.91 (0.88-0.95) in those aged 65-74 years, 0.91 (0.87-0.96) in those aged 75-84 years, and 0.99 (0.87-1.12) in those aged 85 years and older (adjusted p(interaction)=0.050). Similar patterns of proportional risk reductions were observed for a 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Absolute risk reductions for major cardiovascular events varied by age and were larger in older groups (adjusted p(interaction)=0.024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group. Interpretation Pharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines.

Objective: Evidence on the magnitude of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment effects in large-scale randomised clinical trials is limited but is pertinent for explaining treatment effects on cardiovascular outcomes and for policy planning. We determined the effects of BP-lowering treatment on long-term BP overall and across important patient subgroups defined by their characteristics. Design and method: We conducted a one-stage individual patient-level data meta-analysis (N = 50 trials). We analysed data separately by trial design, and fitted mixed models (with fixed treatment effects, fixed time effect, random intercepts at trial and participant level, and a random slope for time at participant level). Models were adjusted for age, sex and baseline BP (except when used as stratification factor) and compared using likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion. Results: The analysis included 334,219 (42% women) participants with mean age = 65 years, and among whom 18% were current smokers, 47% had CVD, 29% had diabetes, and 73% were previously on BP-lowering medication. Over 4 years of follow-up, participants had an average of 8 BP measurements. For BP-lowering intensity trials (N = 8), mean differences (95% confidence interval) in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) between comparison arms were 8.2 (8.0 to 8.4) mmHg and 3.7 (3.6 to 3.9) mmHg, respectively, for placebo-controlled trials (N = 21) the SBP and DBP differences were 4.2 (4.0 to 4.3) mmHg and DBP 1.9 (1.9 to 2.0) mmHg, respectively, and for drug comparison trials (N = 28) the SBP and DBP differences were 1.3 (1.2 to 1.3) mmHg and 0.5 (0.5 to 0.5) mmHg, respectively. The reduction in BP differed by follow-up duration and patient characteristics, particularly for placebo-controlled and BP-lowering intensity trials, which showed substantial heterogeneity in BP reductions according to baseline BP, age, sex, prior CVD, diabetes and non-randomised anti-hypertensive use. Conclusions: Pharmacologic agents are effective in reducing long-term BP across individuals with different characteristics. In large-scale trials, the magnitude of BP reduction varied by several patient characteristics, which could have implications on interpretation of any differential effects of BP treatment on major clinical outcomes.

Objective: Evidence for the effects of pharmaceutical blood pressure (BP)-lowering on cancer risk is inconsistent and based on observational data. We therefore investigated the effect of BP-lowering on the risk of cancer in a large collaborative study. Design and method: We included randomised trials participating in the Blood Pressure-Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Placebo-controlled trials, drug class comparison trials and trials comparing more-vs-less intensive BP-lowering that provided individual-level participant data (IPD) on cancer events were pooled. We investigated the effects of BP reduction on cancer risk by conducting one-stage IPD meta-analyses using Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial and accounting for competing risks. We also investigated effects stratified by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking and previous antihypertensive use at baseline. Results: This analysis included 300,098 participants (42% women) from 39 trials. At baseline, the mean age of participants was 66 (standard deviation [SD] = 9), mean BMI was 28 (SD = 5), 18% were current smokers and 75% were previously on BP-lowering medication. Over a median duration of 4 years, 16,748 participants were diagnosed with cancer, and 4347 cancer deaths were reported. The hazard ratio (HR) per 5mmHg reduction in systolic BP was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99–1.07) for any cancer and 1.05 (95% CI 0.98–1.12) for cancer death. We found heterogeneity in the effects of BP-lowering across age, gender, BMI and smoking groups for any cancer and cancer death, and across groups defined by previous antihypertensive use for any cancer. However, there was no evidence that BP-lowering significantly increased the risk of developing cancer in specific patient subgroups. We found no evidence for trends in increasing or decreasing risk over time for either outcome (P for trend: any cancer = 0.98, cancer death = 0.99). Conclusions: This large-scale IPD meta-analysis found no evidence that BP-lowering had an important effect on cancer risk. Although we found that BP-lowering effects differed across several patient characteristics, there was no evidence for trend in cancer risk over time. We plan to further investigate the effects of BP-lowering on site-specific cancers (breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, prostate and skin) and present these results at the meeting.