Background In the INSPIRATION-S trial, atorvastatin versus placebo was associated with a nonsignificant 16% reduction in 30-day composite of venous/arterial thrombosis or death in intensive care... Show moreBackground In the INSPIRATION-S trial, atorvastatin versus placebo was associated with a nonsignificant 16% reduction in 30-day composite of venous/arterial thrombosis or death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19. Thrombo-inflammatory response in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may last beyond the first 30 days.Methods This article reports the effects of atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus placebo on 90-day clinical and functional outcomes from INSPIRATION-S, a double-blind multicenter randomized trial of adult ICU patients with COVID-19. The main outcome for this prespecified study was a composite of adjudicated venous/arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause mortality. Functional status was assessed with the Post-COVID-19 Functional Scale.Results In the primary analysis, 587 patients were included (age: 57 [Q1–Q3: 45–68] years; 44% women). By 90-day follow-up, the main outcome occurred in 96 (33.1%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 113 (38.0%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60–1.05, p = 0.11). Atorvastatin in patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset was associated with reduced 90-day hazard for the main outcome (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42–0.86, p interaction = 0.02). Atorvastatin use was associated with improved 90-day functional status, although the upper bound CI crossed 1.0 (ORordinal: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41–1.01, p = 0.05).Conclusion Atorvastatin 20 mg compared with placebo did not significantly reduce the 90-day composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous/arterial thrombosis. However, the point estimates do not exclude a potential clinically meaningful treatment effect, especially among patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset (NCT04486508). Show less
Background Contemporary pulmonary embolism (PE) research, in many cases, relies on data from electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative databases that use International Classification of... Show moreBackground Contemporary pulmonary embolism (PE) research, in many cases, relies on data from electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative databases that use International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Natural language processing (NLP) tools can be used for automated chart review and patient identification. However, there remains uncertainty with the validity of ICD-10 codes or NLP algorithms for patient identification.Methods The PE-EHR+ study has been designed to validate ICD-10 codes as Principal Discharge Diagnosis, or Secondary Discharge Diagnoses, as well as NLP tools set out in prior studies to identify patients with PE within EHRs. Manual chart review by two independent abstractors by predefined criteria will be the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values will be determined. We will assess the discriminatory function of code subgroups for intermediate- and high-risk PE. In addition, accuracy of NLP algorithms to identify PE from radiology reports will be assessed.Results A total of 1,734 patients from the Mass General Brigham health system have been identified. These include 578 with ICD-10 Principal Discharge Diagnosis codes for PE, 578 with codes in the secondary position, and 578 without PE codes during the index hospitalization. Patients within each group were selected randomly from the entire pool of patients at the Mass General Brigham health system. A smaller subset of patients will also be identified from the Yale-New Haven Health System. Data validation and analyses will be forthcoming.Conclusions The PE-EHR+ study will help validate efficient tools for identification of patients with PE in EHRs, improving the reliability of efficient observational studies or randomized trials of patients with PE using electronic databases. Show less
Introduction: Patients affected with severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suffer from a wide range of sequelae, from limited airway diseases to multiple organ failure. These sequelae... Show moreIntroduction: Patients affected with severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suffer from a wide range of sequelae, from limited airway diseases to multiple organ failure. These sequelae may create exercise limitation, impair the daily activity and thus impact the mental health and the social life. However, the extent of functional limitations and depressive symptoms are understudied especially in patients with COVID-19 after intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization. Methods: The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) was a clinical trial that randomized ICU patients with COVID-19 to intermediate-dose vs standard-dose anticoagulation. In the current study, we assessed the interval change in 30-day and 90-day functional limitations based on the post-COVID-19 functional status scale (PCFS) and depressive symptoms based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) in the trial participants. We also assessed the effect of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation on the functional outcomes and depressive symptoms. Results: Of 600 randomized patients in INSPIRATION, 375 (age: 62 years; 42% women) participated in the functional status study. 195 patients died during the 90-day follow up (191 by day 30). Among survivors, between day 30 and day 90, the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe functional limitation (PCSF grade 3-or-4) decreased from 20.0% to 4.8% (P <0.001) and PHQ-2 >= 3 decreased from 25.5% to 16.6% (P = 0.05). The proportion of patients with no functional limitations (PCFS grade 0) increased (4.2% to 15.4%, P<0.001). Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not impact the 90-day proportion of patients with PCFS grade 3-or-4 (5.3% vs 4.2%; odds ratio (OR), 1.20, [95% CI, 0.46-3.11]; P = 0.80) or PHQ-2 >= 3 (17.9% vs 15.3%; OR, 1.14, [95% CI, 0.79-1.65]; P = 0.14), with similar results when accounting for study center. Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, functional limitations and depressive symptoms were common at 30-day follow-up and had some improvement by 90-day follow-up among survivors. Intermediate-dose compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not improve functional outcomes. Show less
Angelantonio, E. di; Kaptoge, S.; Pennells, L.; Bacquer, D. de; Cooney, M.T.; Kavousi, M.; ... ; Kim 2019
Background To help adapt cardiovascular disease risk prediction approaches to low-income and middle-income countries, WHO has convened an effort to develop, evaluate, and illustrate revised risk... Show moreBackground To help adapt cardiovascular disease risk prediction approaches to low-income and middle-income countries, WHO has convened an effort to develop, evaluate, and illustrate revised risk models. Here, we report the derivation, validation, and illustration of the revised WHO cardiovascular disease risk prediction charts that have been adapted to the circumstances of 21 global regions.Methods In this model revision initiative, we derived 10-year risk prediction models for fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease (ie, myocardial infarction and stroke) using individual participant data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Models included information on age, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, and total cholesterol. For derivation, we included participants aged 40-80 years without a known baseline history of cardiovascular disease, who were followed up until the first myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or stroke event. We recalibrated models using age-specific and sex-specific incidences and risk factor values available from 21 global regions. For external validation, we analysed individual participant data from studies distinct from those used in model derivation. We illustrated models by analysing data on a further 123 743 individuals from surveys in 79 countries collected with the WHO STEPwise Approach to Surveillance.Findings Our risk model derivation involved 376 177 individuals from 85 cohorts, and 19 333 incident cardiovascular events recorded during 10 years of follow-up. The derived risk prediction models discriminated well in external validation cohorts (19 cohorts, 1 096 061 individuals, 25 950 cardiovascular disease events), with Harrell's C indices ranging from 0.685 (95% CI 0 . 629-0 741) to 0.833 (0 . 783-0- 882). For a given risk factor profile, we found substantial variation across global regions in the estimated 10-year predicted risk. For example, estimated cardiovascular disease risk for a 60-year-old male smoker without diabetes and with systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg and total cholesterol of 5 mmol/L ranged from 11% in Andean Latin America to 30% in central Asia. When applied to data from 79 countries (mostly low-income and middle-income countries), the proportion of individuals aged 40-64 years estimated to be at greater than 20% risk ranged from less than 1% in Uganda to more than 16% in Egypt.Interpretation We have derived, calibrated, and validated new WHO risk prediction models to estimate cardiovascular disease risk in 21 Global Burden of Disease regions. The widespread use of these models could enhance the accuracy, practicability, and sustainability of efforts to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease worldwide. Copyright (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Aims There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention... Show moreAims There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29 39% of individuals aged >= 40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44 51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need. Show less
