Safety of Triptans in Patients Who Have or Are at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: A Target Trial Emulation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of triptans in migraine patients with cardiovascular disease or elevated cardiovascular risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved data from a multistate US-based health system (January 2000 to August 2022) on adults with migraine and confirmed cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, or at least two cardiovascular risk factors. We compared the effect of triptans to nontriptan treatments on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its components at 60 days of starting treatments. We emulated a target trial and used propensity score matching for analysis. RESULTS: The 3518 patients in the triptan group were matched to the 3518 patients in the nontriptan group (median age, 55 years; 80.60% female). At 60 days, 52 patients (1.48%) in the triptan group had MACE, compared with 13 patients (0.37%) in the nontriptan group (relative risk [RR], 4.00; 95% CI, 2.24 to 7.14). Patients treated with triptans also had significantly higher risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (15 patients (0.43%) vs 0 patients (0.00%)); heart failure (RR, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.91 to 10.61); and nonfatal stroke (RR, 8.00; 95% CI, 1.00 to 63.96). Five patients (0.14%) in each group died. The findings were consistent when analyses were restricted to sumatriptan, oral administration of triptan, patients with chronic migraine, history of cardiovascular disease, or history of cerebrovascular disease. CONCLUSION: Triptans likely increase the risk of MACE; however, the incidence of MACE remains low in migraine patients with cardiovascular disease or elevated cardiovascular risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Treatments of Migraine With Triptans in Individuals With Elevated Cardiovascular Risk and in Pregnant Women. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05854992 (https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT05854992).

Health-Related Factors Among Pilots in Aviation Accidents.

INTRODUCTION: Health-related factors can impact aviation safety. This study investigated the published, historical aviation accidents that have been investigated by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to understand medical conditions and medication use that have been determined to be causal to mishaps.METHODS: A two-part approach was adopted for this study: 1) a scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of the current medical literature addressing medical factors and flight safety; and 2) a comprehensive review of aviation accident reports from the NTSB database from January 2013 to October 2022.RESULTS: The literature review demonstrated that psychiatric, cardiovascular, and neurological medications were the major categories of medications reported in fatal aircraft accidents. Age was not found to be a risk factor. Review of the NTSB database demonstrated that, among 15,654 mishaps, medical factors were associated in 703 (4.5%) accidents. NTSB data showed that cardiovascular (1.3%), psychiatric (0.23%), and endocrine diseases (0.17%) were the most commonly reported diseases among pilots. In accident reports, cardiovascular medications (1.49%), sedating antihistamines (0.91%), and alcohol (0.70%) were the most commonly used medications at the time of the accidents.DISCUSSION: Health-related factors were a small yet likely underestimated proportion of the factors associated with accidents. Cardiovascular diseases and treatment were the most important factors. It is important to continue to investigate the association between health-related factors and the commission of mishaps.Zhu Y, Wolf ME, Alsibai RA, Abbas AS, Alsawaf Y, Saadi S, Farah MH, Wang Z, Murad MH. Health-related factors among pilots in aviation accidents. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2024; 95(2):79-83.

The association of sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence: analysis of 6909 studies of diagnostic test accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Sensitivity and specificity are characteristics of a diagnostic test and are not expected to change as the prevalence of the target condition changes. We sought to evaluate the association between prevalence and changes in sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: We retrieved data from meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020). We used mixed-effects random-intercept linear regression models to evaluate the association between prevalence and logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity. The model evaluated all meta-analyses as nested within each systematic review. RESULTS: We analyzed 6909 diagnostic test accuracy studies from 552 meta-analyses that were included in 92 systematic reviews. For sensitivity, compared with the lowest quartile of prevalence, the second, third and fourth quartiles were associated with significantly higher odds of identifying a true positive case (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.26; OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.23-1.41; OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.37-1.58; respectively). For specificity, compared with the lowest quartile of prevalence, the second, third and fourth quartiles were associated with significantly lower odds of identifying a true negative case (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.80; OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.60-0.70; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.44-0.51; respectively). Pooled regression coefficients from bivariate models conducted within each meta-analysis showed that prevalence was positively associated with sensitivity and negatively associated with specificity. Findings were consistent across subgroups. INTERPRETATION: In this large sample of diagnostic studies, higher prevalence was associated with higher estimated sensitivity and lower estimated specificity. Clinicians should consider the implications of disease prevalence and spectrum when interpreting the results from studies of diagnostic test accuracy.