Multilevel Intervention Stepped Wedge Designs (MLI-SWDs).

Multilevel interventions (MLIs) hold promise for reducing health inequities by intervening at multiple types of social determinants of health consistent with the socioecological model of health. In spite of their potential, methodological challenges related to study design compounded by a lack of tools for sample size calculation inhibit their development. We help address this gap by proposing the Multilevel Intervention Stepped Wedge Design (MLI-SWD), a hybrid experimental design which combines cluster-level (CL) randomization using a Stepped Wedge design (SWD) with independent individual-level (IL) randomization. The MLI-SWD is suitable for MLIs where the IL intervention has a low risk of interference between individuals in the same cluster, and it enables estimation of the component IL and CL treatment effects, their interaction, and the combined intervention effect. The MLI-SWD accommodates cross-sectional and cohort designs as well as both incomplete (clusters are not observed in every study period) and complete observation patterns. We adapt recent work using generalized estimating equations for SWD sample size calculation to the multilevel setting and provide an R package for power and sample size calculation. Furthermore, motivated by our experiences with the ongoing NC Works 4 Health study, we consider how to apply the MLI-SWD when individuals join clusters over the course of the study. This situation arises when unemployment MLIs include IL interventions that are delivered while the individual is unemployed. This extension requires carefully considering whether the study interventions will satisfy additional causal assumptions but could permit randomization in new settings.

Individualized interventions and precision health: Lessons learned from a systematic review and implications for analytics-driven geriatric research.

Older adults are characterized by profound clinical heterogeneity. When designing and delivering interventions, there exist multiple approaches to account for heterogeneity. We present the results of a systematic review of data-driven, personalized interventions in older adults, which serves as a use case to distinguish the conceptual and methodologic differences between individualized intervention delivery and precision health-derived interventions. We define individualized interventions as those where all participants received the same parent intervention, modified on a case-by-case basis and using an evidence-based protocol, supplemented by clinical judgment as appropriate, while precision health-derived interventions are those that tailor care to individuals whereby the strategy for how to tailor care was determined through data-driven, precision health analytics. We discuss how their integration may offer new opportunities for analytics-based geriatric medicine that accommodates individual heterogeneity but allows for more flexible and resource-efficient population-level scaling.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Objective Performance Goals for Critical Limb Ischemia are attainable in select patients with ischemic wounds managed with wound care alone.

BACKGROUND: To set therapeutic benchmarks, in 2009 the Society for Vascular Surgery defined objective performance goals (OPG) for treatment of patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) with either open surgical bypass or endovascular intervention. The goal of these OPGs are to set standards of care from a revascularization standpoint and to provide performance benchmarks for 1 year patency rates for new endovascular therapies. While OPGs are useful in this regard, a critical decision point in the treatment of patients with CLTI is determining when revascularization is necessary. There is little guidance in the comprehensive treatment of this patient population, especially in the nonoperative cohort. Guidelines are needed for the CLTI patient population as a whole and not just those revascularized, and our aim was to assess whether CLTI OPGs could be attained with nonoperative management alone. METHODS: Our cohort included patients with an incident diagnosis of CLTI (by hemodynamic and symptomatic criteria) at our institution from 2013-2017. The primary outcome measured was mortality. Secondary outcomes were limb loss and failure of amputation-free survival. Descriptive statistics were used to define the 2 groups - patients undergoing primary revascularization and patients undergoing primary wound management. The risk difference in outcomes between the 2 groups was estimated using collaborative-targeted maximum likelihood estimation. RESULTS: Our cohort included 349 incident CLTI patients; 60% male, 51% white, mean age 63 +/- 13 years, 20% Rutherford 4, and 80% Rutherford 5. Most patients (277, 79%) underwent primary revascularization, and 72 (21%) were treated with wound care alone. Demographics and presenting characteristics were similar between groups. Although the revascularized patients were more likely to have femoropopliteal disease (72% vs. 36%), both groups had a high rate of infrapopliteal disease (62% vs. 57%). Not surprisingly, the patients in the revascularization group were less likely to have congestive heart failure (34% vs. 42%), complicated diabetes (52% vs. 79%), obesity (19% vs. 33%), and end stage renal disease (14% vs. 28%). In the wound care group, 2-year outcomes were 65% survival, 51% amputation free survival, 19% major limb amputation, and 17% major adverse cardiac event. The wound care cohort had a 13% greater risk of death at 2 years; however, the risk of limb loss at 2 years was 12% less in the wound care cohort. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive set treatment goals and expected amputation free survival outcomes can guide revascularization, but also assure that appropriate outcomes are achieved for patients treated without revascularization. The 2-year outcomes achieved in this cohort provide an estimate of outcomes for nonrevascularized CLTI patients. Although multi-center or prospective studies are needed, we demonstrate that equal, even improved, limb salvage rates are possible.

Limiting adverse birth outcomes in resource-limited settings (LABOR): protocol of a prospective intrapartum cohort study.

Background: Each year, nearly 300,000 women and 5 million fetuses or neonates die during childbirth or shortly thereafter, a burden concentrated disproportionately in low- and middle-income countries. Identifying women and their fetuses at risk for intrapartum-related morbidity and death could facilitate early intervention. Methods: The Limiting Adverse Birth Outcomes in Resource-Limited Settings (LABOR) Study is a multi-country, prospective, observational cohort designed to exhaustively document the course and outcomes of labor, delivery, and the immediate postpartum period in settings where adverse outcomes are frequent. The study is conducted at four hospitals across three countries in Ghana, India, and Zambia. We will enroll approximately 12,000 women at presentation to the hospital for delivery and follow them and their fetuses/newborns throughout their labor and delivery course, postpartum hospitalization, and up to 42 days thereafter. The co-primary outcomes are composites of maternal (death, hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, infection) and fetal/neonatal adverse events (death, encephalopathy, sepsis) that may be attributed to the intrapartum period. The study collects extensive physiologic data through the use of physiologic sensors and employs medical scribes to document examination findings, diagnoses, medications, and other interventions in real time. Discussion: The goal of this research is to produce a large, sharable dataset that can be used to build statistical algorithms to prospectively stratify parturients according to their risk of adverse outcomes. We anticipate this research will inform the development of new tools to reduce peripartum morbidity and mortality in low-resource settings.

Development and validation of multivariable prediction models for adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IBD.

OBJECTIVES: Develop an individualised prognostic risk prediction tool for predicting the probability of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). DESIGN AND SETTING: This study developed and validated prognostic penalised logistic regression models using reports to the international Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease voluntary registry from March to October 2020. Model development was done using a training data set (85% of cases reported 13 March-15 September 2020), and model validation was conducted using a test data set (the remaining 15% of cases plus all cases reported 16 September-20 October 2020). PARTICIPANTS: We included 2709 cases from 59 countries (mean age 41.2 years (SD 18), 50.2% male). All submitted cases after removing duplicates were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 related: (1) Hospitalisation+: composite outcome of hospitalisation, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death; (2) Intensive Care Unit+ (ICU+): composite outcome of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death; (3) Death. We assessed the resulting models' discrimination using the area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic curves and reported the corresponding 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the submitted cases, a total of 633 (24%) were hospitalised, 137 (5%) were admitted to the ICU or intubated and 69 (3%) died. 2009 patients comprised the training set and 700 the test set. The models demonstrated excellent discrimination, with a test set area under the curve (95% CI) of 0.79 (0.75 to 0.83) for Hospitalisation+, 0.88 (0.82 to 0.95) for ICU+ and 0.94 (0.89 to 0.99) for Death. Age, comorbidities, corticosteroid use and male gender were associated with a higher risk of death, while the use of biological therapies was associated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic models can effectively predict who is at higher risk for COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in a population of patients with IBD. A free online risk calculator (https://covidibd.org/covid-19-risk-calculator/) is available for healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of risks due to COVID-19 with patients with IBD.

Development and validation of multivariable prediction models for adverse COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

IMPORTANCE: Risk calculators can facilitate shared medical decision-making 1 . Demographics, comorbidities, medication use, geographic region, and other factors may increase the risk for COVID-19-related complications among patients with IBD 2,3 . OBJECTIVES: Develop an individualized prognostic risk prediction tool for predicting the probability of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IBD. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study developed and validated prognostic penalized logistic regression models 4 using reports to Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) from March-October 2020. Model development was done using a training data set (85% of cases reported March 13 - September 15, 2020), and model validation was conducted using a test data set (the remaining 15% of cases plus all cases reported September 16-October 20, 2020). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: COVID-19 related:Hospitalization+: composite outcome of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or deathICU+: composite outcome of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or deathDeathWe assessed the resulting models' discrimination using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves and reported the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 2709 cases from 59 countries (mean age 41.2 years [s.d. 18], 50.2% male). A total of 633 (24%) were hospitalized, 137 (5%) were admitted to the ICU or intubated, and 69 (3%) died. 2009 patients comprised the training set and 700 the test set.The models demonstrated excellent discrimination, with a test set AUC (95% CI) of 0.79 (0.75, 0.83) for Hospitalization+, 0.88 (0.82, 0.95) for ICU+, and 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) for Death. Age, comorbidities, corticosteroid use, and male gender were associated with higher risk of death, while use of biologic therapies was associated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Prognostic models can effectively predict who is at higher risk for COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in a population of IBD patients. A free online risk calculator ( https://covidibd.org/covid-19-risk-calculator/ ) is available for healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of risks due to COVID-19 with IBD patients. The tool numerically and visually summarizes the patient's probabilities of adverse outcomes and associated CIs. Helping physicians identify their highest-risk patients will be important in the coming months as cases rise in the US and worldwide. This tool can also serve as a model for risk stratification in other chronic diseases. KEY POINTS: Question: How well can a multivariable risk model predict the risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, or death due to COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)?Findings: Multivariable prediction models developed using data from an international voluntary registry of IBD patients and available for use online ( https://covidibd.org/ ) have very good discrimination for predicting hospitalization (Test set AUC 0.79) and excellent discrimination for ICU admission (Test set AUC 0.88) and death (Test set AUC 0.94). The models were developed with a training sample of 2009 cases and validated in an independent test sample of 700 cases comprised of a random sub-sample of cases and all cases entered in the registry during a one-month period after model development. Meaning: This risk prediction model may serve as an effective tool for healthcare providers to facilitate conversations about COVID-19-related risks with IBD patients.

Beyond Two Cultures: Cultural Infrastructure for Data-driven Decision Support.

In the twenty years since Dr. Leo Breiman's incendiary paper Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures was first published, algorithmic modeling techniques have gone from controversial to commonplace in the statistical community. While the widespread adoption of these methods as part of the contemporary statistician's toolkit is a testament to Dr. Breiman's vision, the number of high-profile failures of algorithmic models suggests that Dr. Breiman's final remark that "the emphasis needs to be on the problem and the data" has been less widely heeded. In the spirit of Dr. Breiman, we detail an emerging research community in statistics - data-driven decision support. We assert that to realize the full potential of decision support, broadly and in the context of precision health, will require a culture of social awareness and accountability, in addition to ongoing attention towards complex technical challenges.