Incidence and prognostic significance of newly-diagnosed atrial fibrillation among older U.S. veterans hospitalized with COVID-19.

Most prior studies on the prognostic significance of newly-diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in COVID-19 did not differentiate newly-diagnosed AF from pre-existing AF. To determine the association between newly-diagnosed AF and in-hospital and 30-day mortality among regular users of Veterans Health Administration using data linked to Medicare. We identified Veterans aged ≥ 65 years who were hospitalized for ≥ 24 h with COVID-19 from 06/01/2020 to 1/31/2022 and had ≥ 2 primary care visits within 24 months prior to the index hospitalization. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate adjusted risks, risk differences (RD), and odds ratios (OR) for the association between newly-diagnosed AF and the mortality outcomes adjusting for patient demographics, baseline comorbidities, and presence of acute organ dysfunction on admission. Of 23,299 patients in the study cohort, 5.3% had newly-diagnosed AF, and 29.2% had pre-existing AF. In newly-diagnosed AF adjusted in-hospital and 30-day mortality were 16.5% and 22.7%, respectively. Newly-diagnosed AF was associated with increased mortality compared to pre-existing AF (in-hospital: OR 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72-2.37; RD 7.58%, 95% CI 5.54-9.62) (30-day: OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.60-2.16; RD 9.04%, 95% CI 6.61-11.5) or no AF (in-hospital: OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.93-2.60; RD 8.40%, 95% CI 6.44-10.4) (30-day: 2.07, 95% CI 1.80-2.37; RD 10.2%, 95% CI 7.89-12.6). There was a smaller association between pre-existing AF and the mortality outcomes. Newly-diagnosed AF is an important prognostic marker for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether prevention or treatment of AF improves clinical outcomes in these patients remains unknown.

The association of education and household income with the lifetime risk of incident atrial fibrillation: The Framingham Heart study.

Background: Social determinants of health, in particular education and income, influence the incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiovascular diseases including atrial fibrillation (AF). Data are limited on the associations of socioeconomic status with lifetime risk of incident AF. Methods: We selected 2172 FHS participants (51% women) who were free of AF at the index age of 55 years. We assessed educational attainment (≥college) at the last exam prior to index age and household income ($40k/50k/≥55k depending on the FHS cohort). We estimated the lifetime risk of AF as the cumulative incidence of AF, accounting for the competing risk of death, at age 95 years. We analyzed strata defined by education and household income separately, and by combining education and household income. We adjusted analyses for sex, height, weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, current smoking, alcohol consumption, use of antihypertensive medication, diabetes, history of myocardial infarction, and history of heart failure. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 13 years, 265 participants developed incident AF. The lifetime risk of developing AF was 32.5% (95%CI, 26.5% to 38.5%) and 32.5% (95%CI, 28.7% to 38.3%) among participants with lower and higher education attainment (p=0.98). The lifetime risk of developing AF was 32.1% (95%CI, 26.7% to 37.5%) and 31.8% (95%CI, 26.6% to 36.9%) among participants with lower and higher household income (p=0.79). There was no evidence of interaction between education and income on lifetime risk of AF (p = 0.84). Results were similar in subgroups of women and men. Conclusion: In our community-based sample, there was no evidence of an association between education or household income and lifetime risk of AF.

Racial and Urban-Rural Difference in the Frequency of Ischemic Stroke as Initial Manifestation of Atrial Fibrillation.

Objective: Atrial fibrillation (AF) may remain undiagnosed until the development of complications. We aimed to examine the epidemiology and racial/ethnic and rural/urban differences in the frequency of newly diagnosed AF manifesting as ischemic stroke in a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: We used a 5% random sample of Medicare claims to identify patients newly diagnosed with AF in 2016. The primary dependent variable was stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in the 7 days prior to the first AF diagnosis, i.e., stroke or TIA as the initial manifestation of AF. We constructed a multivariable logistic regression to quantify the association between race/ethnicity, urban/rural residence, and the primary dependent variable. Results: Among 39,409 patients newly diagnosed with AF (mean age 77 ± 10 years; 58% women; 7.2% Black, 87.8% White, 5.1% others), 2,819 (7.2%) had ischemic stroke or TIA in the 7 days prior to AF diagnosis. Black patients (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 1.21 [1.05, 1.40], vs. White) and urban residents (1.21 [1.08, 1.35], vs. rural) were at increased risk of stroke as the initial manifestation of AF. Racial differences were larger among patients aged ≥75 years, with adjusted ORs of 1.43 (1.19, 1.73) for Black vs. White patients, but non-significant for those aged <75 (P for interaction = 0.03). Conclusion: We observed significant and important differences in the risk of stroke as initial manifestation of AF between White and Black patients and between rural and urban residents. Our results suggest potential disparities in the identification AF across race/ethnicity groups and urban/rural areas.

Design, deployment, and usability of a mobile system for cardiovascular health monitoring within the electronic Framingham Heart Study.

Background: The electronic Framingham Heart Study (eFHS) is an ongoing nested study, which includes FHS study participants, examining associations between health data from mobile devices with cardiovascular risk factors and disease. Objective: To describe application (app) design, report user characteristics, and describe usability and survey response rates. Methods: Eligible FHS participants were consented and offered a smartwatch (Apple Watch), a digital blood pressure (BP) cuff, and the eFHS smartphone app for administering surveys remotely. We assessed usability of the new app using 2 domains (functionality, aesthetics) of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and assessed survey completion rates at baseline and 3 months. Results: A total of 196 participants were recruited using the enhanced eFHS app. Of these, 97 (49.5%) completed the MARS instrument. Average age of participants was 53 ± 9 years, 51.5% were women, and 93.8% were white. Eighty-six percent of participants completed at least 1 measure on the baseline survey, and 50% completed the 3-month assessment. Overall subjective score of the app was 4.2 ± 0.7 on a scale from 1 to 5 stars. Of those who shared their health data with others, 46% shared their BP and 7.7% shared their physical activity with a health care provider. Conclusion: Participants rated the new, enhanced eFHS app positively overall. Mobile app survey completion rates were high, consistent with positive in-app ratings from participants. These mobile data collection modalities offer clinicians new opportunities to engage in conversations about health behaviors.

What is considered as global health scholarship? A meta-knowledge analysis of global health journals and definitions.

Despite the rapid growth of the global health field over the past few decades, consensus on what qualifies as global health scholarship or practice remains elusive. We conducted a meta-knowledge analysis of the titles and abstracts of articles published in 25 journals labelled as global health journals between 2001 and 2019. We identified the major topics in these journals by creating clusters based on terms co-occurrence over time. We also conducted a review of global health definitions during the same period.The analysis included 16 413 articles. The number of journals, labelled as global health, and articles published in these journals, increased dramatically during the study period. The majority of global health publications focused on topics prevalent in low-resource settings. Governance, infectious diseases, and maternal and child health were major topics throughout the analysis period. Surveillance and disease outcomes appeared during the 2006-2010 epoch and continued, with increasing complexity, until the 2016-2019 epoch. Malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and research methodology appeared for only one epoch as major topics. We included 11 relevant definitions in this analysis. Definitions of global health were not aligned with the major topics identified in the analysis of articles published in global health journals.These results highlight a lack of alignment between what is published as global health scholarship and global health definitions, which often advocate taking a global perspective to population health. Our analysis suggests that global health has not truly moved beyond its predecessor, international health. There is a need to define the parameters of the discipline and investigate the disconnect between what is published in global health versus how the field is defined.

Adjusted restricted mean survival times in observational studies.

In observational studies with censored data, exposure-outcome associations are commonly measured with adjusted hazard ratios from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. The difference in restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) up to a pre-specified time point is an alternative measure that offers a clinically meaningful interpretation. Several regression-based methods exist to estimate an adjusted difference in RMSTs, but they digress from the model-free method of taking the area under the survival function. We derive the adjusted RMST by integrating an adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator with inverse probability weighting (IPW). The adjusted difference in RMSTs is the area between the two IPW-adjusted survival functions. In a Monte Carlo-type simulation study, we demonstrate that the proposed estimator performs as well as two regression-based approaches: the ANCOVA-type method of Tian et al and the pseudo-observation method of Andersen et al. We illustrate the methods by reexamining the association between total cholesterol and the 10-year risk of coronary heart disease in the Framingham Heart Study.

A mapping of 115,000 randomized trials revealed a mismatch between research effort and health needs in non-high-income regions.

BACKGROUND: Concerns exist as to whether the allocation of resources in clinical research is aligned with public health needs. We evaluated the alignment between the effort of clinical research through the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and health needs measured as the burden of diseases for all regions and a broad range of diseases. METHODS: We grouped countries into seven regions and diseases into 27 groups. We mapped all RCTs initiated between 2006 and 2015 that were registered at the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to regions and diseases. The burden of diseases in 2005 was mapped as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on the 2010 Global Burden of Diseases study. Within regions, we defined a research gap when the proportion of RCTs concerning a disease in the region was less than half the relative burden of the disease. RESULTS: We mapped 117,180 RCTs planning to enroll 42.6 million patients and 2,220 million DALYs. In high- versus non-high-income countries, 130.9 versus 6.9 RCTs per million DALYs were conducted. We did not identify any research gap in high-income countries. We identified research gaps for all other regions. In particular, for Sub-Saharan Africa, we identified research gaps for common infectious diseases (CID) and neonatal disorders (ND): 5.8% (95% uncertainty interval 4.7-6.9) and 2.0% (0.9-4.5) of RCTs in Sub-Saharan Africa concerned CID and ND, although these diseases represented 22.9% and 11.6% of the burden in the region, respectively. For South Asia, we identified research gaps for the same two groups of diseases. CONCLUSIONS: In non-high-income regions, the conduct of RCTs was misaligned with the distribution of major causes of burden, in particular infectious diseases and neonatal disorders in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Comparison of central adjudication of outcomes and onsite outcome assessment on treatment effect estimates.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of events by adjudication committees (ACs) is recommended in multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, its usefulness has been questioned. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to compare 1) treatment effect estimates of subjective clinical events assessed by onsite assessors versus by AC, and 2) treatment effect estimates according to the blinding status of the onsite assessor as well as the process used to select events to adjudicate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Google Scholar (25 August 2015 as the last updated search date), using a combination of terms to retrieve RCTs with commonly used terms to describe ACs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all reports of RCTs and the published RCTs included in reviews and meta-analyses that reported the same subjective outcome event assessed by both an onsite assessor and an AC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the odds ratio (OR) from onsite assessment and the corresponding OR from AC assessment and calculated the ratio of the odds ratios (ROR). A ratio of odds ratios < 1 indicated that onsite assessors generated larger effect estimates in favour of the experimental treatment than ACs. MAIN RESULTS: Data from 47 RCTs (275,078 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. We excluded 11 RCTs because of incomplete outcome data to calculate the OR for onsite and AC assessments. On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates from onsite assessors and AC (combined ROR: 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; I(2) = 0%, 47 RCTs). The combined ROR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; I(2) = 0%, 35 RCTs) when onsite assessors were blinded; 0.76 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.12, I(2) = 0%, two RCTs) when AC assessed events identified independently from unblinded onsite assessors; and 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.27, I(2) = 0%, 10 RCTs) when AC assessed events identified by unblinded onsite assessors. However, there was a statistically significant interaction between these subgroups (P = 0.03) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, treatment effect estimates for subjective outcome events assessed by onsite assessors did not differ from those assessed by ACs. Results of subgroup analysis showed an interaction according to the blinded status of onsite assessors and the process used to submit data to AC. These results suggest that the use of ACs might be most important when onsite assessors are not blinded and the risk of misclassification is high. Furthermore, research is needed to explore the impact of the different procedures used to select events to adjudicate.

Differential Globalization of Industry- and Non-Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Mapping the international landscape of clinical trials may inform global health research governance, but no large-scale data are available. Industry or non-industry sponsorship may have a major influence in this mapping. We aimed to map the global landscape of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials and its evolution over time. METHODS: We analyzed clinical trials initiated between 2006 and 2013 and registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We mapped single-country and international trials by World Bank's income groups and by sponsorship (industry- vs. non- industry), including its evolution over time from 2006 to 2012. We identified clusters of countries that collaborated significantly more than expected in industry- and non-industry-sponsored international trials. RESULTS: 119,679 clinical trials conducted in 177 countries were analysed. The median number of trials per million inhabitants in high-income countries was 100 times that in low-income countries (116.0 vs. 1.1). Industry sponsors were involved in three times more trials per million inhabitants than non-industry sponsors in high-income countries (75.0 vs. 24.5) and in ten times fewer trials in low- income countries (0.08 vs. 1.08). Among industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials, 30.3% and 3.2% were international, respectively. In the industry-sponsored network of collaboration, Eastern European and South American countries collaborated more than expected; in the non-industry-sponsored network, collaboration among Scandinavian countries was overrepresented. Industry-sponsored international trials became more inter-continental with time between 2006 and 2012 (from 54.8% to 67.3%) as compared with non-industry-sponsored trials (from 42.4% to 37.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on trials registered in the WHO ICTRP we documented a substantial gap between the globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical research. Only 3% of academic trials but 30% of industry trials are international. The latter appeared to be conducted in preferentially selected countries.

Comparison of treatment effect estimates for pharmacological randomized controlled trials enrolling older adults only and those including adults: a meta-epidemiological study.

CONTEXT: Older adults are underrepresented in clinical research. To assess therapeutic efficacy in older patients, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) include older adults only. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment effects between RCTs including older adults only (elderly RCTs) and RCTs including all adults (adult RCTs) by a meta-epidemiological approach. METHODS: All systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2011) were screened. Eligible studies were meta-analyses of binary outcomes of pharmacologic treatment including at least one elderly RCT and at least one adult RCT. For each meta-analysis, we compared summary odds ratios for elderly RCTs and adult RCTs by calculating a ratio of odds ratios (ROR). A summary ROR was estimated across all meta-analyses. RESULTS: We selected 55 meta-analyses including 524 RCTs (17% elderly RCTs). The treatment effects differed beyond that expected by chance for 7 (13%) meta-analyses, showing more favourable treatment effects in elderly RCTs in 5 cases and in adult RCTs in 2 cases. The summary ROR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-1.08, p = 0.28), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 51% and τ(2) = 0.14). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses by type-of-age RCT (elderly RCTs vs RCTs excluding older adults and vs RCTs of mixed-age adults), type of outcome (mortality or other) and type of comparator (placebo or active drug) yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of pharmacologic treatments did not significantly differ, on average, between RCTs including older adults only and RCTs of all adults. However, clinically important discrepancies may occur and should be considered when generalizing evidence from all adults to older adults.

Impact of evergreening on patients and health insurance: a meta analysis and reimbursement cost analysis of citalopram/escitalopram antidepressants.

BACKGROUND: "Evergreening" refers to the numerous strategies whereby owners of pharmaceutical products use patent laws and minor drug modifications to extend their monopoly privileges on the drug. We aimed to evaluate the impact of evergreening through the case study of the antidepressant citalopram and its chiral switch form escitalopram by evaluating treatment efficacy and acceptability for patients, as well as health insurance costs for society. METHODS: To assess efficacy and acceptability, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy and acceptability. We compared direct evidence (meta-analysis of results of head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (adjusted indirect comparison of results of placebo-controlled trials). To assess health insurance costs, we analyzed individual reimbursement data from a representative sample of the French National Health Insurance Inter-regime Information System (SNIIR-AM) from 2003 to 2010, which allowed for projecting these results to the whole SNIIR-AM population (53 million people). RESULTS: In the meta-analysis of seven head-to-head trials (2,174 patients), efficacy was significantly better for escitalopram than citalopram (combined odds ratio (OR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.46)). However, for the adjusted indirect comparison of 10 citalopram and 12 escitalopram placebo-controlled trials, 2,984 and 3,777 patients respectively, efficacy was similar for the two drug forms (combined indirect OR 1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)). Because of the discrepancy, we could not combine direct and indirect data (test of inconsistency, P = 0.07). A similar discrepancy was found for treatment acceptability. The overall reimbursement cost burden for the citalopram, escitalopram and its generic forms was 120.6 million Euros in 2010, with 96.8 million Euros for escitalopram. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefit of escitalopram versus citalopram remains uncertain. In our case of evergreening, escitalopram represented a substantially high proportion of the overall reimbursement cost burden as compared with citalopram and the generic forms.

A hand-held ultrasound machine vs. conventional ultrasound machine in the bedside assessment of post-liver transplant patients.

The purpose was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a hand-held Doppler ultrasound (US) machine for the bedside detection of liver and vascular abnormalities after liver transplantation in the intensive care unit. The IRB approved this study, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients or the patient's legal representative. Any liver transplant recipient at our institution who needed a bedside Doppler US examination in the intensive care unit was eligible. Patients underwent routine grey-scale, colour, and spectral Doppler US examinations of the liver with a conventional machine, which was taken as the reference method, and with a hand-held machine on the same day. Examinations followed one another and were performed in a blinded fashion by two radiologists. Over a 4-month period, 24 consecutive patients (16 men, median age 54 years old; 16 cadaveric and 8 living related right liver transplantations) underwent 43 examinations with both conventional and hand-held machines. Image quality and overall satisfaction scores of grey-scale were lower with the hand-held than with the conventional machine. The hand-held was similar to the conventional machine for assessing the patency of portal veins, hepatic veins and the IVC in all patients but one. The hand-held machine failed to detect signals in the right branch of the hepatic artery and in the hilum in two and one cases, respectively. There was no abnormal hepatic arterial flow with the conventional machine in any of the patients, and the results were the same with the hand-held machine. Total examination time was significantly longer with the hand-held machine. The hand-held US machine had a high diagnostic accuracy for both parenchymal and vascular analyses compared with a conventional US machine in the bedside assessment of post-liver transplant patients.