Coronary Artery Calcium Score Predicts Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Stable Chest Pain.

Background Coronary artery calcium (CAC) has prognostic value for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in asymptomatic individuals, whereas its role in symptomatic patients is less clear. Purpose To assess the prognostic value of CAC scoring for MACE in participants with stable chest pain initially referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Materials and Methods This prespecified subgroup analysis from the Diagnostic Imaging Strategies for Patients With Stable Chest Pain and Intermediate Risk of Coronary Artery Disease (DISCHARGE) trial, conducted between October 2015 and April 2019 across 26 centers in 16 countries, focused on adult patients with stable chest pain referred for ICA. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either ICA or coronary CT. CAC scores from noncontrast CT scans were categorized into low, intermediate, and high groups based on scores of 0, 1-399, and 400 or higher, respectively. The end point of the study was the occurrence of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death) over a median 3.5-year follow-up, analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression tests. Results The study involved 1749 participants (mean age, 60 years ± 10 [SD]; 992 female). The prevalence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) at CT angiography rose from 4.1% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.8) in the CAC score 0 group to 76.1% (95% CI: 70.3, 81.2) in the CAC score 400 or higher group. Revascularization rates increased from 1.7% to 46.2% across the same groups (P < .001). The CAC score 0 group had a lower MACE risk (0.5%; HR, 0.08 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.30]; P < .001), as did the 1-399 CAC score group (1.9%; HR, 0.27 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.59]; P = .001), compared with the 400 or higher CAC score group (6.8%). No significant difference in MACE between sexes was observed (P = .68). Conclusion In participants with stable chest pain initially referred for ICA, a CAC score of 0 showed very low risk of MACE, and higher CAC scores showed increasing risk of obstructive CAD, revascularization, and MACE at follow-up. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02400229 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hanneman and Gulsin in this issue.

Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in ELderly care (MIDDEL): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a multinational cluster-randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: In older adults, dementia and depression are associated with individual distress and high societal costs. Music interventions such as group music therapy (GMT) and recreational choir singing (RCS) have shown promising effects, but their comparative effectiveness across clinical subgroups is unknown. This trial aims to determine effectiveness of GMT, RCS and their combination for care home residents and to examine heterogeneity of treatment effects across subgroups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This large, pragmatic, multinational cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design will compare the effects of GMT, RCS, both or neither, for care home residents aged 65 years or older with dementia and depressive symptoms. We will randomise 100 care home units with ≥1000 residents in total across eight countries. Each intervention will be offered for 6 months (3 months 2 times/week followed by 3 months 1 time/week), with extension allowed if locally available. The primary outcome will be the change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes will include depressive symptoms, cognitive functioning, neuropsychiatric symptoms, psychotropic drug use, caregiver burden, quality of life, mortality and costs over at least 12 months. The study has 90% power to detect main effects and is also powered to determine interaction effects with gender, severity and socioeconomic status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for one country and will be obtained for all countries. Results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03496675; Pre-results, ACTRN12618000156280.

Evidence-based practice within nutrition: what are the barriers for improving the evidence and how can they be dealt with?

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical research poses special barriers in the field of nutrition. The present review summarises the main barriers to research in the field of nutrition that are not common to all randomised clinical trials or trials on rare diseases and highlights opportunities for improvements. METHODS: Systematic academic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project. RESULTS: Many nutrients occur in multiple forms that differ in biological activity, and several factors can alter their bioavailability which raises barriers to their assessment. These include specific difficulties with blinding procedures, with assessments of dietary intake, and with selecting appropriate outcomes as patient-centred outcomes may occur decennia into the future. The methodologies and regulations for drug trials are, however, applicable to nutrition trials. CONCLUSIONS: Research on clinical nutrition should start by collecting clinical data systematically in databases and registries. Measurable patient-centred outcomes and appropriate study designs are needed. International cooperation and multistakeholder engagement are key for success.

Barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials within all disease areas.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers. METHODS: We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project. RESULTS: The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential. CONCLUSIONS: The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area.

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN).

BACKGROUND: Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. METHODS: In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. RESULTS: The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. CONCLUSION: The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.