Rivaroxaban in Peripheral Artery Disease after Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease who have undergone lower-extremity revascularization are at high risk for major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in this context are uncertain. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, patients with peripheral artery disease who had undergone revascularization were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding, defined according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) classification; major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) was a secondary safety outcome. RESULTS: A total of 6564 patients underwent randomization; 3286 were assigned to the rivaroxaban group, and 3278 were assigned to the placebo group. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 508 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 584 in the placebo group; the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the incidence at 3 years were 17.3% and 19.9%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.009). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 44 patients in the placebo group (2.65% and 1.87%; hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.10; P = 0.07). ISTH major bleeding occurred in 140 patients in the rivaroxaban group, as compared with 100 patients in the placebo group (5.94% and 4.06%; hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.84; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with peripheral artery disease who had undergone lower-extremity revascularization, rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the composite outcome of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than aspirin alone. The incidence of TIMI major bleeding did not differ significantly between the groups. The incidence of ISTH major bleeding was significantly higher with rivaroxaban and aspirin than with aspirin alone. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; VOYAGER PAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02504216.).

Effect of Anticoagulant Therapy for 6 Weeks vs 3 Months on Recurrence and Bleeding Events in Patients Younger Than 21 Years of Age With Provoked Venous Thromboembolism: The Kids-DOTT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Among patients younger than 21 years of age, the optimal duration of anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism is unknown. Objective: To test the hypothesis that a 6-week duration of anticoagulant therapy for provoked venous thromboembolism is noninferior to a conventional 3-month therapy duration in patients younger than 21 years of age. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial involving 417 patients younger than 21 years of age with acute, provoked venous thromboembolism enrolled at 42 centers in 5 countries from 2008-2021. The main exclusions were severe anticoagulant deficiencies or prior venous thromboembolism. Patients without persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and whose thrombi were resolved or not completely occlusive upon repeat imaging at 6 weeks after diagnosis underwent randomization. The final visit for the primary end points occurred in January 2021. Interventions: Total duration for anticoagulant therapy of 6 weeks (n = 207) vs 3 months (n = 210) for provoked venous thromboembolism. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy and safety end points were centrally adjudicated symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism and clinically relevant bleeding events within 1 year blinded to treatment group. The primary analysis was noninferiority in the per-protocol population. The noninferiority boundary incorporated a bivariate trade-off that included an absolute increase of 0% in symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism with an absolute risk reduction of 4% in clinically relevant bleeding events (1 of 3 points on the bivariate noninferiority boundary curve). Results: Among 417 randomized patients, 297 (median age, 8.3 [range, 0.04-20.9] years; 49% female) met criteria for the primary per-protocol population analysis. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for the 1-year cumulative incidence of the primary efficacy outcome was 0.66% (95% CI, 0%-1.95%) in the 6-week anticoagulant therapy group and 0.70% (95% CI, 0%-2.07%) in the 3-month anticoagulant therapy group, and for the primary safety outcome, the incidence was 0.65% (95% CI, 0%-1.91%) and 0.70% (95% CI, 0%-2.06%). Based on absolute risk differences in recurrent venous thromboembolism and clinically relevant bleeding events between groups, noninferiority was demonstrated. Adverse events occurred in 26% of patients in the 6-week anticoagulant therapy group and in 32% of patients in the 3-month anticoagulant therapy group; the most common adverse event was fever (1.9% and 3.4%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients younger than 21 years of age with provoked venous thromboembolism, anticoagulant therapy for 6 weeks compared with 3 months met noninferiority criteria based on the trade-off between recurrent venous thromboembolism risk and bleeding risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00687882.

Design and analysis of a 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria: Small sample considerations for cluster-randomized trials with count data.

BACKGROUND: Cluster-randomized trials allow for the evaluation of a community-level or group-/cluster-level intervention. For studies that require a cluster-randomized trial design to evaluate cluster-level interventions aimed at controlling vector-borne diseases, it may be difficult to assess a large number of clusters while performing the additional work needed to monitor participants, vectors, and environmental factors associated with the disease. One such example of a cluster-randomized trial with few clusters was the "efficacy and risk of harms of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria" trial. Although previous work has provided recommendations for analyzing trials like repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria, additional evaluation of the multiple approaches for analysis is needed for study designs with count outcomes. METHODS: Using a simulation study, we applied three analysis frameworks to three cluster-randomized trial designs (single-year, 2-year parallel, and 2-year crossover) in the context of a 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria. Mixed-effects models, generalized estimating equations, and cluster-level analyses were evaluated. Additional 2-year parallel designs with different numbers of clusters and different cluster correlations were also explored. RESULTS: Mixed-effects models with a small sample correction and unweighted cluster-level summaries yielded both high power and control of the Type I error rate. Generalized estimating equation approaches that utilized small sample corrections controlled the Type I error rate but did not confer greater power when compared to a mixed model approach with small sample correction. The crossover design generally yielded higher power relative to the parallel equivalent. Differences in power between analysis methods became less pronounced as the number of clusters increased. The strength of within-cluster correlation impacted the relative differences in power. CONCLUSION: Regardless of study design, cluster-level analyses as well as individual-level analyses like mixed-effects models or generalized estimating equations with small sample size corrections can both provide reliable results in small cluster settings. For 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria, we recommend a mixed-effects model with a pseudo-likelihood approximation method and Kenward-Roger correction. Similarly designed studies with small sample sizes and count outcomes should consider adjustments for small sample sizes when using a mixed-effects model or generalized estimating equation for analysis. Although the 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria is already underway as a parallel trial, applying the simulation parameters to a crossover design yielded improved power, suggesting that crossover designs may be valuable in settings where the number of available clusters is limited. Finally, the sensitivity of the analysis approach to the strength of within-cluster correlation should be carefully considered when selecting the primary analysis for a cluster-randomized trial.

Association of high-density lipoprotein particle concentration with cardiovascular risk following acute coronary syndrome: A case-cohort analysis of the dal-Outcomes trial.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentration is inversely related to risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in epidemiologic studies but is a poorer predictor of MACE in patients with established coronary heart disease. HDL particle concentration (HDLP) has been proposed as a better predictor of risk. We investigated whether HDLP is associated with risk of MACE after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: The dal-Outcomes trial compared the CETP inhibitor dalcetrapib with placebo in patients with recent ACS. In a nested case-cohort analysis, total, large, medium, and small HDLPs were measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy at baseline (4-12 weeks after ACS) in 476 cases with MACE and 902 controls. Hazard ratios (HRs; case-control) for 1-SD increment of HDLP or HDL-C at baseline were calculated with and without adjustment for demographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment variables. Similarly, HRs for MACE were calculated for changes in HDLP or HDL-C from baseline to month 3 of assigned treatment. RESULTS: Over median follow-up of 28 months, the risk of MACE was not associated with baseline HDLP (adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.84-1.15, P = .81), any HDLP subclass, or HDL-C. Dalcetrapib increased HDL-C and total, medium, and large HDLP and decreased small HDLP but had no effect on MACE compared with placebo. There were no association of risk of MACE with change in HDLP or HDL-C and no interaction with assigned study treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Neither baseline HDLP nor the change in HDLP on treatment with dalcetrapib or placebo was associated with risk of MACE after ACS.

Group sequential designs for clinical trials with bivariate endpoints.

Although all clinical trials are designed and monitored using more than one endpoint, methods are needed to assure that decision criteria are chosen to reflect the clinically relevant tradeoffs that assure the trial's scientific integrity. This article presents a framework for the design and monitoring clinical trials in a bivariate outcome space. The framework uses a rectangular hyperbola to define a bivariate null curve that divides outcome space into regions of benefit and lack of benefit. The curve is shown to be a flexible mapping of bivariate space that allows a continuous tradeoff between the two endpoints in a manner that captures many previous bivariate designs. The curve is extended to a distance function in bivariate space that allows different decisions in each of the four quadrants that comprise bivariate space. The distance function forms a statistic ( δ ); the distribution of its estimate is derived and used as a basis for trial design and group sequential monitoring plans in bivariate space. A recursive form of the bivariate group sequential density is used to evaluate and control operating characteristics for the proposed design. The bivariate designs are shown to meet or exceed the usual standards for size and power. The proposed design is illustrated in the ongoing NHLBI-sponsored Kids-DOTT multinational randomized controlled trial comparing shortened versus conventional anticoagulation for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients less than 21 years of age. The proposed methods are broadly applicable to a wide range of clinical settings and trial designs.

Rationale and design for the Vascular Outcomes study of ASA along with rivaroxaban in endovascular or surgical limb revascularization for peripheral artery disease (VOYAGER PAD).

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing a lower-extremity revascularization are at heightened risk for ischemic cardiac and limb events. Although intensification of antithrombotic therapy after revascularization has demonstrated benefit in coronary disease populations, this approach has not been well studied or shown consistent benefit in PAD. Recent trial evidence demonstrated that a treatment strategy of rivaroxaban added to background antiplatelet therapy reduced ischemic risk in patients following recent acute coronary syndromes, as well as in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease. Whether these benefits extend to the population of patients with symptomatic lower-extremity PAD undergoing revascularization is the objective of the VOYAGER PAD trial. STUDY DESIGN: VOYAGER PAD is an international randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in symptomatic PAD patients undergoing a peripheral surgical and/or endovascular revascularization. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo, on a background of low-dose aspirin (100 mg daily). In addition, the use of a limited course of P2Y12 inhibition is allowed at the discretion of the site investigator. The primary efficacy end point is a novel composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, acute limb ischemia, and major amputation of vascular etiology. The primary safety end point is major bleeding according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction definition. Enrolment began in August 2015 and will complete randomization of at least 6,500 patients by January 2018. This event-driven trial is expected to observe outcomes over a mean patient follow-up of 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: VOYAGER PAD is evaluating the efficacy of rivaroxaban added to background antiplatelet therapy to reduce major cardiovascular and limb ischemic vascular outcomes in the high-risk population of PAD patients undergoing peripheral revascularization.

Improving evidence on anticoagulant therapies for venous thromboembolism in children: key challenges and opportunities.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly diagnosed in pediatric patients, and anticoagulant use in this population has become common, despite the absence of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for this indication. Guidelines for the use of anticoagulants in pediatrics are largely extrapolated from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, smaller dose-finding and observational studies in children, and expert opinion. The recently FDA-approved direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, provide potential advantages over oral vitamin K antagonists and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). However, key questions arise regarding their potential off-label clinical application in pediatric thromboembolic disease. In this Perspective, we provide background on the use of LMWHs such as enoxaparin as the mainstay of treatment of pediatric provoked VTE; identify key questions and challenges with regard to DOAC trials and future DOAC therapy in pediatric VTE; and discuss applicable lessons learned from the recent pilot/feasibility phase of a large multicenter RCT of anticoagulant duration in pediatric VTE. The challenges and lessons learned present opportunities to improve evidence for anticoagulant therapies in pediatric VTE through future clinical trials.

Advances in noninvasive measurement of liver function and physiology: The HepQuant DuO test.

Current noninvasive liver tests are surrogates for fibrosis and lack ability to directly measure liver function. HepQuant tests measure liver function and physiology through hepatic uptake of stable cholate isotopes. HepQuant SHUNT (V1.0) involves oral and intravenous dosing and six blood samples over 90 min. We developed simplified test versions: SHUNT V2.0 (oral and intravenous dosing, two blood samples over 60 min) and DuO (oral dosing only, two blood samples over 60 min). The aim of this study was to evaluate equivalency of the simplified tests to the original SHUNT test. Data from three studies comprising 930 SHUNT tests were retrospectively analysed by each method. Equivalence was evaluated in terms of proportion of tests in which the difference between methods was less than any clinically meaningful difference and additionally by two one-sided t-test and bioequivalence methods. DuO and SHUNT V2.0 were equivalent to the original SHUNT test for Disease Severity Index, with >99% and >96% of tests falling within equivalence bounds. DuO and SHUNT V2.0 met equivalency criteria by two one-sided t-tests and bioequivalence. DuO and SHUNT V2.0 are easier to administer, are less invasive than the original SHUNT test and have potential to be more accepted by patients and providers.

Within-individual reproducibility of a dual sample oral cholate challenge test (DuO) and simplified versions of the HepQuant SHUNT test.

Current noninvasive liver tests measure fibrosis, inflammation, or steatosis and do not measure function. The HepQuant platform of noninvasive tests uniquely assesses both liver function and physiology through the hepatic uptake of stable isotopes of cholate. However, the prototypical HepQuant SHUNT test (SHUNT V1.0) is cumbersome to administer, requiring intravenous and oral administration of cholate and six peripheral venous blood samples over 90 min. To alleviate the burden of test administration, we explored whether an oral only (DuO) version, and other simplified versions, of the test could provide reproducible measurements of liver function. DuO requires only oral dosing and two blood samples over 60 min. The simplified SHUNT test versions were SHUNT V1.1 (oral and IV dosing but four blood samples) and SHUNT V2.0 (oral and IV dosing but only two blood samples over 60 min). In this paper, we describe the reproducibility of DuO and the simplified SHUNT tests relative to that of SHUNT V1.0; equivalency is described in a separate paper. Data from two studies comprising 236 SHUNT tests in 94 subjects were analyzed retrospectively by each method. All simplified methods were highly reproducible across test parameters with intraclass correlation coefficients >0.93 for test parameters Disease Severity Index (DSI) and Hepatic Reserve. DuO and SHUNT V2.0 improved reproducibility in measuring portal-systemic shunting (SHUNT%). These simplified tests, particularly DuO and SHUNT V2.0, are easier to administer and less invasive, thus, having the potential to be more widely accepted by care providers administering the test and by patients receiving the test.

Liver function and portal-systemic shunting quantified by the oral cholate challenge test and risk for large oesophageal varices.

BACKGROUND: The quantitative HepQuant SHUNT test of liver function and physiology generates a disease severity index (DSI) that correlates with risk for clinical complications, such as large oesophageal varices (LEVs). A derivative test, HepQuant DuO, generates an equivalent DSI and simplifies testing by requiring only oral administration of the test solution and two blood samples at 20 and 60 min. AIMS: Since the DSIs measured from DuO and SHUNT are equivalent, we compared the diagnostic performance for large oesophageal varices (LEVs) between the DSIs measured from DuO and SHUNT tests. METHODS: This study combined the data from two prospectively conducted US studies: HALT-C and SHUNT-V. A total of 455 subjects underwent both the SHUNT test and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). RESULTS: DSI scores correlated with the probability of LEVs (p < 0.001) and demonstrated a stepwise increase from healthy lean controls without liver disease to subjects with chronic liver disease and no, small or large varices. Furthermore, a cutoff of DSI ≤ 18.3 from DuO had a sensitivity of 0.98 (missing only one case) and, if applied to the endoscopy (EGD) decision, would have prevented 188 EGDs (41.3%). The AUROC for DSI from DuO did not differ from that of the reference SHUNT test method (0.82 versus 0.81, p = 0.3500). CONCLUSIONS: DSI from HepQuant DuO links liver function and physiology to the risk of LEVs across a wide spectrum of patient characteristics, disease aetiologies and liver disease severity. DuO is minimally invasive, easy to administer, quantitative and may aid the decision to avoid or perform EGD for LEVs.

Repeat Ivermectin Mass Drug Administrations for Malaria Control II: Protocol for a Double-blind, Cluster-Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial for the Integrated Control of Malaria.

BACKGROUND: The gains made against malaria have stagnated since 2015, threatened further by increasing resistance to insecticides and antimalarials. Improvement in malaria control necessitates a multipronged strategy, which includes the development of novel tools. One such tool is mass drug administration (MDA) with endectocides, primarily ivermectin, which has shown promise in reducing malaria transmission through lethal and sublethal impacts on the mosquito vector. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study is to assess the impact of repeated ivermectin MDA on malaria incidence in children aged ≤10 years. METHODS: Repeat Ivermectin MDA for Malaria Control II is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cluster-randomized, and parallel-group trial conducted in a setting with intense seasonal malaria transmission in Southwest Burkina Faso. The study included 14 discrete villages: 7 (50%) randomized to receive standard measures (seasonal malaria chemoprevention [SMC] and bed net use for children aged 3 to 59 months) and placebo, and 7 (50%) randomized to receive standard measures and monthly ivermectin MDA at 300 µg/kg for 3 consecutive days, provided under supervision to all eligible village inhabitants, over 2 successive rainy seasons. Nonpregnant individuals >90 cm in height were eligible for ivermectin MDA, and cotreatment with ivermectin and SMC was not permitted. The primary outcome is malaria incidence in children aged ≤10 years, as assessed by active case surveillance. The secondary safety outcome of repeated ivermectin MDA was assessed through active and passive adverse event monitoring. RESULTS: The trial intervention was conducted from July to November in 2019 and 2020, with additional sampling of humans and mosquitoes occurring through February 2022 to assess postintervention changes in transmission patterns. Additional human and entomological assessments were performed over the 2 years in a subset of households from 6 cross-sectional villages. A subset of individuals underwent additional sampling in 2020 to characterize ivermectin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Analysis and unblinding will commence once the database has been completed, cleaned, and locked. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial represents the first study to directly assess the impact of a novel approach for malaria control, ivermectin MDA as a mosquitocidal agent, layered into existing standard-of-care interventions. The study was designed to leverage the current SMC deployment infrastructure and will provide evidence regarding the additional benefit of ivermectin MDA in reducing malaria incidence in children. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03967054; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03967054 and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACT201907479787308; https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=8219. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41197.

Estimation of treatment effect under non-proportional hazards and conditionally independent censoring.

In clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes, it is common to estimate the marginal hazard ratio from the proportional hazards model, even when the proportional hazards assumption is not valid. This is unavoidable from the perspective that the estimator must be specified a priori if probability statements about treatment effect estimates are desired. Marginal hazard ratio estimates under non-proportional hazards are still useful, as they can be considered to be average treatment effect estimates over the support of the data. However, as many have shown, under non-proportional hazard, the 'usual' unweighted marginal hazard ratio estimate is a function of the censoring distribution, which is not normally considered to be scientifically relevant when describing the treatment effect. In addition, in many practical settings, the censoring distribution is only conditionally independent (e.g., differing across treatment arms), which further complicates the interpretation. In this paper, we investigate an estimator of the hazard ratio that removes the influence of censoring and propose a consistent robust variance estimator. We compare the coverage probability of the estimator to both the usual Cox model estimator and an estimator proposed by Xu and O'Quigley (2000) when censoring is independent of the covariate. The new estimator should be used for inference that does not depend on the censoring distribution. It is particularly relevant to adaptive clinical trials where, by design, censoring distributions differ across treatment arms.

Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter?

The aim of this study was to compare tumor expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers overall, and according to age at diagnosis and familial risk. Tissue micro-arrays were constructed from 98 breast cancers (47 interval and 51 screen-detected) diagnosed in women in the Cancer Genetics Network. Arrays were immuno-stained to compare protein expression of six biomarkers including estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR), Her2/neu, EGFR, cytokeratin 5/6, and Ki67. Fisher's Exact test was used to compare expression between interval and screen-detected cancers. Interval cancers were larger (P = 0.04), higher stage (P < 0.001), and more likely to have lobular histology (P = 0.01) than screen-detected cancers. Overall, interval cancers more often overexpressed EGFR (P = 0.01) and were somewhat more likely to be ER- (55% vs. 43%, P = 0.3), and triple negative (ER-/PR-/Her2-) (21 vs. 12%, P = 0.26). A greater difference in the proportion of interval versus screen-detected tumors that were ER- (53 vs. 35%; P = 0.29), PR- (35 vs. 21%; P = 0.25) and EGFR+ (17 vs. 0%; P = 0.02) was evident among women over 50. There was a trend toward differential expression among women with familial risk for PR- (P = 0.005) and triple negative status (P = 0.02). This study provides new data indicating that EGFR may be important in the etiology of interval cancer and be a possible therapeutic target. Our data also suggest that biological differences between interval and screen-detected cancers are more defined in older women. Future studies to confirm this finding and to elucidate novel markers for characterizing interval cancers may be more beneficial to this subgroup.

Complementary approaches to assessing risk factors for interval breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine risk factors for interval breast cancer among women screened in a population-based mammography program. METHODS: Risk for interval cancer was assessed in terms of both the incidence per 10,000 negative screens and the proportion of all breast cancers diagnosed among screened women. Interval (N = 557) and screen-detected cancers (N = 1,545) were identified among 208,667 women receiving mammography in Colorado (1994-2001). Logistic regression was used to assess independent effects of multiple factors. RESULTS: Overall risk of interval cancer was 29.5/10,000 women screened. Incidence was higher in women >50 years (OR: 2.28, 1.86-2.80), with family history (OR: 2.23, 1.85-2.70), with dense breasts (OR: 3.84, 2.76-5.35), and using hormones (OR: 1.54, 1.20-1.97). Hispanics had lower incidence than Whites (OR: 0.52, 0.34-0.81). Interval cancers represented 26% of all cancers diagnosed. This proportion was higher in women <50 (OR: 1.41, 1.09-1.82) and in women with dense breasts (OR: 2.95, 1.94-4.48). CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of interval cancer increases with age, breast density, hormone use, and family history. Attempts to reduce occurrence of these cancers through more sensitive and/or intensive screening should focus on these subgroups. The disproportionate number of interval cancers associated with young age and dense breasts suggests these cancers result from both rapid growth and difficulties in detection.

The within-individual reproducibility of the disease severity index from the HepQuant SHUNT test of liver function and physiology.

The HepQuant SHUNT test quantifies liver function and blood flow using systemic and portal clearances of cholate. The test can identify the risk of well-compensated patients to develop complications of cirrhosis. To confirm the reliability of a single HepQuant SHUNT test we defined its within-individual reproducibility. Healthy subjects (n = 16), 16 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and 16 with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) underwent 3 HepQuant SHUNT tests on 3 separate days within 30 days. The test involves simultaneous administration of 20 mg 13C-cholate IV and 40 mg d4-cholate PO, and subsequent collection of 3 mL blood samples at 5, 20, 45, 60, and 90 minutes. Clearances are expressed as systemic and portal hepatic filtration rate. Portal-systemic shunting (SHUNT), a disease severity index (DSI), and an estimate of DSI (STAT) are calculated from the clearances. Reproducibility was determined by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC > 0.70) and Bland-Altman analysis. Equal numbers of NASH and HCV patients had either early (F0-F2) or advanced (F3/F4) stages of fibrosis. All F3/F4 subjects were clinically compensated. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for DSI was 0.94 (0.90-0.96 95% confidence interval) indicating excellent reproducibility. The other test parameters had ICCs ranging from 0.74 (SHUNT) to 0.90 (STAT). In Bland-Altman analysis, the mean of differences between measurements of DSI was 0.13 with standard deviation 2.12. The excellent reproducibility of the HepQuant SHUNT test, particularly DSI, supports the use this minimally invasive, blood-based test as a reliable test of liver function and physiology.

Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel (USBS) Does Not Reduce Blood Loss During Posterior Spinal Fusion (PSF) in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS): Randomized Clinical Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized Clinical Trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of USBS with standard-of-care surgical instruments during posterior spinal fusion (PSF) in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) by evaluating the difference in estimated blood loss per level fused (EBL/level). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PSF surgery for AIS is often associated with high blood loss. Use of an ultrasonic bone scalpel (USBS) has been proposed to reduce blood loss during scoliosis surgery. METHODS: This was a single-blinded (patient-blinded), randomized, controlled superiority trial. We randomized 66 patients with AIS undergoing PSF to the control group (osteotome) or the experimental group (USBS). The primary outcome was intraoperative EBL/level obtained from red blood cell salvage reports. One-year follow-up was available for 57 of 62 (92%) of patients. RESULTS: EBL/level averaged 35 and 39 mL/level in the experimental and control groups, respectively [adjusted mean difference USBS - osteotome -8 mL/level, 95% CI: -16.4 to 0.3 mL/level, P = 0.0575]. There was no difference in curve correction [adjusted mean difference: -1.7%, 95% CI: -7.0 to 3.6%, P = 0.5321] or operative time [adjusted mean difference: -3.55 minutes, 95% CI: -22.45 to 15.46 min, P = 0.7089] between groups. Complications requiring change in routine postoperative care were noted in eight patients: two occurred in patients assigned to the experimental group and six occurred in patients assigned to the control group. CONCLUSION: There was no clinically significant difference in total blood loss, EBL/level, or complications between the two groups. In contrast to reports from other centers, at our high-volume spine center, USBS did not lead to reduced blood loss during PSF for AIS. These results may not be generalizable to centers with longer baseline operative times or higher baseline average blood loss during PSF for AIS.Level of Evidence: 1.

Treatment-Dose LMWH versus Prophylactic/Intermediate Dose Heparins in High-Risk COVID-19 Inpatients: Rationale and Design of the HEP-COVID Trial.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and mortality particularly among hospitalized patients with critical illness and elevated D-dimer (Dd) levels. Conflicting data have yet to elucidate optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing. HEP-COVID (NCT04401293) is a phase 3, multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, randomized, pseudo-blinded, active control trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus prophylactic-/intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for prevention of a primary efficacy composite outcome of VTE, ATE, and all-cause mortality 30 ± 2 days post-enrollment. Eligible patients have COVID-19 diagnosis by nasal swab or serologic testing, requirement for supplemental oxygen per investigator judgment, and Dd >4 × upper limit of normal (ULN) or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score ≥4. Subjects are randomized to enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneous (SQ)/two times a day (BID) (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 mL/min) or 0.5 mg/kg (CrCl 15-30 mL/min) versus local institutional prophylactic regimens including (1) UFH up to 22,500 IU (international unit) daily (divided BID or three times a day), (2) enoxaparin 30 and 40 mg SQ QD (once daily) or BID, or (3) dalteparin 2,500 IU or 5,000 IU QD. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. Events are adjudicated locally. Based on expected 40% relative risk reduction with treatment-dose compared with prophylactic-dose prophylaxis, 308 subjects will be enrolled (assuming 20% drop-out) to achieve 80% power. Distinguishing design features include an enriched population for the composite endpoint anchored on Dd >4 × ULN, stratification by intensive care unit (ICU) versus non-ICU, and the ability to capture asymptomatic proximal deep venous thrombosis via screening ultrasonography prior to discharge.

Does disability level impact the relationship of muscle strength to walking performance in people with multiple sclerosis? a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Strength training can improve muscle weakness in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), but does not consistently improve walking. Disability level may impact the relationship of muscle weakness and walking performance in people with MS, but few studies have investigated the impact of disability on the relationship of strength and walking. The purpose of this study was to compare the relationships of strength in lower body and trunk muscles to walking performance between mild and moderate disability groups in people with MS. METHODS: Data from 36 participants with MS who had mild disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale - EDSS 0 to 3.5) and 36 participants who had moderate disability (EDSS 4.0 to 5.5) were analyzed. Hand-held dynamometry measured strength in eight muscle groups from the ankle, knee, hip, and trunk. Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) and 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) measured walking speed and endurance, respectively. Pearson correlations and beta coefficients (ß) were reported for each bivariate relationship of muscle strength to T25FW and 6MWT from both mild and moderate disability groups. Linear regression was then used to compare differences in beta coefficients (Δß) between disability groups for the relationship of each muscle variable to T25FW and 6MWT. A positive Δß indicated a stronger relationship of strength to walking performance in the mild disability group, while a negative Δß favored the moderate disability group. RESULTS: Overall, there were stronger Pearson correlations between muscle strength variables to T25FW and 6MWT in the mild (r = 0.57 to 0.77) compared to moderate disability group (r = 0.10 to 0.54). The mild disability group had significantly greater beta coefficients for T25FW with ankle dorsiflexion (Δß = 0.67, 95%CI: 0.27-1.07), knee extension (Δß = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.28-1.08), and hip abduction (Δß = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.01-1.52); and for 6MWT with knee extension (Δß = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.88). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: For people with MS, muscle strength in the lower extremity and trunk may be a more important contributor to T25FW in mild versus moderate disability, but not for 6MWT. While more studies are needed, these results may help to inform rehabilitation intervention when prioritizing strength training to improve walking.

Dalcetrapib Reduces Risk of New-Onset Diabetes in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Incident type 2 diabetes is common among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and is associated with an adverse prognosis. Some data suggest that cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors reduce incident type 2 diabetes. We compared the effect of treatment with the CETP inhibitor dalcetrapib or placebo on incident diabetes in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the dal-OUTCOMES trial, 15,871 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with dalcetrapib 600 mg daily or placebo, beginning 4-12 weeks after an acute coronary syndrome. Absence of diabetes at baseline was based on medical history, no use of antihyperglycemic medication, and hemoglobin A1c and serum glucose levels below diagnostic thresholds. Among these patients, incident diabetes after randomization was defined by any diabetes-related adverse event, new use of antihyperglycemic medication, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or a combination of at least two measurements of serum glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (fasting) or ≥11.1 mmol/L (random). RESULTS: At baseline, 10,645 patients (67% of the trial cohort) did not have diabetes. During a median follow-up of 30 months, incident diabetes was identified in 403 of 5,326 patients (7.6%) assigned to dalcetrapib and in 516 of 5,319 (9.7%) assigned to placebo, corresponding to absolute risk reduction of 2.1%, hazard ratio of 0.77 (95% CI 0.68-0.88; P < 0.001), and a need to treat 40 patients for 3 years to prevent 1 incident case of diabetes. Considering only those with prediabetes at baseline, the number needed to treat for 3 years to prevent 1 incident case of diabetes was 25. Dalcetrapib also decreased the number of patients who progressed from normoglycemia to prediabetes and increased the number who regressed from diabetes to no diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome, incident diabetes is common and is reduced substantially by treatment with dalcetrapib.