Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Forecasting the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050-Prevalence of Risk Factors and Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease and stroke are common and costly, and their prevalence is rising. Forecasts on the prevalence of risk factors and clinical events are crucial. METHODS: Using the 2015 to March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and 2015 to 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we estimated trends in prevalence for cardiovascular risk factors based on adverse levels of Life's Essential 8 and clinical cardiovascular disease and stroke. We projected through 2050, overall and by age and race and ethnicity, accounting for changes in disease prevalence and demographics. RESULTS: We estimate that among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050. Diabetes (16.3% to 26.8%) and obesity (43.1% to 60.6%) will increase, whereas hypercholesterolemia will decline (45.8% to 24.0%). The prevalences of poor diet, inadequate physical activity, and smoking are estimated to improve over time, whereas inadequate sleep will worsen. Prevalences of coronary disease (7.8% to 9.2%), heart failure (2.7% to 3.8%), stroke (3.9% to 6.4%), atrial fibrillation (1.7% to 2.4%), and total cardiovascular disease (11.3% to 15.0%) will rise. Clinical CVD will affect 45 million adults, and CVD including hypertension will affect more than 184 million adults by 2050 (>61%). Similar trends are projected in children. Most adverse trends are projected to be worse among people identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native or multiracial, Black, or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of many cardiovascular risk factors and most established diseases will increase over the next 30 years. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to effectively manage, stem, and even reverse these adverse trends.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Regional variation in cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes: Insights from EXSCEL.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a risk factor for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. However, global distribution of cause-specific deaths in T2D is poorly understood. We characterized cause-specific deaths by geographic region among individuals with T2D at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The international EXSCEL trial included 14,752 participants with T2D (73% with established CVD). We identified the proportion of deaths over 5-year follow-up attributed to cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes, and associated risk factors. During median 3.2-year follow-up, 1,091 (7.4%) participants died. Adjudicated causes of death were 723 cardiovascular (66.3% of deaths), including 252 unknown, and 368 non-cardiovascular (33.7%). Most deaths occurred in North America (N = 356/9.6% across region) and Eastern Europe (N = 326/8.1%), with fewest in Asia/Pacific (N = 68/4.4%). The highest proportional cause-specific deaths by region were sudden cardiac in Asia/Pacific (23/34% of regional deaths) and North America (86/24%); unknown in Eastern Europe (90/28%) and Western Europe (39/21%); and non-malignant non-cardiovascular in Latin America (48/31%). Cox proportional hazards model for adjudicated causes of death showed prognostic risk factors (hazard ratio [95% CI]) for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular deaths, respectively: heart failure 2.04 (1.72-2.42) and 1.86 (1.46-2.39); peripheral artery disease 1.83 (1.54-2.18) and 1.78 (1.40-2.26); and current smoking status 1.61 (1.29-2.01) and 1.77 (1.31-2.40). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary T2D trial population, with and without established CVD, leading causes of death varied by geographic region. Underlying mechanisms leading to variability in cause of death across geographic regions and its impact on clinical trial endpoints warrant future research.

Characterization of peripheral artery disease and associations with traditional risk factors, mobility, and biomarkers in the project baseline health study.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of research on immunophenotyping in peripheral artery disease (PAD). This study aimed to describe the baseline characteristics, immunophenotypic profile, and quality of life (QoL) of participants with PAD in the Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). METHODS: The PBHS study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study that collected clinical, molecular, and biometric data from participants recruited between 2017 and 2018. In this analysis, baseline demographic, clinical, mobility, QoL, and flow cytometry data were stratified by the presence of PAD (ankle brachial index [ABI] ≤0.90). RESULTS: Of 2,209 participants, 58 (2.6%) had lower-extremity PAD, and only 2 (3.4%) had pre-existing PAD diagnosed prior to enrollment. Comorbid smoking (29.3% vs 14%, P < .001), hypertension (54% vs 30%, P < .001), diabetes (25% vs 14%, P = .031), and at least moderate coronary calcifications (Agatston score >100: 32% vs 17%, P = .01) were significantly higher in participants with PAD than in those with normal ABIs, as were high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (5.86 vs 2.83, P < .001). After adjusting for demographic and risk factors, participants with PAD had significantly fewer circulating CD56-high natural killer cells, IgM+ memory B cells, and CD10/CD27 double-positive B cells (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: This study reinforces existing evidence that a large proportion of PAD without claudication may be underdiagnosed, particularly in female and Black or African American participants. We describe a novel immunophenotypic profile of participants with PAD that could represent a potential future screening or diagnostic tool to facilitate earlier diagnosis of PAD. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03154346, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03154346.

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Drug development for major chronic health conditions-aligning with growing public health needs: Proceedings from a multistakeholder think tank.

The global pharmaceutical industry portfolio is skewed towards cancer and rare diseases due to more predictable development pathways and financial incentives. In contrast, drug development for major chronic health conditions that are responsible for a large part of mortality and disability worldwide is stalled. To examine the processes of novel drug development for common chronic health conditions, a multistakeholder Think Tank meeting, including thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, non-profit healthcare organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payors as well as investors, was convened in July 2022. Herein, we summarize the proceedings of this meeting, including an overview of the current state of drug development for chronic health conditions and key barriers that were identified. Six major action items were formulated to accelerate drug development for chronic diseases, with a focus on improving the efficiency of clinical trials and rapid implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels. RESULTS: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.).

Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.

Heart Failure, Investigator-Reported Sleep Apnea and Dapagliflozin: A Patient-Level Pooled Meta-Analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

BACKGROUND: Sleep apnea is more common in patients with heart failure (HF) than in the general population, but little is known about its association with clinical outcomes in various HF phenotypes or how it might modify the effect of HF therapy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the prevalence of sleep apnea, its association with outcomes and the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HF with and without sleep apnea in a pooled analysis of 2 trials comparing dapagliflozin to placebo in HFrEF (DAPA-HF trial) and HFmrEF/HFpEF (DELIVER trial). METHODS: A history of sleep apnea was investigator-reported. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: The prevalence of sleep apnea was 5.7% and 7.8% in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF, respectively. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 16.0 in participants with sleep apnea compared to 10.6 per 100 person-years in those without (adjusted HR 1.29 [95%CI, 1.10-1.52]). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary endpoint to the same extent in patients with (HR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.03]) and without sleep apnea (HR 0.79 [0.72-0.87]) [Pinteraction = 0.93]. The beneficial effects of dapagliflozin on other clinical outcomes and symptom burden, physical function, and quality of life were consistent in participants with and without sleep apnea. CONCLUSIONS: In DAPA-HF and DELIVER, the true prevalence of sleep apnea was likely underestimated. An investigator-reported history of sleep apnea was associated with higher rates of worsening HF events. The benefits of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes were consistent in patients with and without sleep apnea. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 CONDENSED ABSTRACT: In a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials of more than 11,000 patients with heart failure (HF) across the range of ejection fractions, an investigator-reported history of sleep apnea was associated with higher rates of worsening HF events but not mortality. The beneficial effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes were consistent in patients with and without sleep apnea. These findings provide further evidence for dapagliflozin as a new treatment option for patients with heart failure across the range of ejection fractions.

Effect of albiglutide on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults: A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To analyse the effects of albiglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease who participated in the Harmony Outcomes trial (NCT02465515). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the primary endpoint of the Harmony Outcomes trial-time to first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event-in subgroups of participants aged <65 and ≥65 years and <75 and ≥75 years at baseline. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The analysis population included 9462 Harmony Outcomes participants, including 4748 patients ≥65 and 1140 patients ≥75 years at baseline. Hazard ratios for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82) in persons <65 and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.71-1.04) in those ≥65 years (age interaction p = .07), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.91) in <75 and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01) in ≥75 year age groups (interaction p = .6). When analysed as a continuous variable, age did not modify the effect of albiglutide on the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis adds to the body of literature showing that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists added to standard type 2 diabetes therapy safely reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in older adults with established cardiovascular disease. In this analysis, the risk-benefit profile was similar between younger and older age groups treated with albiglutide.

Early Beta-Blocker Utilization in Critically Ill Patients With Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that beta-blockers may provide benefit for patients with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) during the acute injury period. Larger studies on utilization patterns and impact on outcomes in clinical practice are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The present study uses a large, national hospital claims-based dataset to examine early beta-blocker utilization patterns and its association with clinical outcomes among critically ill patients with moderate-severe TBI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the administrative claims Premier Healthcare Database of adults (≥17 years) with moderate-severe TBI admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from 2016 to 2020. The exposure was receipt of a beta-blocker during day 1 or 2 of ICU stay (BB+). The primary outcome was hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were: hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, discharge to home, and vasopressor utilization. In a sensitivity analysis, we explored the association of beta-blocker class (cardioselective and noncardioselective) with hospital mortality. We used propensity weighting methods to address possible confounding by treatment indication. RESULTS: A total of 109 665 participants met inclusion criteria and 39% (n = 42 489) were exposed to beta-blockers during the first 2 days of hospitalization. Of those, 42% received cardioselective only, 43% received noncardioselective only, and 14% received both. After adjustment, there was no association with hospital mortality in the BB+ group compared to the BB- group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94, 1.04). The BB+ group had longer hospital stays, lower chance of discharged home, and lower risk of vasopressor utilization, although these difference were clinically small. Beta-blocker class was not associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, we found variation in use of beta-blockers and early exposure was not associated with hospital mortality. Further research is necessary to understand the optimal type, dose, and timing of beta-blockers for this population.

Association of Early Dexmedetomidine Utilization With Clinical Outcomes After Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an expensive and common public health problem. Management of TBI oftentimes includes sedation to facilitate mechanical ventilation (MV) for airway protection. Dexmedetomidine has emerged as a potential candidate for improved patient outcomes when used for early sedation after TBI due to its potential modulation of autonomic dysfunction. We examined early sedation patterns, as well as the association of dexmedetomidine exposure with clinical and functional outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-severe TBI (msTBI) in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Premier dataset and identified a cohort of critically ill adult patients with msTBI who required MV from January 2016 to June 2020. msTBI was defined by head-neck abbreviated injury scale (AIS) values of 3 (serious), 4 (severe), and 5 (critical). We described early continuous sedative utilization patterns. Using propensity-matched models, we examined the association of early dexmedetomidine exposure (within 2 days of intensive care unit [ICU] admission) with the primary outcome of hospital mortality and the following secondary outcomes: hospital length of stay (LOS), days on MV, vasopressor use after the first 2 days of admission, hemodialysis (HD) after the first 2 days of admission, hospital costs, and discharge disposition. All medications, treatments, and procedures were identified using date-stamped hospital charge codes. RESULTS: The study population included 19,751 subjects who required MV within 2 days of ICU admission. The patients were majority male and white. From 2016 to 2020, the annual percent utilization of dexmedetomidine increased from 4.05% to 8.60%. After propensity score matching, early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with reduced odds of hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.74; P < .0001), increased risk for liberation from MV (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003), and reduced LOS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22; P = .033). Exposure to early dexmedetomidine was not associated with odds of HD (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.73-1.78; P = .56), vasopressor utilization (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.78-1.55; P = .60), or increased hospital costs (relative cost ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03; P = .66). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine is being utilized increasingly as a sedative for mechanically ventilated patients with msTBI. Early dexmedetomidine exposure may lead to improved patient outcomes in this population.

Evaluation of Phytase Impact on In Vitro Protein and Phosphorus Bioaccessibility of Two Lupin Species for Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Legumes are an important source of protein, lipids, and other essential nutrients. As the demand for protein and lipids continues to surge on a global scale, there is a growing interest in incorporating legumes into aquafeeds. This shift is driven not only by the escalating growth of the aquaculture sector in recent years but also by the imperative to diminish the dependency on traditional resources like fishmeal (FM) and fish oil. Amongst legumes, different lupin species had been identified as a potential protein source to partially reduce the inclusion of FM in countries such as Australia, Chile, and the European Union. A comprehensive evaluation of their nutritional profiles, overall characteristics, and potential antinutritional factors is essential for informed utilization and the implementation of nutritional enhancement strategies. In pursuit of this goal, an in vitro gastrointestinal simulation system was devised to replicate the digestive conditions of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The study focused on determining the bioaccessibility of protein and phosphorus within two sweet lupin varieties (alkaloids < 0.05) with high (Lupinus mutabilis) and low (Lupinus angustifolius) native phytic acid content evaluated as whole (W) or dehulled (D) seeds meals and the effect of a single dose of phytase (2,500 FTU/kg DM). Additionally, regular soybean meal (SBM) served as reference (10 treatments with 3 replicates). A 2,500 FTU/kg DM phytase dose increased the levels of PO4-3 released throughout the intestinal phase by 122.6% for L. mutatabilis W, 116.3% for L. mutatabilis D, 65.2% for L. angustifolius W, 59.0% for L. angustifolius D, and 91.8% for SBM compared to controls without phytase. The bioaccessibility of amino acids in varieties treated with phytase increased with respect to the control without phytase. L. mutabilis was found to be a potentially viable alternative as a good quality protein source for the manufacture of environmentally friendly aquafeeds.

Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.

Characterization of anti-soybean agglutinin (SBA) IgY antibodies: a new strategy for neutralization of the detrimental biological activity of SBA.

Anti-soybean agglutinin (SBA) IgY was produced, and its potential to neutralize the haemagglutinating activity of SBA in vitro was tested. Thirty-five-week-old hens [treatment (n = 5) and control (n = 5)] were immunized with SBA or injected with saline 4 times every 15 days. Eggs were collected after the last immunization, and IgY was extracted using the polyethylene glycol (PEG) method. Serum anti-SBA IgY titres in immunized hens increased after the first immunization and reached a plateau between days 45 and 60. In contrast, specific IgY titres in the control group remained at basal levels throughout the evaluation. Average IgY titres were significantly higher in the treatment group on days 15, 30, 45, and 60. Total IgY content in the egg yolk extract was 38.7 ± 1.6 and 37.7 ± 1.5 mg/ml for the treatment and control groups, respectively. The specific anti-SBA IgY titer detected in the egg yolk extract was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for hens in the treatment group compared to the control group, with OD450nm values of 0.98 ± 0.05 and 0.058 ± 0.02, respectively. The specificity of anti-SBA IgY was confirmed by the Western blotting, and the inhibition of SBA-induced haemagglutination in vitro was compared with D-galactose, a known molecule that binds to SBA and blocks its binding to erythrocytes. The inhibition of SBA-induced haemagglutination by the anti-SBA IgY reached 512 units of haemagglutination inhibition (UHI), compared to 8 or 256 UHI, respectively, when IgY from control chickens or D-galactose was used. Thus, anti-SBA IgY antibodies were efficiently produced in large quantities and effectively inhibited SBA-induced haemagglutination in vitro.

The impact of psychedelics on patients with alcohol use disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Critique the available systematic review and de novo assessment of the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed was completed from 1960 to 9/9/2023. We pooled randomized controlled trials comparing psychedelics to control therapy for the treatment of alcohol use disorder. RESULTS: At the first recorded follow-up, LSD [n = 3, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.99 (95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.10 to 3.61)] and any psychedelic [n = 4, OR 2.16 (95%CI: 1.26 to 3.69)] enhanced the odds of patients achieving abstinence or a substantial reduction in drinking alcohol versus placebo in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. When the inclusion criteria were relaxed to include controlled trials without double-blinding or placebo control, LSD [n = 5, OR 1.79 (95%CI: 1.36 to 2.34)] and any psychedelic therapy [n = 6, OR 1.89 (95%CI: 1.42 to 2.50)] still enhanced the odds of patients achieving abstinence or a substantial reduction in drinking alcohol. Four of 6 trials had high risk of bias and other methodological issues. One trial found an instance of suicidal ideation as well as transient increases in blood pressure that requires further exploration before the balance of benefits to harms can be determined. CONCLUSIONS: The use of psychedelics to treat alcohol use disorder is promising, but the weaknesses in the literature base preclude making definitive statements about its value. Future trials with greater methodological rigor are needed.

Lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD) and psilocybin (hallucinogenic mushrooms) are psychedelics that have been studied in patients with alcohol use disorder (chronic issue with heavy or problem drinking). When all the studies are pooled together in a meta-analysis, the odds of being able to refrain from drinking alcohol or to substantially reduce the amount of alcohol consumed was enhanced by 89%. This is a promising finding that if bore out in additional studies, especially those with higher study quality, would be a major advance in patients with alcohol use disorder. We cannot make more definitive conclusions because all the LSD studies were published between 1966 and 1970 which may not reflect contemporary practice and most of the studies had methodological weaknesses that reduce confidence in the studies to prove the benefits. It is heartening that the single psilocybin trial from 2022 was of higher methodological quality, reflected contemporary practice, and still showed positive effects.

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis.

We assessed the impact of probiotics on outcomes related to caries in children and/or adolescents without underlying systemic diseases. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Searches were performed in Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science until March 2023 for RCTs assessing probiotics with a minimum intake duration of 0.2 months vs. control (no treatment or placebo) and reporting at least one primary or secondary outcome. Primary outcomes were number of carious, Streptococcus mutans count, and Lactobacillus count; secondary outcomes were bacterial plaque index, gingival index, salivary pH, and bleeding index. We performed meta-analyses with random effects models and the inverse variance method. Effects were described as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2.0 tool. The GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence (QoE). Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 2622), with a follow-up range of 0.2 to 108 months. Probiotics had no effect on reduction of dental caries (MD -0.24 carious pieces, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.23; I2 = 52%, low QoE) or Lactobacillus count (MD -0.78 CFU/mL, 95%CI -1.65 to 0.09; I2= 52%, very low QoE) vs. control. However, probiotics probably reduced S. mutans count vs. control (MD -0.40 CFU/mL, 95%CI -0.57 to -0.24; I2 = 11%, moderate QoE). Probiotics had no effect on bacterial plaque index (MD 0.21 units of bacterial plaque, 95%CI -0. 55-0.96; I2 = 80%, very low QoE), gingival index (MD 0.04 units of gingival index, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.27; I2= 0%, low QoE), and salivary pH (MD -0.12 pH units, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.48; I2 = 92%, very low QoE) vs. control. Probiotics were found to likely reduce S. mutans counts. However, no significant effect of probiotics was observed in reducing other outcomes compared to the control group.

Implications of trial eligibility in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Clinical trials in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) commonly have detailed eligibility criteria. This may contribute to challenges with efficient enrolment and questions regarding the generalizability of trial findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large US healthcare system were identified through a computable phenotype applied in linked imaging and electronic health record databases. We evaluated shared eligibility criteria from five recent/ongoing HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, FINE-ARTS, and SPIRRIT-HFpEF) and compared clinical and echocardiographic features as well as outcomes between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients. Among 5552 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, 792 (14%) were eligible for trial consideration, having met all criteria assessed. Causes of ineligibility included lack of recent loop diuretics (37%), significant pulmonary disease (24%), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (17%), recent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (13%), or low natriuretic peptides (12%); 53% of ineligible patients had >1 reason for exclusion. Compared with eligible patients, ineligible patients were younger (age 71 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (40% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but less mitral regurgitation, lower E/e' ratio, and smaller left atrial sizes. Both eligible and ineligible patients demonstrated high rates of structural heart disease consistent with HFpEF [elevated left atrial size or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy/increased LV mass], although this was slightly higher among eligible patients (95% vs. 92%, P = 0.001). The two cohorts demonstrated similar LV global longitudinal strain along with a similar prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and obesity. Ineligible patients had similar all-cause mortality (33% vs. 33% at 3 years) to those eligible but lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (20% vs. 28% at 3 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large health system, approximately one in seven were eligible for major trials based on key criteria applied through a clinical computable phenotype. These findings highlight the large proportion of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF ineligible for contemporary trials for whom the generalizability of trial findings may be questioned and further investigation would be beneficial.

Andexanet alfa versus PCC products for factor Xa inhibitor bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.