Early axial spondyloarthritis according to the ASAS consensus definition: characterisation of patients and effectiveness of a first TNF inhibitor in a large observational registry.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the population fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) consensus definition of early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and to determine the effectiveness of a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in early versus established axSpA in a large observational registry. METHODS: A total of 3064 patients with axSpA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry with data on duration of axial symptoms were included (≤2 years=early axSpA, N=658; >2 years=established axSpA, N=2406). Drug retention was analysed in patients starting a first TNFi in early axSpA (N=250) versus established axSpA (N=874) with multiple-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to determine the achievement of the ASAS criteria for 40% improvement (ASAS40) at 1 year. RESULTS: Sex distribution, disease activity, impairments of function and health-related quality of life were comparable between patients with early and established axSpA. Patients with established disease were older, had more prevalent axial radiographical damage and had a higher impairment of mobility. A comparable TNFi retention was found in early versus established disease after adjustment for age, sex, human leucocyte antigen-B27 status, education, body mass index, smoking, elevated C reactive protein and sacroiliac inflammation on MRI (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.42). The adjusted ASAS40 response was similar in the two groups (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.78). Results were confirmed in the population fulfilling the ASAS classification criteria. CONCLUSION: Considering the recent ASAS definition of early axSpA, TNFi effectiveness seems comparable in early versus established disease.

Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that affects millions of people worldwide. The disease course varies greatly across individuals and many disease-modifying treatments with different safety and efficacy profiles have been developed recently. Prognostic models evaluated and shown to be valid in different settings have the potential to support people with MS and their physicians during the decision-making process for treatment or disease/life management, allow stratified and more precise interpretation of interventional trials, and provide insights into disease mechanisms. Many researchers have turned to prognostic models to help predict clinical outcomes in people with MS; however, to our knowledge, no widely accepted prognostic model for MS is being used in clinical practice yet. OBJECTIVES: To identify and summarise multivariable prognostic models, and their validation studies for quantifying the risk of clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity in adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1996 until July 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and references citing the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all statistically developed multivariable prognostic models aiming to predict clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity, as measured by disability, relapse, conversion to definite MS, conversion to progressive MS, or a composite of these in adult individuals with MS. We also included any studies evaluating the performance of (i.e. validating) these models. There were no restrictions based on language, data source, timing of prognostication, or timing of outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data using a piloted form based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), assessed risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and assessed reporting deficiencies based on the checklist items in Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). The characteristics of the included models and their validations are described narratively. We planned to meta-analyse the discrimination and calibration of models with at least three external validations outside the model development study but no model met this criterion. We summarised between-study heterogeneity narratively but again could not perform the planned meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 studies, from which we identified 75 model developments, 15 external validations corresponding to only 12 (16%) of the models, and six author-reported validations. Only two models were externally validated multiple times. None of the identified external validations were performed by researchers independent of those that developed the model. The outcome was related to disease progression in 39 (41%), relapses in 8 (8%), conversion to definite MS in 17 (18%), and conversion to progressive MS in 27 (28%) of the 96 models or validations. The disease and treatment-related characteristics of included participants, and definitions of considered predictors and outcome, were highly heterogeneous amongst the studies. Based on the publication year, we observed an increase in the percent of participants on treatment, diversification of the diagnostic criteria used, an increase in consideration of biomarkers or treatment as predictors, and increased use of machine learning methods over time. Usability and reproducibility All identified models contained at least one predictor requiring the skills of a medical specialist for measurement or assessment. Most of the models (44; 59%) contained predictors that require specialist equipment likely to be absent from primary care or standard hospital settings. Over half (52%) of the developed models were not accompanied by model coefficients, tools, or instructions, which hinders their application, independent validation or reproduction. The data used in model developments were made publicly available or reported to be available on request only in a few studies (two and six, respectively). Risk of bias We rated all but one of the model developments or validations as having high overall risk of bias. The main reason for this was the statistical methods used for the development or evaluation of prognostic models; we rated all but two of the included model developments or validations as having high risk of bias in the analysis domain. None of the model developments that were externally validated or these models' external validations had low risk of bias. There were concerns related to applicability of the models to our research question in over one-third (38%) of the models or their validations. Reporting deficiencies Reporting was poor overall and there was no observable increase in the quality of reporting over time. The items that were unclearly reported or not reported at all for most of the included models or validations were related to sample size justification, blinding of outcome assessors, details of the full model or how to obtain predictions from it, amount of missing data, and treatments received by the participants. Reporting of preferred model performance measures of discrimination and calibration was suboptimal. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is not sufficient for recommending the use of any of the published prognostic prediction models for people with MS in clinical routine today due to lack of independent external validations. The MS prognostic research community should adhere to the current reporting and methodological guidelines and conduct many more state-of-the-art external validation studies for the existing or newly developed models.

Enoxaparin for symptomatic COVID-19 managed in the ambulatory setting: An individual patient level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC trials.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic treatment may improve the disease course in non-critically ill, symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: We performed an individual patient-level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC randomized controlled trials, which compared enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for either 14 (OVID) or 21 days (ETHIC) vs. no thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one additional risk factor. The primary efficacy outcome included all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death within 30 days from randomization. Both studies were prematurely stopped for futility. Secondary efficacy outcomes were major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, arterial cardiovascular events, or their composite occurring within 30 days from randomization. The same outcomes were assessed over a 90-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria). RESULTS: A total of 691 patients were randomized: 339 to receive enoxaparin and 352 to the control group. Over 30-day follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.0 % of patients in the enoxaparin group vs. 5.8 % of controls for a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95%CI 0.57-1.92). The incidence of major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events was 0.9 % vs. 1.8 %, respectively (RR 0.52; 95%CI 0.13-2.06). Most cardiovascular thromboembolic events were represented by symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, occurring in 0.6 % vs. 1.5 % of patients, respectively. A similar distribution of outcomes between the treatment groups was observed over 90 days. No major bleeding occurred in the enoxaparin group vs. one (0.3 %) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the clinical benefit of early administration of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. These results should be interpreted taking into consideration the relatively low occurrence of events.

Long-term neurodevelopmental outcome and serial cerebral magnetic resonance imaging assessment in Fontan patients at school age.

OBJECTIVES: Children with univentricular congenital heart disease undergoing staged surgical palliation are at risk for impaired neurodevelopmental (ND) outcome. Little is known about the long-term effects on brain growth until school age. METHODS: In a prospective two-centre study, consecutive patients undergoing stage I (Hybrid or Norwood) to stage III (Fontan procedure) were evaluated by 2 serial cerebral magnetic resonance imaging examinations, somatic growth and ND testing before Fontan procedure at 2 years of age (Bayley-III) and after Fontan at 6-8 years of age (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-third edition). Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compared with 8 healthy controls. Medical and sociodemographic characteristics were documented and related to cerebral and ND findings. RESULTS: We examined 33 children (16 female) at a mean age of 2.3 (0.35) and 6.8 (± 0.7) years. The mean Bayley-III cognitive scales were 99.1 (9.9), language scales 98.4 (11.9) and motor scales 98.5 (13.8) at the first examination. Follow-up at school age showed a mean total IQ of 86.7 (13.6). The rate of structural brain lesions increased from 39% at 2 years to 58% at school age. Bayley-III language scale (P = 0.021) and mean Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-third edition (P = 0.019) were lower in children with pathological MR findings. Total brain volume (P < 0.001), total grey matter volume (P = 0.002), deep grey matter volume (P = 0.001) and white matter volume (P < 0.001) were smaller in patients compared to age- and gender-matched healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller brain volumes and structural brain lesions in complex congenital heart defect patients at school age are associated with impaired ND outcome. For the evaluation of predictive surgical or clinical factors, larger multicentre studies are needed.

Impact of sex on spinal radiographic progression in axial spondyloarthritis: a longitudinal Swiss cohort analysis over a period of 10 years.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex differences in spinal radiographic progression in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: AxSpA patients in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort with available spinal radiographs every 2 years were included. Paired radiographs were scored by two readers according to the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS). Progression was defined as an increase of ≥2 mSASSS units in 2 years. The relationship between sex and progression was investigated with binomial generalised estimating equation models, considering baseline spinal damage as an intermediate covariate. Additional analyses included adjustments for explanatory variables and multiple imputations for missingness. RESULTS: In a total of 505 axSpA patients (317 men and 188 women), mean±SD radiographic progression over 2 years was 1.0±2.8 years in men and 0.3±1.1 years in women (p<0.001). Male sex was associated with enhanced progression in a small model not including baseline damage (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.87 to 6.21). Both a direct effect of male sex on spinal progression, and an indirect effect, via enhancement of baseline spinal damage were significant (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.67 and OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, respectively). A significant impact of male sex on spinal radiographic progression was still demonstrated after multiple adjustments for covariates known to potentially affect spinal radiographic progression (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.71). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal radiographic progression in axSpA is more severe in men than in women, with three times higher odds of progression in male patients and an effect that is mediated in part through an increase in baseline radiographic damage.

Characterisation of patients with axial psoriatic arthritis and patients with axial spondyloarthritis and concomitant psoriasis in the SCQM registry.

BACKGROUND: Within the spectrum of spondyloarthritides, axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) present with overlapping features. Axial involvement in PsA (axial PsA) is treated according to recommendations for axSpA, as specific studies in axial PsA are scarce. We compared characteristics of patients with axSpA (particularly of patients with axSpA and concomitant psoriasis (pso)) with those of patients with axial PsA. METHODS: Patients with axSpA and PsA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management (SCQM) registry were included if information on pso and axial involvement was available. Patients with AxSpA were stratified by axSpA with and without pso (axSpA±pso) and patients with PsA were stratified to axial PsA or strictly peripheral PsA. RESULTS: Previous or current psoriasis was observed in 479/4489 patients with axSpA (10.7%). Of 2631 patients with PsA, 1153 (43.8%) presented with axial involvement (opinion of the treating rheumatologist). Compared with patients with axSpA+pso, patients with axial PsA were older at symptom onset and at inclusion in SCQM, were less frequently HLA-B27 positive, had back pain less frequently and a higher prevalence of dactylitis and peripheral arthritis. A positive family history of pso or PsA was more frequent in axial PsA, while a positive family history of axSpA was more frequent in patients with axSpA+pso. Disease activity, function and mobility were comparable in axSpA+pso versus axial PsA. CONCLUSION: Patients with axial PsA differ from patients with axSpA+pso in important demographic and clinical characteristics, and genetically, but present with a comparable disease burden. Treatment studies specifically dedicated to axial PsA seem warranted.

Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial. METHODS: Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms.

Deep transformation models for functional outcome prediction after acute ischemic stroke.

In many medical applications, interpretable models with high prediction performance are sought. Often, those models are required to handle semistructured data like tabular and image data. We show how to apply deep transformation models (DTMs) for distributional regression that fulfill these requirements. DTMs allow the data analyst to specify (deep) neural networks for different input modalities making them applicable to various research questions. Like statistical models, DTMs can provide interpretable effect estimates while achieving the state-of-the-art prediction performance of deep neural networks. In addition, the construction of ensembles of DTMs that retain model structure and interpretability allows quantifying epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty. In this study, we compare several DTMs, including baseline-adjusted models, trained on a semistructured data set of 407 stroke patients with the aim to predict ordinal functional outcome three months after stroke. We follow statistical principles of model-building to achieve an adequate trade-off between interpretability and flexibility while assessing the relative importance of the involved data modalities. We evaluate the models for an ordinal and dichotomized version of the outcome as used in clinical practice. We show that both tabular clinical and brain imaging data are useful for functional outcome prediction, whereas models based on tabular data only outperform those based on imaging data only. There is no substantial evidence for improved prediction when combining both data modalities. Overall, we highlight that DTMs provide a powerful, interpretable approach to analyzing semistructured data and that they have the potential to support clinical decision-making.

Enoxaparin for primary thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 (OVID): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: OVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed. FINDINGS: At the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates. FUNDING: SNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.