Surrogate Adiposity Markers and Mortality.

Importance: Body mass index (BMI) is an easily obtained adiposity surrogate. However, there is variability in body composition and adipose tissue distribution between individuals with the same BMI, and there is controversy regarding the BMI associated with the lowest mortality risk. Objective: To evaluate which of BMI, fat mass index (FMI), and waist-to-hip (WHR) has the strongest and most consistent association with mortality. Design, Setting, and Participant: This cohort study used incident deaths from the UK Biobank (UKB; 2006-2022), which includes data from 22 clinical assessment centers across the United Kingdom. UKB British participants of British White ancestry (N = 387 672) were partitioned into a discovery cohort (n = 337 078) and validation cohort (n = 50 594), with the latter consisting of 25 297 deaths and 25 297 controls. The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses. Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. Exposures: BMI, FMI, and WHR. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause and cause-specific (cancer, cardiovascular disease [CVD], respiratory disease, or other causes) mortality. Results: There were 387 672 and 50 594 participants in our observational (mean [SD] age, 56.9 [8.0] years; 177 340 [45.9%] male, 210 332 [54.2%], female), and MR (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [6.2] years; 30 031 [59.3%] male, 20 563 [40.6%], female) analyses, respectively. Associations between measured BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality were J-shaped, whereas the association of WHR with all-cause mortality was linear using the hazard ratio (HR) scale (HR per SD increase of WHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.38-1.43]). Genetically determined WHR had a stronger association with all-cause mortality than BMI (odds ratio [OR] per SD increase of WHR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.32-1.72]; OR per SD increase of BMI, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20-1.38]; P for heterogeneity = .02). This association was stronger in male than female participants (OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.54-2.32]; P for heterogeneity = .01). Unlike BMI or FMI, the genetically determined WHR-all-cause mortality association was consistent irrespective of observed BMI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, WHR had the strongest and most consistent association with mortality irrespective of BMI. Clinical recommendations should consider focusing on adiposity distribution compared with mass.

Assessing Primary Care Blood Pressure Documentation for Hypertension Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Patient and Provider Groups.

Background: Primary care electronic medical record (EMR) data can be used to identify, manage, and screen hypertension cases. However, this approach relies on completeness and accessibility of documented blood pressure (BP) values. With the large switch to virtual care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we assessed BP documentation in primary care EMRs during the pandemic, across patient and physician groups. Methods: Hypertension-related visits were identified during the pre-pandemic (January 2017 to February 2020) and pandemic (March 2020 to December 2021) periods from a primary care EMR database in Ontario, Canada. Clustered logistic regression models were used to analyze the relationship of physician and patient characteristics with an outcome variable of documented BP. A chart review of 3200 hypertension visits without a BP recorded in structured data fields was conducted to determine if BP was recorded in progress notes. Results: Pre-pandemic, 75.7% of hypertension-related visits (113,966 of 150,511) had a BP recorded in structured documentation, but this significantly decreased to 36.4% (26,660 of 73,239) during the pandemic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.19). For virtual visits, 14.3% (6357 of 44,572) had a documented BP, vs 74.0% (20,056 of 27,089) for in-person visits. Chart review found that 55.9% of hypertension visits had no associated BP in structured documentation, but did have a BP recorded in the progress note. Male providers, compared to female providers, were less likely to record BPs pre-pandemic (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32-0.63) and during the pandemic, for both virtual visits (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.32-0.71) and in-person visits (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.33-0.64). Conclusions: BP documented in primary care EMRs declined during the pandemic, most likely due to high rates of virtual visits impacting hypertension detection and management.

Contexte: Les données des dossiers médicaux électroniques (DME) provenant des soins primaires peuvent être utilisées pour détecter, prendre en charge et dépister les cas d'hypertension. Cependant, cette approche dépend de l'accessibilité et de l'exhaustivité des valeurs de pression artérielle (PA) consignées aux dossiers. Étant donné l'important passage aux soins virtuels attribuable à la pandémie de COVID-19, nous avons évalué la façon dont la PA avait été consignée dans les DME de soins primaires pendant la pandémie, parmi des groupes de patients et de médecins. Méthodologie: Les consultations liées à l'hypertension pendant les périodes pré-pandémique (de janvier 2017 à février 2020) et pandémique (de mars 2020 à décembre 2021) ont été recueillies d'une banque de données de DME de soins primaires en Ontario (Canada). Des modèles de régression logistique regroupée ont été utilisés pour analyser le lien entre les caractéristiques des médecins et de patients et une variable de résultats des PA consignées. Une revue des dossiers portant sur 3200 consultations pour hypertension sans consignation de la PA dans les champs de données structurés a été effectuée afin de déterminer si la PA avait été notée dans les notes d'évolution. Résultats: Avant la pandémie, la PA avait été consignée dans une documentation structurée pour 75,7 % (113 966 sur 150 511) des consultations pour hypertension, mais cette proportion a chuté considérablement à 36,4 % (26 660 sur 73 239) pendant la pandémie (rapport des cotes [RC] = 0,18; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 0,18-0,19). Pour ce qui est des consultations virtuelles, la PA a été consignée dans 14,3 % (6357 sur 44 572) des cas, comparativement à 74,0 % (20 056 sur 27 089) pour les consultations en personne. Une analyse des dossiers a révélé que pour 55,9 % des consultations pour hypertension, aucune mesure de PA ne figurait dans la documentation structurée, mais qu'une valeur de PA avait toutefois été consignée dans les notes d'évolution. Les professionnels de la santé masculins, comparativement aux femmes, ont été moins susceptibles de consigner les valeurs de PA avant la pandémie (RC = 0,45; IC à 95 % : 0,32-0,63) et pendant la pandémie, tant lors des consultations virtuelles (RC = 0,48; IC à 95 % : 0,32-0,71) que des consultations en personne (RC = 0,46; IC à 95 % : 0,33-0,64). Conclusions: L'inscription des valeurs de PA dans les DME de soins primaires a décliné pendant la pandémie, fort probablement en raison de la proportion élevée de consultations virtuelles, ce qui a eu une incidence sur la détection et la prise en charge de l'hypertension.

Cost-Effectiveness of Polygenic Risk Scores to Guide Statin Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are leading causes of death despite effective therapies and result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality throughout the world. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk scores (PRS) to guide statin therapy for Canadians with intermediate CVD risk and model its economic outlook. METHODS: This cost-utility analysis was conducted using UK Biobank prospective cohort study participants, with recruitment from 2006 to 2010, and at least 10 years of follow-up. We included nonrelated white British-descent participants (n=96 116) at intermediate CVD risk with no prior lipid lowering medication or statin-indicated conditions. A coronary artery disease PRS was used to inform decision to use statins. The effects of statin therapy with and without PRS, as well as CVD events were modelled to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a Canadian public health care perspective. We discounted future costs and quality-adjusted life-years by 1.5% annually. RESULTS: The optimal economic strategy was when intermediate risk individuals with a PRS in the top 70% are eligible for statins while the lowest 1% are excluded. Base-case analysis at a genotyping cost of $70 produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $172 906 (143 685 USD) per quality-adjusted life-year. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the intervention has approximately a 50% probability of being cost-effective at $179 100 (148 749 USD) per quality-adjusted life-year. At a $0 genotyping cost, representing individuals with existing genotyping information, PRS-guided strategies dominated standard care when 12% of the lowest PRS individuals were withheld from statins. With improved PRS predictive performance and lower genotyping costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio demonstrates possible cost-effectiveness under thresholds of $150 000 and possibly $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that using PRS alongside existing guidelines might be cost-effective for CVD. Stronger predictiveness combined with decreased cost of PRS could further improve cost-effectiveness, providing an economic basis for its inclusion into clinical care.

Inhaled corticosteroids, COPD, and the incidence of lung cancer: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been debate on whether inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce the incidence of lung cancer amongst patients with Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (COPD). We aimed to perform a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis on available observational data. METHODS: We performed both a dose response and high versus low random effects meta-analysis on observational studies measuring whether lung cancer incidence was lower in patients using ICS with COPD. We report relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as risk difference. We use the GRADE framework to report our results. RESULTS: Our dose-response suggested a reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for every 500 ug/day of fluticasone equivalent ICS (RR 0.82 [95% 0.68-0.95]). Using a baseline risk of 7.2%, we calculated risk difference of 14 fewer cases per 1000 ([95% CI 24.7-3.8 fewer]). Similarly, our results suggested that for every 1000 ug/day of fluticasone equivalent ICS, there was a larger reduction in incidence of lung cancer (RR 0.68 [0.44-0.93]), with a risk difference of 24.7 fewer cases per 1000 ([95% CI 43.2-5.4 fewer]). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low, due to risk of bias and inconsistency. CONCLUSION: There may be a reduction in the incidence for lung cancer in COPD patients who use ICS. However, the quality of the evidence is low to very low, therefore, we are limited in making strong claims about the true effect of ICS on lung cancer incidence.

The Comparative Effectiveness of Vasoactive Treatments for Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Evidence examining commonly used drug treatments remains uncertain. We assessed the comparative effectiveness of inpatient treatments for HRS by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible RCTs that enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 HRS. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Our main outcomes are all-cause mortality, HRS reversal, and serious adverse events. Of 3,079 citations, we included 26 RCTs examining 1,736 patients. Based on pooled analysis, terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo (142 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, >87.7 to >210.9]; high certainty). Norepinephrine (112.7 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, 52.6 to >192.3]) may increase HRS reversal compared with placebo (low certainty). The effect of midodrine+octreotide (67.8 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, <2.8 to >177.4]; very low) on HRS reversal is uncertain. Terlipressin may reduce mortality compared with placebo (93.7 fewer deaths [95% CI, 168.7 to <12.5]; low certainty). Terlipressin probably increases the risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo (20.4 more events per 1,000 [95% CI, <5.1 to >51]; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo. Terlipressin may reduce mortality. Until access to terlipressin improves, initial norepinephrine administration may be more appropriate than initial trial with midodrine+octreotide. Our review has the potential to inform future guideline and practice in the treatment of HRS.

Guidelines are needed for studies of pre-treatment HIV drug resistance: a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been accompanied by an increase in pre-treatment drug resistance (PDR). While it is critical to monitor the increasing prevalence of PDR across countries and populations to inform optimal regimen selection, the completeness of reporting is often suboptimal, limiting the interpretation and generalizability of the results. Indeed, there is no formal guidance on how studies investigating the prevalence of drug resistance should be reported. Thus, we sought to determine the completeness of reporting in studies of PDR and the factors associated with sub-optimal reporting to ascertain the need for guidelines. METHODS: As part of a systematic review on the global prevalence of PDR in key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people, people who inject drugs and people in prisons), we searched 10 electronic databases until January 2019. We extracted information on selected study characteristics useful for interpreting prevalence data. Data were extracted in duplicate. Analyses of variance and correlation were used to explore factors that may explain the number of items reported. RESULTS: We found 650 studies of which 387 were screened as full text and 234 were deemed eligible. The included studies were published between 1997 and 2019 and included a median of 239 (quartile 1 = 101; quartile 3 = 778) participants. Most studies originated from high-income countries (125/234; 53.0%). Of 23 relevant data items, including study design, setting, participant sociodemographic characteristics, HIV risk factors, type of resistance test conducted, definition of resistance, the mean (standard deviation) number of items reported was 13 (2.2). We found that more items were reported in studies published more recently (r = 0.20; p < 0.002) and in studies at low risk of bias (F [2231] = 8.142; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete reporting in studies on PDR makes characterising levels of PDR in subpopulations across countries challenging. Hence, guidelines are needed to define a minimum set of variables to be included in such studies.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Probiotics for Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with celiac disease (CD) experience persistent symptoms despite adhering to the gluten-free diet. Different studies have assessed the use of probiotics as an adjuvant treatment for CD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in improving gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients with CD. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and DARE databases up to February 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating probiotics compared with placebo for treating CD. We collected data on GI symptoms, QOL, adverse events, serum tumor necrosis factor-α, intestinal permeability, and microbiota composition. RESULTS: We screened 2,831 records and found that 7 articles describing 6 RCTs (n = 279 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis. Probiotics improved GI symptoms when assessed by the GI Symptoms Rating Scale (mean difference symptom reduction: -28.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -43.96 to -13.52; P = 0.0002). There was no difference in GI symptoms after probiotics when different questionnaires were pooled. The levels of Bifidobacteria increased after probiotics (mean difference: 0.85 log colony-forming units (CFU) per gram; 95% CI 0.38-1.32 log CFU per gram; P = 0.0003). There were insufficient data on tumor necrosis factor-a levels or QOL for probiotics compared with placebo. No difference in adverse events was observed between probiotics and placebo. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. DISCUSSION: Probiotics may improve GI symptoms in patients with CD. High-quality clinical trials are needed to improve the certainty in the evidence (see Visual abstract, Supplementary Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B595).

Methods for the Selection of Covariates in Nutritional Epidemiology Studies: A Meta-Epidemiological Review.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies provide important information about the effects of exposures that cannot be easily studied in clinical trials, such as nutritional exposures, but are subject to confounding. Investigators adjust for confounders by entering them as covariates in analytic models. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting and credibility of methods for selection of covariates in nutritional epidemiology studies. METHODS: We sampled 150 nutritional epidemiology studies published in 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 from the top 5 high-impact nutrition and medical journals and extracted information on methods for selection of covariates. RESULTS: Most studies did not report selecting covariates a priori (94.0%) or criteria for selection of covariates (63.3%). There was general inconsistency in choice of covariates, even among studies investigating similar questions. One-third of studies did not acknowledge potential for residual confounding in their discussion. CONCLUSION: Studies often do not report methods for selection of covariates, follow available guidance for selection of covariates, nor discuss potential for residual confounding.