Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the EMPACT-MI trial.

AIMS: Empagliflozin has been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those with heart failure. The impact of empagliflozin in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Study to Test the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (EMPACT-MI) trial screened 6610 participants with AMI and randomized 6522 to empagliflozin or placebo in addition to standard of care. The median (interquartile) age was 64 (56-71) years and 75.1% of patients were male. Major comorbidities included hypertension (69.1%), type 2 diabetes (31.7%), prior myocardial infarction (13.0%), and atrial fibrillation (10.9%). The majority (74.3%) of patients presented with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Overall, 56.9% of patients had acute signs or symptoms of congestion requiring treatment and 78.3% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction with ejection fraction <45%. Clinical characteristics, including baseline demographics, rates of revascularization, and cardiovascular medications at discharge were largely comparable to recent trials of the post-AMI population. CONCLUSION: The EMPACT-MI trial will establish the benefit and risks of empagliflozin treatment in patients with AMI.

Surgery in degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion improve outcome in subgroups? A secondary analysis from a randomized trial (NORDSTEN trial).

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis are treated surgically with decompression alone or decompression with fusion. However, there is debate regarding which subgroups of patients may benefit from additional fusion. PURPOSE: To investigate possible treatment effect modifiers and prognostic variables among patients operated for spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. DESIGN: A secondary exploratory study using data from the Norwegian Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis (NORDSTEN-DS) trial. Patients were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample in this study consists of 267 patients from a randomized multicenter trial involving 16 hospitals in Norway. Patients were enrolled from February 12, 2014, to December 18, 2017. The study did not include patients with degenerative scoliosis, severe foraminal stenosis, multilevel spondylolisthesis, or previous surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was an improvement of ≥ 30% on the Oswestry Disability Index score (ODI) from baseline to 2-year follow-up. METHODS: When investigating possible variables that could modify the treatment effect, we analyzed the treatment arms separately. When testing for prognostic factors we analyzed the whole cohort (both treatment groups). We used univariate and multiple regression analyses. The selection of variables was done a priori, according to the published trial protocol. RESULTS: Of the 267 patients included in the trial (183 female [67%]; mean [SD] age, 66 [7.6] years), complete baseline data for the variables required for the present analysis were available for 205 of the 267 individuals. We did not find any clinical or radiological variables at baseline that modified the treatment effect. Thus, none of the commonly used criteria for selecting patients for fusion surgery influenced the chosen primary outcome in the two treatment arms. For the whole cohort, less comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification [ASA], OR = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI [1.16-16.67]) and more preoperative leg pain (OR = 1.23; CI [1.02-1.50]) were significantly associated with an improved primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this study on patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, neither previously defined instability criteria nor other pre-specified baseline variables were associated with better clinical outcome if fusion surgery was performed. None of the analyzed variables can be applied to guide the decision for fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. For both treatment groups, less comorbidity and more leg pain were associated with improved outcome 2 years after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NORDSTEN-DS ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02051374.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Findings in Patients Recovered from COVID-19 Pneumonia and Presenting with Persistent Cardiac Symptoms: The TRICITY-CMR Trial.

The prevalence and clinical consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related non-ischemic cardiac injury are under investigation. The main purpose of this study was to determine the occurrence of non-ischemic cardiac injury using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in patients with persistent cardiac symptoms following recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia. We conducted a single-center, cross-sectional study. Between January 2021 and May 2021, we enrolled 121 patients with a recent COVID-19 infection and persistent cardiac symptoms. Study participants were divided into those who required hospitalization during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 58; 47.9%) and those non-hospitalized (n = 63; 52.1%). Non-ischemic cardiac injury (defined as the presence of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) lesion and/or active myocarditis in CMR) was detected in over half of post-COVID-19 patients (n = 64; 52.9%). LGE lesions were present in 63 (52.1%) and active myocarditis in 10 (8.3%) post-COVID-19 study participants. The majority of LGE lesions were located in the left ventricle at inferior and inferolateral segments at the base. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of LGE lesions (35 (60.3%) vs. 28 (44.4%); p = 0.117) or active myocarditis (6 (10.3%) vs. 4 (6.3%); p = 0.517) between hospitalized and non-hospitalized post-COVID-19 patients. However, CMR imaging revealed lower right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF; 49.5 (44; 54) vs. 53 (50; 58) %; p = 0.001) and more frequent presence of reduced RVEF (60.3% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.005) in the former subgroup. In conclusion, more than half of our patients presenting with cardiac symptoms after a recent recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia had CMR imaging abnormalities indicating non-ischemic cardiac injury. The most common finding was LGE, while active myocarditis was detected in the minority of patients. CMR imaging abnormalities were observed both in previously hospitalized and non-hospitalized post-COVID-19 patients. Further research is needed to determine the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19 infection and the optimal management of patients with suspected post-COVID-19 non-ischemic cardiac injury.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial.

AIM: To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups. RESULTS: Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

Missing focus on Human Factors - organizational and cognitive ergonomics - in the safety management for the petroleum industry.

More attention has recently been given to Human Factors in petroleum accident investigations. The Human Factors areas examined in this article are organizational, cognitive and physical ergonomics. A key question to be explored is as follows: To what degree are the petroleum industry and safety authorities in Norway focusing on these Human Factors areas from the design phase? To investigate this, we conducted an innovative exploratory study of the development of four control centres in Norwegian oil and gas industry in collaboration between users, management and Human Factors experts. We also performed a literature survey and discussion with the professional Human Factors network in Norway. We investigated the Human Factors focus, reasons for not considering Human Factors and consequences of missing Human Factors in safety management. The results revealed an immature focus and organization of Human Factors. Expertise on organizational ergonomics and cognitive ergonomics are missing from companies and safety authorities and are poorly prioritized during the development. The easy observable part of Human Factors (i.e. physical ergonomics) is often in focus. Poor focus on Human Factors in the design process creates demanding conditions for human operators and impact safety and resilience. There is lack of non-technical skills such as communication and decision-making. New technical equipment such as Closed Circuit Television is implemented without appropriate use of Human Factors standards. Human Factors expertise should be involved as early as possible in the responsible organizations. Verification and validation of Human Factors should be improved and performed from the start, by certified Human Factors experts in collaboration with the workforce. The authorities should check-back that the regulatory framework of Human Factors is communicated, understood and followed.

Comparison of empagliflozin and glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 104-week randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is the recommended first-line pharmacotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. There is no consensus on the optimum second-line pharmacotherapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin and the sulfonylurea glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this double-blind phase 3 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7-10%, despite metformin treatment and diet and exercise counselling, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with a computer-generated random sequence, stratified by HbA1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and region, to empagliflozin (25 mg once daily, orally) or glimepiride (1-4 mg once daily, orally) as add-on to metformin for 104 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c levels at weeks 52 and 104. Differences in the primary endpoint were first tested for non-inferiority (based on a margin of 0·3%). If non-inferiority was shown, differences in the primary endpoint at week 104 were then tested for superiority. Analysis was done on the full-analysis set-ie, patients who were treated with at least one dose of study drug and had a baseline HbA1c value. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01167881. A 104-week extension is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between August, 2010, and June, 2011, 1549 patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (n=769) or glimepiride (n=780); four patients in the empagliflozin group did not receive the assigned treatment. Empagliflozin was non-inferior to glimepiride at both timepoints. At week 104, adjusted mean difference in change from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin versus glimepiride was -0·11% (95% CI -0·19 to -0·02; p=0·0153 for superiority). Adverse events were reported in 661 (86%) patients treated with empagliflozin and 673 (86%) patients treated with glimepiride. Severe adverse events were reported in 72 (9%) patients in the empagliflozin group and 68 (9%) in the glimepiride group. Serious adverse events were reported in 119 (16%) patients in the empagliflozin group and 89 (11%) in the glimepiride group. Confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events (plasma glucose ≤3·9 mmol/L or requiring assistance) at week 104 were reported in 19 (2%) patients treated with empagliflozin and 189 (24%) patients treated with glimepiride. INTERPRETATION: Empagliflozin might be an effective and a well tolerated second-line treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes who have not achieved good glycaemic control on metformin. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.