Educational status affects prognosis of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A post-hoc analysis from the WARCEF trial.

AIMS: The influence of social determinants of health (SDOH) on the prognosis of Heart Failure and reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) is increasingly reported. We aim to evaluate the contribution of educational status on outcomes in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We used data from the WARCEF trial, which randomized HFrEF patients with sinus rhythm to receive Warfarin or Aspirin; educational status of patients enrolled was collected at baseline. We defined three levels of education: low, medium and high level, according to the highest qualification achieved or highest school grade attended. We analysed the impact of the educational status on the risk of the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, ischemic stroke (IS) and intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH); components of the primary outcome were also analysed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 2295 patients were included in this analysis; of these, 992 (43.2%) had a low educational level, 947 (41.3%) had a medium education level and the remaining 356 (15.5%) showed a high educational level. Compared to patients with high educational level, those with low educational status showed a high risk of the primary composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.31, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.02-1.69); a non-statistically significant association was observed in those with medium educational level (aHR: 1.20, 95%CI: .93-1.55). Similar results were observed for all-cause death, while no statistically significant differences were observed for IS or ICH. CONCLUSION: Compared to patients with high educational levels, those with low educational status had worse prognosis. SDOH should be considered in patients with HFrEF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00041938.

Misuse of multinomial logistic regression in stroke related health research: A systematic review of methodology.

Multinomial logistic regression (MLR) is often used to model the association between a nominal outcome variable and one or more covariates. The results of MLR are interpreted as relative risk ratios (RRR) and warrant a more coherent interpretation than ordinary logistic regression. Some authors compare the results of MLR to ordinal logistic regression (OLR), irrespective of the fact that these estimate different quantities. We aim to investigate the time trends in the use and misuse of MLR in studies including stroke patients, specifically the extent to which (1) the results are denoted as anything other than RRR, (2) comparisons are made of results with results of OLR and (3) results have been interpreted coherently. Secondarily, we examine the use of model validation techniques in studies with predictive aims. We searched EMBASE and PubMed for articles using MLR on populations of stroke patients. Identified studies were screened, and information pertaining to our aims was extracted. A total of 285 articles were identified through a systematic literature search, and 68 of these were included in the review. Of these, 60 articles (88%) did not denote exponentiated coefficients of MLR as relative risk ratios but rather some other measure. Additionally, 63 articles (93%) interpreted the results of MLR in a non-coherent manner. Two articles attempted to compare MLR results with those of OLR. Nine studies attempted to use MLR for predictive means, and three used relevant validation techniques. From these findings, it is clear that the interpretation of MLR is often suboptimal.