External validation of the ADA score for predicting thrombosis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients from the APEX Trial.

The ADA (Age-D-dimer-Albumin) score was developed to identify hospitalized patients at an increased risk for thrombosis in the coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) setting. The study aimed to validate the ADA score for predicting thrombosis in a non-COVID-19 medically ill population from the APEX trial. The APEX trial was a multinational, randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of betrixaban vs. enoxaparin among acutely ill hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. The study endpoints included the composite of arterial or venous thrombosis and its components. Metrics of model calibration and discrimination were computed for assessing the performance of the ADA score as compared to the IMPROVE score, a well-validated VTE risk assessment model. Among 7,119 medical inpatients, 209 (2.9%) had a thrombosis event up to 77 days of follow-up. The ADA score demonstrated good calibration for both arterial and venous thrombosis, whereas the IMPROVE score had adequate calibration for venous thrombosis (p > 0.05 from the Hosmer-Lemeshow test). For discriminating arterial and venous thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.620 [95% CI: 0.582 to 0.657] vs. 0.590 [95% CI: 0.556 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.030 [95% CI: -0.022 to 0.081]; p = 0.255). Similarly, for discriminating arterial thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.582 [95% CI: 0.534 to 0.629] vs. 0.609 [95% CI: 0.564 to 0.653]; ∆ c statistic = -0.027 [95% CI: -0.091 to 0.036]; p = 0.397). For discriminating venous thrombosis, the ADA score was modestly superior to the IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.664 [95% CI: 0.607 to 0.722] vs. 0.573 [95% CI: 0.521 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.091 [95% CI: 0.011 to 0.172]; p = 0.026). The ADA score had a higher sensitivity (0.579 [95% CI: 0.512 to 0.646]; vs. 0.440 [95% CI: 0.373 to 0.507]) but lower specificity (0.625 [95% CI: 0.614 to 0.637] vs. 0.747 [95% CI: 0.737 to 0.758]) than the IMPROVE score for predicting thrombosis. Among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients enrolled in the APEX trial, the ADA score demonstrated good calibration but suboptimal discrimination for predicting thrombosis. The findings support the use of either the ADA or IMPROVE score for thrombosis risk assessment. The applicability of the ADA score to non-COVID-19 populations warrants further research.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01583218.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

Background: The ISCHEMIA trial compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes over a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. Methods: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy (INV) added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy (CON). Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as pre-specified in the trial protocol. Results: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23 % women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% diabetes, and median EF 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 non-cardiovascular deaths and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate 12.7% in INV, 13.4% in CON; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.18). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% vs. 8.6%, adjusted HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of non-cardiovascular mortality (5.6% vs. 4.4%, adjusted HR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.08-1.91) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. Conclusions: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of non-cardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy over a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04894877; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894877.

Gender Disparities in Cardiology-Related COVID-19 Publications.

INTRODUCTION: Female authors are underrepresented in cardiology journals, although prior work suggested improvement in reducing disparities over time. Early in the recent COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship continued to lag that of their male counterparts despite a surge in publications. The cumulative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on authorship gender disparities remains unclear. We aimed to characterize gender disparities in COVID-19-related cardiology publications across the duration of the ongoing pandemic. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19-related research articles published in the top 20 impact factor cardiology journals between March and June 2021. Gender representation data were extracted for any author, first authors, and senior authors. RESULTS: We found that 841 articles were related to COVID-19, with a total of 5586 authors and an average of 42 articles per journal. Less than a third (29.9%) of the total authors from publications were women. Women represented a smaller proportion of first authors (21.3%) and senior authors (16.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Female authorship has continued to lag male authorship for the duration of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic may have impeded progress in reducing gender disparities in academic cardiology publications. The low proportions of first and senior female authors may reflect the impact of the pandemic on women in cardiology in leadership domains.

Taking a Stand Against Air Pollution - The Impact on Cardiovascular Disease: A Joint Opinion from the World Heart Federation, American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the attention of the world and the global health community specifically is deservedly focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, other determinants of health continue to have large impacts and may also interact with COVID-19. Air pollution is one crucial example. Established evidence from other respiratory viruses and emerging evidence for COVID-19 specifically indicates that air pollution alters respiratory defense mechanisms leading to worsened infection severity. Air pollution also contributes to co-morbidities that are known to worsen outcomes amongst those infected with COVID-19, and air pollution may also enhance infection transmission due to its impact on more frequent coughing. Yet despite the massive disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are reasons for optimism: broad societal lockdowns have shown us a glimpse of what a future with strong air pollution measures could yield. Thus, the urgency to combat air pollution is not diminished, but instead heightened in the context of the pandemic.

The impact of novel coronavirus COVID-19 on noncommunicable disease patients and health systems: a review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing global pandemic affecting all levels of health systems. This includes the care of patients with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) who bear a disproportionate burden of both COVID-19 itself and the public health measures enacted to combat it. In this review, we summarize major COVID-19-related considerations for NCD patients and their care providers, focusing on cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, haematologic, oncologic, traumatic, obstetric/gynaecologic, operative, psychiatric, rheumatologic/immunologic, neurologic, gastrointestinal, ophthalmologic and endocrine disorders. Additionally, we offer a general framework for categorizing the pandemic's disruptions by disease-specific factors, direct health system factors and indirect health system factors. We also provide references to major NCD medical specialty professional society statements and guidelines on COVID-19. COVID-19 and its control policies have already resulted in major disruptions to the screening, treatment and surveillance of NCD patients. In addition, it differentially impacts those with pre-existing NCDs and may lead to de novo NCD sequelae. Likely, there will be long-term effects from this pandemic that will continue to affect practitioners and patients in this field for years to come.

Taking a stand against air pollution - the impact on cardiovascular disease.

Although the attention of the world and the global health community specifically is deservedly focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, other determinants of health continue to have large impacts and may also interact with COVID-19. Air pollution is one crucial example. Established evidence from other respiratory viruses and emerging evidence for COVID-19 specifically indicates that air pollution alters respiratory defense mechanisms leading to worsened infection severity. Air pollution also contributes to co-morbidities that are known to worsen outcomes amongst those infected with COVID-19, and air pollution may also enhance infection transmission due to its impact on more frequent coughing. Yet despite the massive disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are reasons for optimism: broad societal lockdowns have shown us a glimpse of what a future with strong air pollution measures could yield. Thus, the urgency to combat air pollution is not diminished, but instead heightened in the context of the pandemic.