| 1. |
- Smart, Sophie E., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical predictors of antipsychotic treatment resistance: Development and internal validation of a prognostic prediction model by the STRATA-G consortium
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Schizophrenia Research. - : Elsevier. - 0920-9964 .- 1573-2509. ; 250
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IntroductionOur aim was to, firstly, identify characteristics at first-episode of psychosis that are associated with later antipsychotic treatment resistance (TR) and, secondly, to develop a parsimonious prediction model for TR.MethodsWe combined data from ten prospective, first-episode psychosis cohorts from across Europe and categorised patients as TR or non-treatment resistant (NTR) after a mean follow up of 4.18 years (s.d. = 3.20) for secondary data analysis. We identified a list of potential predictors from clinical and demographic data recorded at first-episode. These potential predictors were entered in two models: a multivariable logistic regression to identify which were independently associated with TR and a penalised logistic regression, which performed variable selection, to produce a parsimonious prediction model. This model was internally validated using a 5-fold, 50-repeat cross-validation optimism-correction.ResultsOur sample consisted of N = 2216 participants of which 385 (17 %) developed TR. Younger age of psychosis onset and fewer years in education were independently associated with increased odds of developing TR. The prediction model selected 7 out of 17 variables that, when combined, could quantify the risk of being TR better than chance. These included age of onset, years in education, gender, BMI, relationship status, alcohol use, and positive symptoms. The optimism-corrected area under the curve was 0.59 (accuracy = 64 %, sensitivity = 48 %, and specificity = 76 %).ImplicationsOur findings show that treatment resistance can be predicted, at first-episode of psychosis. Pending a model update and external validation, we demonstrate the potential value of prediction models for TR.
|
|
| 2. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
