| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Norkin, Maxim, et al.
(author)
-
Characteristics of Late Fatal Infections after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
- 2019
-
In: Biology of blood and marrow transplantation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1083-8791 .- 1523-6536. ; 25:2, s. 362-368
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We analyzed late fatal infections (LFIs) in allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HCT) recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. We analyzed the incidence, infection types, and risk factors contributing to LFI in 10,336 adult and 5088 pediatric subjects surviving for ≥2 years after first HCT without relapse. Among 2245 adult and 377 pediatric patients who died, infections were a primary or contributory cause of death in 687 (31%) and 110 (29%), respectively. At 12 years post-HCT, the cumulative incidence of LFIs was 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8% to 7.0%) in adults, compared with 1.8% (95% CI, 1.4% to 2.3%) in pediatric subjects; P < .001). In adults, the 2 most significant risks for developing LFI were increasing age (20 to 39, 40 to 54, and ≥55 years versus 18 to 19 years) with hazard ratios (HRs) of 3.12 (95% CI, 1.33 to 7.32), 3.86 (95% CI, 1.66 to 8.95), and 5.49 (95% CI, 2.32 to 12.99) and a history of chronic graft-versus-host disease GVHD (cGVHD) with ongoing immunosuppression at 2 years post-HCT compared with no history of GVHD with (HR, 3.87; 95% CI, 2.59 to 5.78). In pediatric subjects, the 3 most significant risks for developing LFI were a history of cGVHD with ongoing immunosuppression (HR, 9.49; 95% CI, 4.39 to 20.51) or without ongoing immunosuppression (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.05 to 7.43) at 2 years post-HCT compared with no history of GVHD, diagnosis of inherited abnormalities of erythrocyte function compared with diagnosis of acute myelogenous leukemia (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.42), and age >10 years (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.2). This study emphasizes the importance of continued vigilance for late infections after HCT and institution of support strategies aimed at decreasing the risk of cGVHD.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Pennells, Lisa, et al.
(author)
-
Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration : individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies
- 2019
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 40:7, s. 621-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after ‘recalibration’, a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at ‘high’ 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29–39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22–24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44–51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37–39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.
|
|
