Adverse childhood experiences and the development of multimorbidity across adulthood—a national 70-year cohort study

AIM: To examine impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) on rates and development of multimorbidity across three decades in adulthood. METHODS: Sample: Participants from the 1946 National Survey of Health and Development, who attended the age 36 assessment in 1982 and follow-up assessments (ages 43, 53, 63, 69; N = 3,264, 51% males). Prospectively collected data on nine ACEs was grouped into (i) psychosocial, (ii) parental health and (iii) childhood health. For each group, we calculated cumulative ACE scores, categorised into 0, 1 and ≥2 ACEs. Multimorbidity was estimated as the total score of 18 health disorders.Serial cross-sectional linear regression was used to estimate associations between grouped ACEs and multimorbidity during follow-up. Longitudinal analysis of ACE-associated changes in multimorbidity trajectories across follow-up was estimated using linear mixed-effects modelling for ACE groups (adjusted for sex and childhood socioeconomic circumstances). FINDINGS: Accumulation of psychosocial and childhood health ACEs were associated with progressively higher multimorbidity scores throughout follow-up. For example, those with ≥2 psychosocial ACEs experienced 0.20(95% CI 0.07, 0.34) more disorders at age 36 than those with none, rising to 0.61(0.18, 1.04) disorders at age 69.All three grouped ACEs were associated with greater rates of accumulation and higher multimorbidity trajectories across adulthood. For example, individuals with ≥2 psychosocial ACEs developed 0.13(-0.09, 0.34) more disorders between ages 36 and 43, 0.29(0.06, 0.52) disorders between ages 53 and 63, and 0.30(0.09, 0.52) disorders between ages 63 and 69 compared with no psychosocial ACEs. INTERPRETATIONS: ACEs are associated with widening inequalities in multimorbidity development in adulthood and early old age. Public health policies should aim to reduce these disparities through individual and population-level interventions

Cryoballoon versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-analysis of 16 Clinical Trials.

Introduction: We aimed to study the procedural characteristics, efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to clinical trials comparing CBA and RFA for AF. Outcomes were evaluated for efficacy, procedure characteristics and safety. For each study, odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for endpoints for both approaches. Results: We analyzed a total of 9,957 participants (3,369 in the CBA and 6,588 in RFA group) enrolled in 16 clinical trials. No significant difference was observed between CBA and RFA with regards to freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12-months, recurrent atrial arrhythmias or repeat catheter ablation. CBA group had a significantly higher transient phrenic nerve injury (OR 14.19, 95% CI: 6.92-29.10;

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Right Ventricular Apical Versus Non-Apical Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction We aimed to study the effect of right ventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead positioning on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing ICD placement. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trials comparing outcomes in patients with ICD leads in apical and non-apical positions. The primary outcome of our study was death at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes studied were “death at 3 years”, “total number of shocks”, “appropriate shocks”, “inappropriate shocks” and “cut-to-suture time”. Results We analyzed a total of 3731 patients (2852 in apical and 879 in non-apical ICD groups) enrolled in 4 clinical trials. No significant difference was observed between the apical and non-apical ICD groups in all-cause mortality at 1 year (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.51–1.49, p = 0.63; I2 = 5.32%). Similarly, no differences were seen between the two groups in death at 3 years (OR = 0.76; 95%CI 0.56–1.04, p = 0.08; I2 = 0%), total number of shocks (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81–1.22, p = 0.95; I2 = 0%), appropriate shocks (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79–1.27, p = 0.99; I2 = 0%), inappropriate shocks (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.70–1.37, p = 0.91; I2 = 0%) and cut-to-suture time (Standard mean difference = −0.03; 95%CI -0.20 to 0.14, p = 0.73 I2 = 0%). No publication bias was seen. Conclusion Non-apical RV ICD lead implantation is non-inferior to traditional RV apical position with no significant differences in mortality, total number of shocks, appropriate shocks, inappropriate shocks and procedural time

Safety and efficacy of oral factor-Xa inhibitors versus Vitamin K antagonist in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Meta-analysis of phase II and III randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Aim of our study was to assess the safety and efficacy on factor-Xa inhibitors (FXIs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) as compared to Vitamin K antagonist (VKA). METHODS: Phase II and III randomized controlled trials that reported clinical safety and efficacy of FXI in patients with NVAF were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through December 10, 2015. The primary safety outcome of our study was composite of stroke and systemic embolic event. Secondary outcomes studied were individual endpoints of primary safety outcome, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleed (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with a total of 59,164 participants, of which 34,231 patients received oral FXI and 24,933 patients were on VKA with a mean follow-up of 369days. There was a significant reduction in primary outcome with FXI compared to VKA, 1,112 (3.4%) versus 816 (3.6%) events, respectively (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.99). Use of FXI significantly reduced major bleeding events compared to VKA, OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.96, test for heterogeneity (I(2)=74%). Incidence of CRNMB was not different between FXI and VKA groups, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68-1.04. There was a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in FXI group compared to VKA group, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94 with no significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Use of FXI was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding events and all-cause mortality without increased risk of stroke or SEE compared to VKA

Right vVentricular Apical Versus Non-Apical Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator lead: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to study the effect of right ventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead positioning on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing ICD placement. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trials comparing outcomes in patients with ICD leads in apical and non-apical positions. The primary outcome of our study was death at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes studied were death at 3years , total number of shocks , appropriate shocks , inappropriate shocks and cut-to-suture time . RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 3731 patients (2852 in apical and 879 in non-apical ICD groups) enrolled in 4 clinical trials. No significant difference was observed between the apical and non-apical ICD groups in all-cause mortality at 1year (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.51-1.49, p=0.63; I(2)=5.32%). Similarly, no differences were seen between the two groups in death at 3years (OR=0.76; 95% CI 0.56-1.04, p=0.08; I(2)=0%), total number of shocks (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81-1.22, p=0.95; I(2)=0%), appropriate shocks (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79-1.27, p=0.99; I(2)=0%), inappropriate shocks (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.70-1.37, p=0.91; I(2)=0%) and cut-to-suture time (Standard mean difference=-0.03; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.14, p=0.73; I(2)=0%). No publication bias was seen. CONCLUSION: Non-apical RV ICD lead implantation is non-inferior to traditional RV apical position with no significant differences in mortality, total number of shocks, appropriate shocks, inappropriate shocks and procedural time

Growth kinetics and immune response of chimeric foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype `O' produced through replication competent mini genome of serotype Asia 1, 63/72, in BHK cell lines

Regular vaccinations with potent vaccine, in endemic countries and vaccination to live in non-endemic countries are the methods available to control foot-and-mouth disease. Selection of candidate vaccine strain is not only cumbersome but the candidate should grow well for high potency vaccine preparation. Alternative strategy is to generate an infectious cDNA of a cell culture-adapted virus and use the replicon for development of tailor-made vaccines. We produced a chimeric `O' virus in the backbone of Asia 1 and studied its characteristics. The chimeric virus showed high infectivity titre (>10(10)) in BHK 21 cell lines, revealed small plague morphology and there was no cross reactivity with antiserum against Asia I. The virus multiplies rapidly and reaches peak at 12 h post infection. The vaccine prepared with this virus elicited high antibody titres