Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Sotalol Versus Dronedarone After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Background Atrial tachyarrhythmias are common after atrial fibrillation ablation, so adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy is often used. Data on the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone and sotalol after AF ablation are limited. Here, we compared health outcomes of patients who underwent an ablation and were treated with dronedarone versus sotalol. Methods and Results A comparative analysis of propensity score–matched retrospective cohorts was performed using Merative™ (formerly IBM) MarketScan Research Databases. Patients treated with dronedarone after atrial fibrillation ablation were matched 1:1 to patients treated with sotalol between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017. Outcomes of interest included cardiovascular hospitalization, proarrhythmia, repeat ablation, and cardioversion. This study was exempt from institutional review board review. Among 37 589 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation, 2230 were treated with dronedarone and 3986 with sotalol after ablation. Propensity‐score matching resulted in 2224 patients receiving dronedarone matched 1:1 to patients receiving sotalol. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was lower with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73 [95% CI: 0.61–0.87]). 6 months (aHR, 0.73 [95% CI: 0.62–0.85] and 12 months after ablation (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI: 0.69–0.90]). Risk of repeat ablation and cardioversion generally did not differ between the 2 groups. A lower risk of proarrhythmia was associated with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66–0.89]), 6 months (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.70–0.91]), and 12 months (aHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75–0.95]) after ablation. Conclusions These data suggest that dronedarone may be a more effective and safer alternative after ablation than sotalol

Novel methodology for the evaluation of symptoms reported by patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation:Application of natural language processing to electronic medical records data

Introduction: Understanding symptom patterns in atrial fibrillation (AF) can help in disease management. We report on the application of natural language processing (NLP) to electronic medical records (EMRs) to capture symptom reports in patients with newly diagnosed (incident) AF. Methods and Results: This observational retrospective study included adult patients with an index diagnosis of incident AF during January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, in the Optum datasets. The baseline and follow-up periods were 1 year before/after the index date, respectively. The primary objective was identification of the following predefined symptom reports: dyspnea or shortness of breath; syncope, presyncope, lightheadedness, or dizziness; chest pain; fatigue; and palpitations. In an exploratory analysis, the incidence rates of symptom reports and cardiovascular hospitalization were assessed in propensity-matched patient cohorts with incident AF receiving first-line dronedarone or sotalol. Among 30 447 patients with an index AF diagnosis, the NLP algorithm identified at least 1 predefined symptom in 9734 (31.9%) patients. The incidence rate of symptom reports was highest at 0–3 months post-diagnosis and lower at >3–6 and >6–12 months (pre-defined timepoints). Across all time periods, the most common symptoms were dyspnea or shortness of breath, followed by syncope, presyncope, lightheadedness, or dizziness. Similar temporal patterns of symptom reports were observed among patients with prescriptions for dronedarone or sotalol as first-line treatment. Conclusion: This study illustrates that NLP can be applied to EMR data to characterize symptom reports in patients with incident AF, and the potential for these methods to inform comparative effectiveness

Marburg and Ebola Virus Infections Elicit a Complex, Muted Inflammatory State in Bats

The Marburg and Ebola filoviruses cause a severe, often fatal, disease in humans and nonhuman primates but have only subclinical effects in bats, including Egyptian rousettes, which are a natural reservoir of Marburg virus. A fundamental question is why these viruses are highly pathogenic in humans but fail to cause disease in bats. To address this question, we infected one cohort of Egyptian rousette bats with Marburg virus and another cohort with Ebola virus and harvested multiple tissues for mRNA expression analysis. While virus transcripts were found primarily in the liver, principal component analysis (PCA) revealed coordinated changes across multiple tissues. Gene signatures in kidney and liver pointed at induction of vasodilation, reduction in coagulation, and changes in the regulation of iron metabolism. Signatures of immune response detected in spleen and liver indicated a robust anti-inflammatory state signified by macrophages in the M2 state and an active T cell response. The evolutionary divergence between bats and humans of many responsive genes might provide a framework for understanding the differing outcomes upon infection by filoviruses. In this study, we outline multiple interconnected pathways that respond to infection by MARV and EBOV, providing insights into the complexity of the mechanisms that enable bats to resist the disease caused by filoviral infections. The results have the potential to aid in the development of new strategies to effectively mitigate and treat the disease caused by these viruses in humans

Drosophila muller f elements maintain a distinct set of genomic properties over 40 million years of evolution.

The Muller F element (4.2 Mb, ~80 protein-coding genes) is an unusual autosome of Drosophila melanogaster; it is mostly heterochromatic with a low recombination rate. To investigate how these properties impact the evolution of repeats and genes, we manually improved the sequence and annotated the genes on the D. erecta, D. mojavensis, and D. grimshawi F elements and euchromatic domains from the Muller D element. We find that F elements have greater transposon density (25-50%) than euchromatic reference regions (3-11%). Among the F elements, D. grimshawi has the lowest transposon density (particularly DINE-1: 2% vs. 11-27%). F element genes have larger coding spans, more coding exons, larger introns, and lower codon bias. Comparison of the Effective Number of Codons with the Codon Adaptation Index shows that, in contrast to the other species, codon bias in D. grimshawi F element genes can be attributed primarily to selection instead of mutational biases, suggesting that density and types of transposons affect the degree of local heterochromatin formation. F element genes have lower estimated DNA melting temperatures than D element genes, potentially facilitating transcription through heterochromatin. Most F element genes (~90%) have remained on that element, but the F element has smaller syntenic blocks than genome averages (3.4-3.6 vs. 8.4-8.8 genes per block), indicating greater rates of inversion despite lower rates of recombination. Overall, the F element has maintained characteristics that are distinct from other autosomes in the Drosophila lineage, illuminating the constraints imposed by a heterochromatic milieu

\u3ci\u3eDrosophila\u3c/i\u3e Muller F Elements Maintain a Distinct Set of Genomic Properties Over 40 Million Years of Evolution

The Muller F element (4.2 Mb, ~80 protein-coding genes) is an unusual autosome of Drosophila melanogaster; it is mostly heterochromatic with a low recombination rate. To investigate how these properties impact the evolution of repeats and genes, we manually improved the sequence and annotated the genes on the D. erecta, D. mojavensis, and D. grimshawi F elements and euchromatic domains from the Muller D element. We find that F elements have greater transposon density (25–50%) than euchromatic reference regions (3–11%). Among the F elements, D. grimshawi has the lowest transposon density (particularly DINE-1: 2% vs. 11–27%). F element genes have larger coding spans, more coding exons, larger introns, and lower codon bias. Comparison of the Effective Number of Codons with the Codon Adaptation Index shows that, in contrast to the other species, codon bias in D. grimshawi F element genes can be attributed primarily to selection instead of mutational biases, suggesting that density and types of transposons affect the degree of local heterochromatin formation. F element genes have lower estimated DNA melting temperatures than D element genes, potentially facilitating transcription through heterochromatin. Most F element genes (~90%) have remained on that element, but the F element has smaller syntenic blocks than genome averages (3.4–3.6 vs. 8.4–8.8 genes per block), indicating greater rates of inversion despite lower rates of recombination. Overall, the F element has maintained characteristics that are distinct from other autosomes in the Drosophila lineage, illuminating the constraints imposed by a heterochromatic milieu

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health