External validation of six COVID-19 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk in older populations in a hospital, primary care, and nursing home setting

Objectives: To systematically evaluate the performance of COVID-19 prognostic models and scores for mortality risk in older populations across three health-care settings: hospitals, primary care, and nursing homes.Study Design and Setting: This retrospective external validation study included 14,092 older individuals of >=70 years of age with a clinical or polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to December 2020. The six validation cohorts include three hospital-based (CliniCo, COVID-OLD, COVID-PREDICT), two primary care-based (Julius General Practitioners Network/Academisch network huisartsgeneeskunde/Network of Academic general Practitioners, PHARMO), and one nursing home cohort (YSIS) in the Netherlands. Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool for quality and risk of bias assessment and considering predictor availability in validation cohorts, we selected six prognostic models predicting mortality risk in adults with COVID-19 infection (GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, National Early Warning Score 2-extended model, Xie model, Wang clinical model, and CURB65 score). All six prognostic models were validated in the hospital cohorts and the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model was validated in all three healthcare settings. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home settings. Model performance was evaluated in each validation cohort separately in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves. An intercept update was performed in models indicating miscalibration followed by predictive performance re-evaluation. Main Outcome Measure: In-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home setting. Results: All six prognostic models performed poorly and showed miscalibration in the older population cohorts. In the hospital settings, model performance ranged from calibration-in-the-large 1.45 to 7.46, calibration slopes 0.24e0.81, and C-statistic 0.55e0.71 with 4C Mortality Score performing as the most discriminative and well-calibrated model. Performance across health-care settings was similar for the GAL-COVID-19 model, with a calibration-in-the-large in the range of 2.35 to 0.15 indicating overestimation, calibration slopes of 0.24e0.81 indicating signs of overfitting, and C-statistic of 0.55e0.71. Conclusion: Our results show that most prognostic models for predicting mortality risk performed poorly in the older population with COVID-19, in each health-care setting: hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. Insights into factors influencing predictive model performance in the older population are needed for pandemic preparedness and reliable prognostication of health-related outcomes in this demographicGeriatrics in primary carePublic Health and primary carePrevention, Population and Disease management (PrePoD

Effect of long-term GH replacement therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in isolated GH deficiency compared with multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies: a sub-analysis from the Dutch National Registry of Growth Hormone Treatment in Adults

Objective: Isolated GH deficiency (IGHD) could provide a model to investigate the influence of GH deficiency per se and the effect of GH replacement therapy without the influence from other pituitary hormone deficiencies or their treatment. The aim of this study is to address the questions about differences between IGHD and multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies (MPHDs) in clinical presentation and in responsiveness to GH treatment. Design: A nationwide surveillance study was carried out to describe the difference in the clinical presentation and responsiveness to GH treatment of patients with IGHD and MPHDs. Methods: The Dutch National Registry of GH Treatment in Adults was founded in 1998 to gain more insight into long-term efficacy and safety of GH therapy. Out of 2891 enrolled patients, 266 patients with IGHD at the start of GH treatment were identified and compared with 310 patients with MPHDs. Cardiovascular indices will be investigated at baseline and during long-term follow-up, including body composition, lipid profile, glucose metabolism, blood pressure, and morbidity. Results: Patients with IGHD and MPHDs were demonstrated to be different entities at clinical presentation. Metabolically, patients with MPHDs had a larger waist circumference, lower HDL cholesterol level, and higher triglyceride level. The effect of GH treatment was comparable between patient groups. GH seems to protect against rising lipid levels and blood pressure, even after excluding patients using corresponding concomitant medication. The risk for cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus during follow-up was not different between patients with IGHD and MPHDs. Conclusions: Patients with IGHD had a less impaired metabolic profile than patients with MPHDs at baseline. Influence of other pituitary hormone replacement therapies on the effect of GH treatment is not demonstrated. © 2014 European Society of Endocrinology

Clinical consequences of off-label reduced dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Postmarketing observational studies report that a substantial percentage of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receive a reduced non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) dose without a clear indication. Recently, increasing evidence has become available to explore the clinical consequences of such off-label reduced dosing (OLRD). This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies that report clinical outcomes associated with OLRD of NOACs compared with on-label non-reduced dosing (OLNRD) of NOACs in patients with AF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting clinical outcomes in AF patients with OLRD of an NOAC compared with AF patients with OLNRD of an NOAC. Using random effects meta-analyses, we estimated the risk of stroke/thromboembolism, bleeding and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We included 19 studies with a total of 170 394 NOAC users. In these studies, the percentage of OLRD among patients with an indication for an on-label non-reduced NOAC dose ranged between 9% and 53%. 7 of these 19 studies met the predefined criteria for meta-analysis (n=80 725 patients). The pooled HR associated with OLRD of NOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; 95% prediction interval (PI) 0.60 to 1.79) for stroke/thromboembolism, 1.10 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; 95% PI 0.81 to 1.50) for bleeding and 1.22 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.84; 95% PI 0.55 to 2.70) for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows no statistically significant increased risk of stroke/thromboembolism, nor a decreased bleeding risk, nor a difference in risk of all-cause mortality in patients with OLRD of NOACs. Future research may focus on differences between NOACs