36 research outputs found

    Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Dialysis Patients: Epidemiological Analysis and Evaluation of the Clinical Progress

    Get PDF
    This study investigated the impact of the fourth COVID-19 pandemic wave on dialysis patients of Romagna territory, assessing the associations of vaccination status with infection risk, clinical severity and mortality. From November 2021 to February 2022, an epidemiological search was conducted on 829 patients under dialysis treatment for at least one month. The data were then analyzed with reference to the general population of the same area. A temporal comparison was also carried out with the previous pandemic waves (from March 2020 to October 2021). The epidemiological evolution over time in the dialysis population and in Romagna citizens replicated the global trend, as the peak of the fourth wave corresponded to the time of maximum diffusion of omicron variant (B.1.1.529). Of 771 prevalent dialysis patients at the beginning of the study, 109 (14.1%) contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 4-month observation period. Vaccine adherence in the dialysis population of the reference area was above 95%. Compared to fully or partially vaccinated subjects, the unvaccinated ones showed a significantly higher proportion of infections (12.5% vs. 27.0% p = 0.0341), a more frequent need for hospitalization (22.2% vs. 50.0%) and a 3.3-fold increased mortality risk. These findings confirm the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in keeping infectious risk under control and ameliorating clinical outcomes in immunocompromised patients

    Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

    Get PDF
    Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

    Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)

    Two-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

    Get PDF
    AIMS: The relationship between outcomes and time after diagnosis for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is poorly defined, especially beyond the first year. METHODS AND RESULTS: GARFIELD-AF is an ongoing, global observational study of adults with newly diagnosed NVAF. Two-year outcomes of 17 162 patients prospectively enrolled in GARFIELD-AF were analysed in light of baseline characteristics, risk profiles for stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and antithrombotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) age was 69.8 (11.4) years, 43.8% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (1.6); 60.8% of patients were prescribed anticoagulant therapy with/without antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 27.4% AP monotherapy, and 11.8% no antithrombotic therapy. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding had occurred at a rate (95% confidence interval) of 3.83 (3.62; 4.05), 1.25 (1.13; 1.38), and 0.70 (0.62; 0.81) per 100 person-years, respectively. Rates for all three major events were highest during the first 4 months. Congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, sudden/unwitnessed death, malignancy, respiratory failure, and infection/sepsis accounted for 65% of all known causes of death and strokes for <10%. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a 35% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: The most frequent of the three major outcome measures was death, whose most common causes are not known to be significantly influenced by anticoagulation. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach to the management of NVAF may be needed to improve outcome. This could include, in addition to anticoagulation, interventions targeting modifiable, cause-specific risk factors for death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

    Position Paper on Water, Energy, Food and Ecosystem (WEFE) Nexus and Sustainable development Goals (SDGs)

    Get PDF
    The EU and the international community is realising that the Water, Energy, Food and Ecosystem components are interlinked and require a joint planning in order to meet the daunting global challenges related to Water, Energy and Food security and maintaining the ecosystem health and in this way, reach the SDGs. If not dealt with, the world will not be able to meet the demand for water, energy and food in a not too far future and, in any case, in a not sustainable way. The strain on the ecosystems resulting from unsustainable single-sector planning will lead to increasing poverty, inequality and instability. The Nexus approach is fully aligned with and supportive of the EU Consensus on Development. Key elements of the Consensus will require collaborative efforts across sectors in ways that can be supported/implemented by a Nexus approach. In this way, transparent and accountable decision-making, involving the civil society is key and common to the European Consensus on Development and the Nexus approach. The Nexus approach will support the implementation of the SDG in particular SDG 2 (Food), SDG 6 (Water) and SDG 7 (Energy), but most SDGs have elements that link to food, water and energy in one or other way, and will benefit from a Nexus approach. The SDGs are designed to be cross-cutting and be implemented together, which is also reflected in a WEFE Nexus approach. A Nexus approach offers a sustainable way of addressing the effects of Climate Change and increase resilience. The WEFE Nexus has in it the main drivers of climate change (water, energy and food security) and the main affected sectors (water and the environment). Decisions around policy, infrastructure, … developed based on the WEFE Nexus assessments will be suitable as elements of climate change mitigation and adaptation. In fact, it is difficult to imagine solutions to the climate change issue that are not built on a form of Nexus approach. The Nexus approach is being implemented around the world, as examples in the literature demonstrate. These examples together with more examples from EU and member state development cooperation will help build experience that can be consolidated and become an important contribution to a Toolkit for WEFE Nexus Implementation. From the expert discussions, it appears that because of the novelty of the approach, a Toolkit will be an important element in getting the Nexus approach widely used. This should build on experiences from practical examples of NEXUS projects or similar inter-sectorial collaboration projects; and, there are already policy, regulation and practical experience to allow institutions and countries to start applying the Nexus concept.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

    Management of Hypertension in the Elderly and Frail Patient

    Get PDF
    Hypertension is a frequent finding in elderly patients. Hypertension in older age can be both associated with frailty and represent a risk factor for frailty. Hypertension is recognized as a main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and stroke and the occurrence of these diseases may provoke a decline in health status and/or worsen the degree of frailty. Blood pressure targets in hypertensive older and frail patients are not completely defined. However, specific evaluations of individual patients and their co-morbidities and assessment of domains and components of frailty, together with weighted consideration of drug use, may help in finding the appropriate therapy

    Predictors of NOAC versus VKA use for stroke prevention in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: Results from GARFIELD-AF

    No full text
    Introduction: A principal aim of the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) was to document changes in treatment practice for patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation during an era when non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were becoming more widely adopted. In these analyses, the key factors which determined the choice between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are explored. Methods: Logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression determined predictors of NOAC and VKA use. Data were collected from 24,137 patients who were initiated on AC ± antiplatelet (AP) therapy (NOAC [51.4%] or VKA [48.6%]) between April 2013 and August 2016. Results: The most significant predictors of AC therapy were country, enrolment year, care setting at diagnosis, AF type, concomitant AP, and kidney disease. Patients enrolled in emergency care or in the outpatient setting were more likely to receive a NOAC than those enrolled in hospital (OR 1.16 [95% CI: 1.04-1.30], OR: 1.15 [95% CI: 1.05-1.25], respectively). NOAC prescribing seemed to be favored in lower-risk groups, namely, patients with paroxysmal AF, normotensive patients, and those with moderate alcohol consumption, but also the elderly and patients with acute coronary syndrome. By contrast, VKAs were preferentially used in patients with permanent AF, moderate to severe kidney disease, heart failure, vascular disease, and diabetes and with concomitant AP. Conclusion: GARFIELD-AF data highlight marked heterogeneity in stroke prevention strategies globally. Physicians are adopting an individualized approach to stroke prevention where NOACs are favored in patients with a lower stroke risk but also in the elderly and patients with acute coronary syndrome

    Stroke prevention in patients from Latin American countries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF registry

    No full text
    Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important preventable cause of stroke. Anticoagulation (AC) therapy can reduce this risk. However, prescribing patterns and outcomes in patients with non-valvular AF (NVAF) from Latin American countries are poorly described. Methods: Using data from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF (GARFIELD-AF), we examined the stroke prevention strategies and the 1-year outcomes in patients from four Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Results: A total of 4162 patients (2010-2014) were included in this analysis. At the time of AF diagnosis, 39.9% of patients were prescribed vitamin K antagonists (VKA) ± antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 21.8% non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) ± AP, 24.1% AP only and 14.1% no antithrombotic treatment. The proportion of moderate-high risk patients receiving no AC therapy at participating centers was highest in Mexico (46.4%) and lowest in Chile (14.3%). During 1-year follow-up, the rates of all-cause mortality, stroke/SE and major bleeding were: 5.77 (95% CI) (5.06-6.56), 1.58 (1.23-2.02), and 0.99 (0.72-1.36) and per 100 person-years, respectively, which are higher than the global rates across all countries in GARFIELD-AF. Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality were highest in Argentina, 6.95 (5.43-8.90), and lowest in Chile, 4.01 (2.92-5.52). Conclusions: GARFIELD-AF results describes the marked variation in the baseline characteristics and patterns of antithrombotic treatments in patients with NVAF in four Latin American countries. Over one-third of patients with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke received no AC therapy, highlighting the need for improved management of patients according to national guideline. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362
    corecore