A modern network approach to revisiting the positive and negative affective schedule (PANAS) construct validity

Introduction: The factor structure of the Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS) is still a topic of debate. There are several reasons why using Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) for scale validation is advantageous and can help understand and resolve conflicting results in the factor analytic literature. Objective: The main objective of the present study was to advance the knowledge regarding the factor structure underlying the PANAS scores by utilizing the different functionalities of the EGA method. EGA was used to (1) estimate the dimensionality of the PANAS scores, (2) establish the stability of the dimensionality estimate and of the item assignments into the dimensions, and (3) assess the impact of potential redundancies across item pairs on the dimensionality and structure of the PANAS scores. Method: This assessment was carried out across two studies that included two large samples of participants. Results and Conclusion: In sum, the results are consistent with a two-factor oblique structure.Fil: Flores Kanter, Pablo Ezequiel. Universidad Empresarial Siglo XXI; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Garrido, Luis Eduardo. Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra; República DominicanaFil: Moretti, Luciana Sofía. Universidad Empresarial Siglo XXI; Argentina. Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra; República Dominicana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Medrano, Leonardo. Universidad Empresarial Siglo XXI; Argentina. Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra; República Dominicana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

The PROVENT-C19 registry: A study protocol for international multicenter SIAARTI registry on the use of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS

Background The worldwide use of prone position (PP) for invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 is progressively increasing from the first pandemic wave in everyday clinical practice. Among the suggested treatments for the management of ARDS patients, PP was recommended in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 guidelines as an adjuvant therapy for improving ventilation. In patients with severe classical ARDS, some authors reported that early application of prolonged PP sessions significantly decreases 28-day and 90-day mortality. Methods and analysis Since January 2021, the COVID19 Veneto ICU Network research group has developed and implemented nationally and internationally the "PROVENT-C19 Registry", endorsed by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care. . .'(SIAARTI). The PROVENT-C19 Registry wishes to describe 1. The real clinical practice on the use of PP in COVID-19 patients during the pandemic at a National and International level; and 2. Potential baseline and clinical characteristics that identify subpopulations of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 that may improve daily from PP therapy. This web-based registry will provide relevant information on how the database research tools may improve our daily clinical practice. Conclusions This multicenter, prospective registry is the first to identify and characterize the role of PP on clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients. In recent years, data emerging from large registries have been increasingly used to provide real-world evidence on the effectiveness, quality, and safety of a clinical intervention. Indeed observation-based registries could be effective tools aimed at identifying specific clusters of patients within a large study population with widely heterogeneous clinical characteristics. Copyright

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

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.

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.

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

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Comparison of Safety and Biological Efficacy of Anakinra (Kineret) Dispensed in Polycarbonate Plastic versus Borosilicate Glass Syringes: A Patient-Level Analysis of VCUART2 and VCUART3 Clinical Trials

Anakinra is a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Kineret is avail-able as a solution prepared in a borosilicate glass syringe. For imple-menting a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trial, anakinra is commonly transferred into plastic syringes. However, there is limited data on anakinra's stability in polycarbonate syringes. We described the results of our previous studies on the use of ana-kinra in glass (VCUART3) versus plastic syringes (VCUART2) com-pared with placebo. These studies were conducted in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and we as-sessed the anti-inflammatory effects of anakinra versus placebo by comparing the area under the curve for high-sensitivity cardiac reac-tive protein (AUC-CRP) levels during the first 14 days of STEMI, its clinical effects on heart failure (HF) hospitalization, cardiovascular death, or new diagnosis of HF as well as adverse events profile be-tween groups. The levels of AUC-CRP were 75 (50-255 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) for anakinra in plastic syringes versus 255 (116-592 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) in placebo and 60 (24-139 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) and 86 (43-123 mg &amp; BULL;day/l) for anakinra once and twice daily in glass syringes, respectively, compared with placebo 214 (131-394 mg &amp; BULL;day/l). The rate of adverse events was also comparable between groups. There were no differences in the rate of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death in patients who re-ceived anakinra in plastic or glass syringes. Fewer cases of new-onset heart failure occurred in patients receiving anakinra in plastic or glass syringes compared with placebo. Anakinra stored in plastic (polycarbonate) syringes provides comparable biologic and clinical effect to glass (borosilicate) syringes.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTAnakinra (Kineret) 100 mg administered subcutaneously in pa-tients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for a duration of up to 14 days appears to have comparable safety and biological efficacy signals when delivered in prefilled glass or transferred into plastic polycarbonate syringes. This may have important implications for the feasibility of designing clinical trials in STEMI and other clinical conditions