Analysis of Clinical Phenotypes through Machine Learning of First-Line H. pylori Treatment in Europe during the Period 2013–2022: Data from the European Registry on H. pylori Management (Hp-EuReg)

The segmentation of patients into homogeneous groups could help to improve eradication therapy effectiveness. Our aim was to determine the most important treatment strategies used in Europe, to evaluate first-line treatment effectiveness according to year and country. Data collection: All first-line empirical treatments registered at AEGREDCap in the European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management (Hp-EuReg) from June 2013 to November 2022. A Boruta method determined the “most important” variables related to treatment effectiveness. Data clustering was performed through multi-correspondence analysis of the resulting six most important variables for every year in the 2013–2022 period. Based on 35,852 patients, the average overall treatment effectiveness increased from 87% in 2013 to 93% in 2022. The lowest effectiveness (80%) was obtained in 2016 in cluster #3 encompassing Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Russia, treated with 7-day triple therapy with amoxicillin–clarithromycin (92% of cases). The highest effectiveness (95%) was achieved in 2022, mostly in Spain (81%), with the bismuth–quadruple therapy, including the single-capsule (64%) and the concomitant treatment with clarithromycin–amoxicillin–metronidazole/tinidazole (34%) with 10 (69%) and 14 (32%) days. Cluster analysis allowed for the identification of patients in homogeneous treatment groups assessing the effectiveness of different first-line treatments depending on therapy scheme, adherence, country, and prescription year

Stent versus gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: A systematic review

Background: Gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) is the most commonly used palliative treatment modality for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Recently, stent placement has been introduced as an alternative treatment. We reviewed the available literature on stent placement and GJJ for gastric outlet obstruction, with regard to medical effects and costs. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed for the period January 1996 and January 2006. A total of 44 publications on GJJ and stents was identified and reported results on medical effects and costs were pooled and evaluated. Results from randomized and comparative studies were used for calculating odds ratios (OR) to compare differences between the two treatment modalities. Results: In 2 randomized trials, stent placement was compared with GJJ (with 27 and 18 patients in each trial). In 6 comparative studies, stent placement was compared with GJJ. Thirty-six series evaluated either stent placement or GJJ. A total of 1046 patients received a duodenal stent and 297 patients underwent GJJ. No differences between stent placement and gastrojejunostomy were found in technical success (96% vs. 100%), early and late major complications 7% vs. 6% and 18% vs. 17%, respectively) and persisting symptoms (8% vs. 9%). Initial clinical success was higher after stent placement (89% vs. 72%). Minor complications were less frequently seen after stent placement in the patient series (9% vs. 33%), however the pooled analysis showed no differences (OR: 0.75, p = 0.8). Recurrent obstructive symptoms were more common after stent placement (18% vs. 1%). Hospital stay was prolonged after GJJ compared to stent placement (13 days vs. 7 days). The mean survival was 105 days after stent placement and 164 days after GJJ. Conclusion: These results suggest that stent placement may be associated with more favorable results in patients with a relatively short life expectancy, while GJJ is preferable in patients with a more prolonged prognosis. The paucity of evidence from large randomized trials may however have influenced the results and therefore a trial of sufficient size is needed to determine which palliative treatment modality is optimal in (sub)groups of patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruc

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Testing in Asia: The IAEA INCAPS-COVID Study

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected management of cardiovascular disease around the world. The effect of the pandemic on volume of cardiovascular diagnostic procedures is not known. Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effects of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular diagnostic procedures and safety practices in Asia. Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey to assess changes in cardiovascular procedure volume and safety practices caused by COVID-19. Testing volumes were reported for March 2020 and April 2020 and were compared to those from March 2019. Data from 180 centers across 33 Asian countries were grouped into 4 subregions for comparison. Results: Procedure volumes decreased by 47% from March 2019 to March 2020, showing recovery from March 2020 to April 2020 in Eastern Asia, particularly in China. The majority of centers cancelled outpatient activities and increased time per study. Practice changes included implementing physical distancing and restricting visitors. Although COVID testing was not commonly performed, it was conducted in one-third of facilities in Eastern Asia. The most severe reductions in procedure volumes were observed in lower-income countries, where volumes decreased 81% from March 2019 to April 2020. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic in Asia caused significant reductions in cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, particularly in low-income countries. Further studies on effects of COVID-19 on cardiovascular outcomes and changes in care delivery are warranted

Impact of COVID-19 on the imaging diagnosis of cardiac disease in Europe

Objectives We aimed to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac diagnostic testing and practice and to assess its impact in different regions in Europe. Methods The online survey organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency Division of Human Health collected information on changes in cardiac imaging procedural volumes between March 2019 and March/April 2020. Data were collected from 909 centres in 108 countries. Results Centres in Northern and Southern Europe were more likely to cancel all outpatient activities compared with Western and Eastern Europe. There was a greater reduction in total procedure volumes in Europe compared with the rest of the world in March 2020 (45% vs 41%, p=0.003), with a more marked reduction in Southern Europe (58%), but by April 2020 this was similar in Europe and the rest of the world (69% vs 63%, p=0.261). Regional variations were apparent between imaging modalities, but the largest reductions were in Southern Europe for nearly all modalities. In March 2020, location in Southern Europe was the only independent predictor of the reduction in procedure volume. However, in April 2020, lower gross domestic product and higher COVID-19 deaths were the only independent predictors. Conclusion The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on care of patients with cardiac disease, with substantial regional variations in Europe. This has potential long-term implications for patients and plans are required to enable the diagnosis of non-COVID- 19 conditions during the ongoing pandemic

Impact of COVID-19 on Cardiovascular Testing in the United States Versus the Rest of the World

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-U.S. institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection