Development and external validation of prediction models for adverse health outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: A multinational real-world cohort analysis

Background: Identification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at high risk of adverse health outcomes remains a major challenge. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy. Methods: Data from 15 claims and electronic health record databases across 9 countries were used. Models were developed and internally validated on Optum® De-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database using L1-regularized logistic regression to estimate the risk of adverse health outcomes within 3 months (leukopenia, pancytopenia, infection), 2 years (myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke), and 5 years (cancers [colorectal, breast, uterine] after treatment initiation. Candidate predictors included demographic variables and past medical history. Models were externally validated on all other databases. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. Findings: Models were developed and internally validated on 21,547 RA patients and externally validated on 131,928 RA patients. Models for serious infection (AUC: internal 0.74, external ranging from 0.62 to 0.83), MI (AUC: internal 0.76, external ranging from 0.56 to 0.82), and stroke (AUC: internal 0.77, external ranging from 0.63 to 0.95), showed good discrimination and adequate calibration. Models for the other outcomes showed modest internal discrimination (AUC < 0.65) and were not externally validated. Interpretation: We developed and validated prediction models for a variety of adverse health outcomes in RA patients initiating first-line MTX monotherapy. Final models for serious infection, MI, and stroke demonstrated good performance across multiple databases and can be studied for clinical use. Funding: This activity under the European Health Data & Evidence Network (EHDEN) has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 806968. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA

General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: The effect of carotid endarterectomy in lowering the risk of stroke ipsilateral to severe atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis is offset by complications during or soon after surgery. We compared surgery under general anaesthesia with that under local anaesthesia because prediction and avoidance of perioperative strokes might be easier under local anaesthesia than under general anaesthesia. Methods: We undertook a parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 3526 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 95 centres in 24 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery under general (n=1753) or local (n=1773) anaesthesia between June, 1999 and October, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stroke (including retinal infarction), myocardial infarction, or death between randomisation and 30 days after surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Control Trials number ISRCTN00525237. Findings: A primary outcome occurred in 84 (4·8%) patients assigned to surgery under general anaesthesia and 80 (4·5%) of those assigned to surgery under local anaesthesia; three events per 1000 treated were prevented with local anaesthesia (95% CI -11 to 17; risk ratio [RR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·27]). The two groups did not significantly differ for quality of life, length of hospital stay, or the primary outcome in the prespecified subgroups of age, contralateral carotid occlusion, and baseline surgical risk. Interpretation: We have not shown a definite difference in outcomes between general and local anaesthesia for carotid surgery. The anaesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anaesthetic technique to use on an individual basis. Funding: The Health Foundation (UK) and European Society of Vascular Surgery. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The effect of carotid endarterectomy in lowering the risk of stroke ipsilateral to severe atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis is offset by complications during or soon after surgery. We compared surgery under general anaesthesia with that under local anaesthesia because prediction and avoidance of perioperative strokes might be easier under local anaesthesia than under general anaesthesia. METHODS: We undertook a parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 3526 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 95 centres in 24 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery under general (n=1753) or local (n=1773) anaesthesia between June, 1999 and October, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stroke (including retinal infarction), myocardial infarction, or death between randomisation and 30 days after surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Control Trials number ISRCTN00525237. FINDINGS: A primary outcome occurred in 84 (4.8%) patients assigned to surgery under general anaesthesia and 80 (4.5%) of those assigned to surgery under local anaesthesia; three events per 1000 treated were prevented with local anaesthesia (95% CI -11 to 17; risk ratio [RR] 0.94 [95% CI 0.70 to 1.27]). The two groups did not significantly differ for quality of life, length of hospital stay, or the primary outcome in the prespecified subgroups of age, contralateral carotid occlusion, and baseline surgical risk. INTERPRETATION: We have not shown a definite difference in outcomes between general and local anaesthesia for carotid surgery. The anaesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anaesthetic technique to use on an individual basis. FUNDING: The Health Foundation (UK) and European Society of Vascular Surgery