Accurate and timely diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis improves over time in Europe. An analysis of the EoE CONNECT Registry

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been described and the diagnostic delay of the disease continues to be unacceptable in many settings. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of improved knowledge provided by the successive international clinical practice guidelines on reducing diagnostic delay and improving the diagnostic process for European patients with EoE. METHODS: Cross‐sectional analysis of the EoE CONNECT registry based on clinical practice. Time periods defined by the publication dates of four major sets of guidelines over 10 years were considered. Patients were grouped per time period according to date of symptom onset. RESULTS: Data from 1,132 patients was analyzed and median (IQR) diagnostic delay in the whole series was 2.1 (0.7‐6.2) years. This gradually decreased over time with subsequent release of new guidelines (p < 0.001), from 12.7 years up to 2007 to 0.7 years after 2017. The proportion of patients with stricturing of mixed phenotypes at the point of EoE diagnosis also decreased over time (41.3% vs. 16%; p < 0.001), as did EREFS scores. The fibrotic sub‐score decreased from a median (IQR) of 2 (1‐2) to 0 (0‐1) when patients whose symptoms started up to 2007 and after 2017 were compared (p < 0.001). In parallel, symptoms measured with the Dysphagia Symptoms Score reduced significantly when patients with symptoms starting before 2007 and after 2012 were compared. A reduction in the number of endoscopies patients underwent before the one that achieved an EoE diagnosis, and the use of allergy testing as part of the diagnostic workout of EoE, also reduced significantly over time (p = 0.010 and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic work‐up of EoE patients improved substantially over time at the European sites contributing to EoE CONNECT, with a dramatic reduction in diagnostic delay

4to. Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad. Memoria académica

Este volumen acoge la memoria académica de la Cuarta edición del Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad, CITIS 2017, desarrollado entre el 29 de noviembre y el 1 de diciembre de 2017 y organizado por la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (UPS) en su sede de Guayaquil. El Congreso ofreció un espacio para la presentación, difusión e intercambio de importantes investigaciones nacionales e internacionales ante la comunidad universitaria que se dio cita en el encuentro. El uso de herramientas tecnológicas para la gestión de los trabajos de investigación como la plataforma Open Conference Systems y la web de presentación del Congreso http://citis.blog.ups.edu.ec/, hicieron de CITIS 2017 un verdadero referente entre los congresos que se desarrollaron en el país. La preocupación de nuestra Universidad, de presentar espacios que ayuden a generar nuevos y mejores cambios en la dimensión humana y social de nuestro entorno, hace que se persiga en cada edición del evento la presentación de trabajos con calidad creciente en cuanto a su producción científica. Quienes estuvimos al frente de la organización, dejamos plasmado en estas memorias académicas el intenso y prolífico trabajo de los días de realización del Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad al alcance de todos y todas

Accurate and timely diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis improves over time in Europe. An analysis of the EoE CONNECT Registry

Poor adherence to clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been described and the diagnostic delay of the disease continues to be unacceptable in many settings. To analyze the impact of improved knowledge provided by the successive international clinical practice guidelines on reducing diagnostic delay and improving the diagnostic process for European patients with EoE. Cross-sectional analysis of the EoE CONNECT registry based on clinical practice. Time periods defined by the publication dates of four major sets of guidelines over 10 years were considered. Patients were grouped per time period according to date of symptom onset. Data from 1,132 patients was analyzed and median (IQR) diagnostic delay in the whole series was 2.1 (0.7-6.2) years. This gradually decreased over time with subsequent release of new guidelines (p < 0.001), from 12.7 years up to 2007 to 0.7 years after 2017. The proportion of patients with stricturing of mixed phenotypes at the point of EoE diagnosis also decreased over time (41.3% vs. 16%; p < 0.001), as did EREFS scores. The fibrotic sub-score decreased from a median (IQR) of 2 (1-2) to 0 (0-1) when patients whose symptoms started up to 2007 and after 2017 were compared (p < 0.001). In parallel, symptoms measured with the Dysphagia Symptoms Score reduced significantly when patients with symptoms starting before 2007 and after 2012 were compared. A reduction in the number of endoscopies patients underwent before the one that achieved an EoE diagnosis, and the use of allergy testing as part of the diagnostic workout of EoE, also reduced significantly over time (p = 0.010 and p < 0.001, respectively). The diagnostic work-up of EoE patients improved substantially over time at the European sites contributing to EoE CONNECT, with a dramatic reduction in diagnostic delay

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health