The importance of sex differences in clinical trials: the SAVI-TAVI case.

La estenosis aórtica (EA) es una de las enfermedades valvulares más comunes y una de las pocas afecciones cardíacas que afecta a hombres y mujeres en casi el mismo porcentaje. Es una condición para la cual no se ha establecido un tratamiento farmacológico, y el único tratamiento posible es el reemplazo valvular. Durante décadas, el reemplazo quirúrgico de la válvula aórtica (SAVR) fue el único tratamiento disponible para esta afección, pero la introducción del procedimiento de implantación de la válvula aórtica transcatéter (TAVI) ha cambiado la cardiología intervencionista y el procedimiento TAVI se ha establecido como el procedimiento de referencia para pacientes de alto riesgo, que a menudo se les niega la cirugía SAVR porque se consideran inoperables. Este trabajo se centra en las diferencias de sexo, los diversos factores biológicos en hombres y mujeres, que conducen a un desarrollo diferente en la estenosis aórtica fisiopatológica, con cada sexo presentando características específicas y la posible influencia de estas diferencias de sexo tanto en la presentación clínica como en la clínica. Resultados post-procedimiento después de TAVI y SAVR. Estas diferencias de sexo conducen a una remodelación diferente en respuesta a la sobrecarga de presión crónica causada por AS: las mujeres desarrollan un ventrículo izquierdo (LV) concéntricamente hipertrofiado de cavidad pequeña, mientras que los hombres desarrollan hipertrofia excéntrica. Los corazones masculinos con estenosis aórtica parecen tener más fibrosis que sus comparadores femeninos. Estas diferencias parecían estar relacionadas con la señalización del receptor de estrógenos, pero también intervienen otros factores. Este trabajo recopiló y analizó estudios que se centraron en el resultado en ambos sexos de SAVR, de TAVI y de los dos procedimientos en comparación con hombres y mujeres. El sexo femenino resultó ser un posible factor adverso después del procedimiento SAVR, con tasas de mortalidad más altas. Por el contrario, el sexo femenino parece conferir una ventaja de supervivencia después de TAVR, específicamente en las tasas de supervivencia a largo plazo (supervivencia de 1 año o más), esta ventaja no se registra a los 30 días después del procedimiento, donde las mujeres tienden a sufrir mayores Tasas de complicaciones.Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular disease and one of the few cardiac conditions that affects men and women in approximately the same percentage. It is a condition for which no pharmacological cure has been established, and the only treatment possible is valve replacement. For decades Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) was the only available treatment for this condition, but the introduction of the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedure has changed interventional cardiology and TAVI procedure has established itself as the benchmark procedure for high risk patients that are often denied SAVR surgery because deemed as “inoperable”. This works focuses on the sex-differences, the diverse biological factors in men and women that lead to a different development in the pathophysiology aortic stenosis, with each sex presenting specific characteristics and the possible influence of these sex-differences in both clinical presentation and post-procedural outcomes after TAVI and SAVR. These sex-differences lead to a different remodelling in response to the chronic pressure overload cause by AS: women develop a concentrically hypertrophied, small cavity left ventricle (LV), while men develop eccentric hypertrophy. Male hearts with aortic stenosis present a higher degree of fibrosis than female’s hearts. These differences appeared to be related with the estrogen receptor signalling, but other factors are also involved. This work collected and analyses studies that focused on the outcome in both sexes of SAVR, of TAVI and of the two procedures when compared in men and women. Female sex resulted being a possible adverse factor following SAVR procedure, with higher mortality rates. Conversely, female sex appears to confer a survival advantage following TAVR, specifically in the long-term survival rates (1-year survival or longer), this advantage not being registered at 30-day post-procedure, where women tend to suffer from higher rates of complications.Universidad de Sevilla. Máster Universitario en Especialización Profesional en Farmaci

Gender differences in aortic valve replacement: is surgical aortic valve replacement riskier and transcatheter aortic valve replacement safer in women than in men?

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive and degenerative disease that necessitates valve replacement through either surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Various studies have shown that, unlike for TAVR, SAVR is associated with an elevated risk for women as compared to men. The aim of this review is to better understand the risks and their possible causes, associated with the use of both TAVR and SAVR in female patients. Our systematic review included studies published between 2012 and 2020, identified through specific searches of PubMed. Compatibility of publications, determined by the use of pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulted in 15 articles being used in our review. Overall, more men than women undergo SAVR, but our findings confirmed that SAVR is associated with worse outcomes in women in the short-term. Reasons for a higher 30-day mortality post-SAVR in women include an increased age, higher in-hospital mortality and, possibly baseline comorbidities and anatomical differences. There was no difference observed in 30-day mortality between men and women undergoing TAVR. Female patients appear to have a better longer-term survival post-TAVR than their male counterparts. Understanding the reasons why women have worse outcomes post-SAVR is essential for ensuring appropriate treatment selection for patients with AS, as well as for achieving the best possible long-term and safety outcomes for these patients

Association of Patients’ Epidemiological Characteristics and Comorbidities with Severity and Related Mortality Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Results of an Umbrella Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to assess the association between patients’ epidemiological characteristics and comorbidities with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity and related mortality risk. An umbrella systematic review, including a meta-analysis examining the association between patients’ underlying conditions and severity (defined as need for hospitalization) and mortality of COVID-19, was performed. Studies were included if they reported pooled risk estimates of at least three underlying determinants for hospitalization, critical disease (ICU admission, mechanical ventilation), and hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence was summarized as pooled odds ratios (pOR) for disease outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Sixteen systematic reviews investigating the possible associations of comorbidities with severity or death from COVID-19 disease were included. Hospitalization was associated with age > 60 years (pOR 3.50; 95% CI 2.97–4.36), smoking habit (pOR 3.50; 95% CI 2.97–4.36), and chronic pulmonary disease (pOR 2.94; 95% CI 2.14–4.04). Chronic pulmonary disease (pOR 2.82; 95% CI 1.92–4.14), cerebrovascular disease (pOR 2.74; 95% CI 1.59–4.74), and cardiovascular disease (pOR 2.44; 95% CI 1.97–3.01) were likely to be associated with increased risk of critical COVID-19. The highest risk of mortality was associated with cardiovascular disease (pOR 3.59; 95% CI 2.83–4.56), cerebrovascular disease (pOR 3.11; 95% CI 2.35–4.11), and chronic renal disease (pOR 3.02; 95% CI 2.61–3.49). In conclusion, this umbrella systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of meta-analyses examining the impact of patients’ characteristics on COVID-19 outcomes. Elderly patients and those cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and chronic renal disease should be prioritized for pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis and early treatment

Association of Patients' Epidemiological Characteristics and Comorbidities with Severity and Related Mortality Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Results of an Umbrella Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to assess the association between patients' epidemiological characteristics and comorbidities with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity and related mortality risk. An umbrella systematic review, including a meta-analysis examining the association between patients' underlying conditions and severity (defined as need for hospitalization) and mortality of COVID-19, was performed. Studies were included if they reported pooled risk estimates of at least three underlying determinants for hospitalization, critical disease (ICU admission, mechanical ventilation), and hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence was summarized as pooled odds ratios (pOR) for disease outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Sixteen systematic reviews investigating the possible associations of comorbidities with severity or death from COVID-19 disease were included. Hospitalization was associated with age > 60 years (pOR 3.50; 95% CI 2.97-4.36), smoking habit (pOR 3.50; 95% CI 2.97-4.36), and chronic pulmonary disease (pOR 2.94; 95% CI 2.14-4.04). Chronic pulmonary disease (pOR 2.82; 95% CI 1.92-4.14), cerebrovascular disease (pOR 2.74; 95% CI 1.59-4.74), and cardiovascular disease (pOR 2.44; 95% CI 1.97-3.01) were likely to be associated with increased risk of critical COVID-19. The highest risk of mortality was associated with cardiovascular disease (pOR 3.59; 95% CI 2.83-4.56), cerebrovascular disease (pOR 3.11; 95% CI 2.35-4.11), and chronic renal disease (pOR 3.02; 95% CI 2.61-3.49). In conclusion, this umbrella systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of meta-analyses examining the impact of patients' characteristics on COVID-19 outcomes. Elderly patients and those cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and chronic renal disease should be prioritized for pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis and early treatment

Predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematological patients: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Main aim of this systematic review is to quantify the risk and identify predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in hematological patients compared to different control populations. Two independent reviewers screened the literature assessing clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult patients with active hematological malignancies published up to June 2021. Primary outcome was COVID-19 related mortality, secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive-care admission, mechanical ventilation, and thromboembolic events. Variables related to study setting, baseline patients' demographic, comorbidities, underlying hematological disease, ongoing chemotherapy, COVID-19 presentation, and treatments were extracted. A total of 67 studies including 10061 hematological patients and 111143 controls were included. Most of the studies were retrospective cohorts (51 studies, 76%) and only 19 (13%) provided data for a control group. A significant increased risk of clinical progression in the hematological population compared to the controls was found in terms of COVID-19 related mortality (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.77- 2.54), hospitalization (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.15 -3.43), intensive-care admission (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.38-2.26), and mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.71-2.75). The risk remained significantly higher in the subgroup analysis comparing hematological patients versus solid cancer. Meta-regression analysis of uncontrolled studies showed that older age, male sex, and hypertension were significantly related to worse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in hematological population. Older age and hypertension were found to be associated also to thromboembolic events. In conclusion, hematological patients have a higher risk of COVID-19 clinical progression compared to both the general population and to patients with solid cancer. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Clinical outcome in solid organ transplant recipients affected by COVID-19 compared to general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: A significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is an issue still on debate, due to conflicting evidence emerged from different observational studies. Objective: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcome in SOT recipients with COVID-19 compared to general population. Data source: PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus were independently searched until 13 October 2021. Study eligibility criteria: Prospective or retrospective observational studies comparing clinical outcome in SOT recipients versus general populations affected by COVID-19. Primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Participants: Patients with confirmed COVID-19. Intervention: Solid organ transplant recipients. Assessment of risk of bias: Quality of included studies was independently assessed according to ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. Methods of data synthesis: Meta-analysis was performed by pooling odds ratio (OR) retrieved from studies providing adjustment for confounders using a random-effect model with inverse variance method. Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate source of heterogeneity. Results: 3,501 articles were screened, and thirty-one observational studies (N=590,375; 5,759 SOT recipients vs. 584,616 general population) were included in the meta-analyses. No difference in 30-day mortality rate was found in primary analysis including studies providing adjustment for confounders (N=17; 3,752 SOT recipients vs. 159,745 general population; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.94-1.35; I2=33.9%). No evidence of publication bias was reported. Higher risk of ICU admission (OR 1.56, 95%CI 1.03-2.63) and occurrence of acute kidney injury (OR 2.50 95%CI 1.81-3.45) was found in SOT recipients. Conclusions: No increased risk in mortality was found in SOT recipients affected by COVID-19 compared to general population when adjusted for demographic and clinical features and COVID-19 severity

Evaluation of the kinetics of antibody response to COVID-19 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients: the prospective, multicentre ORCHESTRA cohort

Previous studies assessing the antibody response (AbR) to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are limited by short follow-up, hampering the analysis of AbR kinetics. We present the ORCHESTRA SOT recipients cohort assessed for AbR at first dose (t0), second dose (t1), and within 3 ± 1 month (t2) after the first dose. We analyzed 1062 SOT patients (kidney, 63.7%; liver, 17.4%; heart, 16.7%; and lung, 2.5%) and 5045 health care workers (HCWs). The AbR rates in the SOTs and HCWs were 52.3% and 99.4%. The antibody levels were significantly higher in the HCWs than in the SOTs (p < 0.001). The kinetics showed an increase (p < 0.001) in antibody levels up to 76 days and a non-significant decrease after 118 days in the SOT recipients versus a decrease up to 76 days (p = 0.02) and a less pronounced decrease between 76 and 118 days (p = 0.04) in the HCWs. Upon multivariable analysis, liver transplant, ≥3 years from SOT, mRNA-1273, azathioprine, and longer time from t0 were associated with a positive AbR at t2. Older age, other comorbidities, mycophenolate, steroids, and impaired graft function were associated with lower AbR probability. Our results may be useful to optimize strategies of immune monitoring after COVID-19 vaccination and indications regarding timing for booster dosages calibrated on SOT patients’ characteristic

Clinical phenotypes and quality of life to define post-COVID-19 syndrome: a cluster analysis of the multinational, prospective ORCHESTRA cohort

Background: Lack of specific definitions of clinical characteristics, disease severity, and risk and preventive factors of post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) severely impacts research and discovery of new preventive and therapeutics drugs. Methods: This prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted from February 2020 to June 2022 in 5 countries, enrolling SARS-CoV-2 out- and in-patients followed at 3-, 6-, and 12-month from diagnosis, with assessment of clinical and biochemical features, antibody (Ab) response, Variant of Concern (VoC), and physical and mental quality of life (QoL). Outcome of interest was identification of risk and protective factors of PCS by clinical phenotype, setting, severity of disease, treatment, and vaccination status. We used SF-36 questionnaire to assess evolution in QoL index during follow-up and unsupervised machine learning algorithms (principal component analysis, PCA) to explore symptom clusters. Severity of PCS was defined by clinical phenotype and QoL. We also used generalized linear models to analyse the impact of PCS on QoL and associated risk and preventive factors. CT registration number: NCT05097677. Findings: Among 1796 patients enrolled, 1030 (57%) suffered from at least one symptom at 12-month. PCA identified 4 clinical phenotypes: chronic fatigue-like syndrome (CFs: fatigue, headache and memory loss, 757 patients, 42%), respiratory syndrome (REs: cough and dyspnoea, 502, 23%); chronic pain syndrome (CPs: arthralgia and myalgia, 399, 22%); and neurosensorial syndrome (NSs: alteration in taste and smell, 197, 11%). Determinants of clinical phenotypes were different (all comparisons p < 0.05): being female increased risk of CPs, NSs, and CFs; chronic pulmonary diseases of REs; neurological symptoms at SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis of REs, NSs, and CFs; oxygen therapy of CFs and REs; and gastrointestinal symptoms at SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis of CFs. Early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection with monoclonal Ab (all clinical phenotypes), corticosteroids therapy for mild/severe cases (NSs), and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (CPs) were less likely to be associated to PCS (all comparisons p < 0.05). Highest reduction in QoL was detected in REs and CPs (43.57 and 43.86 vs 57.32 in PCS-negative controls, p < 0.001). Female sex (p < 0.001), gastrointestinal symptoms (p = 0.034) and renal complications (p = 0.002) during the acute infection were likely to increase risk of severe PCS (QoL <50). Vaccination and early treatment with monoclonal Ab reduced the risk of severe PCS (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively). Interpretation: Our study provides new evidence suggesting that PCS can be classified by clinical phenotypes with different impact on QoL, underlying possible different pathogenic mechanisms. We identified factors associated to each clinical phenotype and to severe PCS. These results might help in designing pathogenesis studies and in selecting high-risk patients for inclusion in therapeutic and management clinical trials. Funding: The study received funding from the Horizon 2020 ORCHESTRA project, grant 101016167; from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), grant 10430012010023; from Inserm, REACTing (REsearch & ACtion emergING infectious diseases) consortium and the French Ministry of Health, grant PHRC 20-0424