Equilibria in finite multicriteria Two-person non-zero-sum game

International audienceno abstrac

Performance of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure Score in Black Patients Compared With Whites

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is critical in heart failure (HF) and the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score is a validated tool derived from ~40,000 patients. However, few of these patients self-identified as black, raising uncertainty regarding performance in blacks with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study analyzed a racially diverse group of 4046 patients (1646 black and 2400 white) from a single center from 2007 to 2015. Baseline characteristics were collected to tabulate MAGGIC score and test its discrimination and calibration within race groups. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Death was detected using system records and the social security death master file. Discrimination was tested using Cox models of MAGGIC score stratified by race, and combined analysis including MAGGIC, race, and MAGGIC×race. Calibration was assessed using linear regression models and plots of observed versus predicted data. Overall, 901 (21%) patients died during 1-year follow-up. MAGGIC score discrimination was similar in both race groups in terms of C statistic (0.707±0.027 versus 0.725±0.014, for black versus white; P=0.556) and the hazard ratio (HR) per MAGGIC point was 1.12 in black patients (95% CI, 1.10-1.14) and 1.13 in white patients (95% CI, 1.12-1.14). Race was a significant correlate of survival, with better survival in black patients compared with white (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78), but the interaction of MAGGIC×race was not significant (β=-0.013; P=0.16), and adding race to the model did not improve discrimination (C statistic for MAGGIC versus MAGGIC+race, 0.721 versus 0.722; P=0.79). In calibration testing, the slope was not significantly different from 1 in either group, but the groups differed from each other, and it was closer to unity among black patients (0.94 versus 1.4; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of the MAGGIC score to risk stratify black patients with HF

Improving risk prediction in heart failure: Maggic + natriuretic peptides

Background: Risk stratification of patients with heartfailure (HF) remains challenging but is a critical need. The MAGGIC score is a clinical risk model derived from meta-analysis of nearly 40k patients. Natriureticpeptides (NP) have consistently shown powerful riskprediction in HF patients, but the incremental value in addition to MAGGIC score is not known. Methods: In this single center study 4264 patients were analyzed from two cohorts; a prospective ambulatory registry of HF patients (n = 1314) who had baseline NTproBNP levels measured, and a retrospective cohort collected utilizing administrative data from hospital discharges for HF (January 1st, 2014 through July 30th, 2015; n = 2503) with clinical BNP levels measured at or near discharge. The hospital discharge cohort were all assigned NYHA class IV. The primary end-point was all cause mortality. Performance of the MAGGIC score and NP levels was assessed within each cohort utilizing Cox regression and receiver operating curves (ROC) analysis (MAGGIC alone vs. MAGGIC+NP) with the net reclassification improvement (NRI) also calculated. Results: The overall cohort had an average age of 71.2 years, was 47.8% females, and 41% self-identified African Americans. Median follow up was 1.52 years during which there were 1139 deaths (27%). The MAGGIC score was a strong predictor of outcome in both cohorts (P \u3c .001). In ROC analysis of the ambulatory registry, NP significantly improved area under the curve (AUC) compared to MAGGICalone from 0.74 to 0.79 (P = .002) and had a NRI of 0.354 (Figure). In contrast, within the hospital discharge cohort NP levels did not significantly add to MAGGIC score (AUC 0.681 vs. 0.676, NRI = 0.033, P = .284) (Figure). Conclusion: In our study, NP levels inthe ambulatory setting significantly improved riskstratification provided by the MAGGIC score, but discharge NP levels did not improve MAGGICprediction of posthospital survival. Overall riskstratification and particularly NP utility is much better in the ambulatory setting. (Figure Presented)

Performance of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure Score in Black Patients Compared With Whites

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is critical in heart failure (HF) and the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score is a validated tool derived from ~40,000 patients. However, few of these patients self-identified as black, raising uncertainty regarding performance in blacks with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study analyzed a racially diverse group of 4046 patients (1646 black and 2400 white) from a single center from 2007 to 2015. Baseline characteristics were collected to tabulate MAGGIC score and test its discrimination and calibration within race groups. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Death was detected using system records and the social security death master file. Discrimination was tested using Cox models of MAGGIC score stratified by race, and combined analysis including MAGGIC, race, and MAGGIC×race. Calibration was assessed using linear regression models and plots of observed versus predicted data. Overall, 901 (21%) patients died during 1-year follow-up. MAGGIC score discrimination was similar in both race groups in terms of C statistic (0.707±0.027 versus 0.725±0.014, for black versus white; P=0.556) and the hazard ratio (HR) per MAGGIC point was 1.12 in black patients (95% CI, 1.10-1.14) and 1.13 in white patients (95% CI, 1.12-1.14). Race was a significant correlate of survival, with better survival in black patients compared with white (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78), but the interaction of MAGGIC×race was not significant (β=-0.013; P=0.16), and adding race to the model did not improve discrimination (C statistic for MAGGIC versus MAGGIC+race, 0.721 versus 0.722; P=0.79). In calibration testing, the slope was not significantly different from 1 in either group, but the groups differed from each other, and it was closer to unity among black patients (0.94 versus 1.4; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of the MAGGIC score to risk stratify black patients with HF

Performance of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure Score in Black Patients Compared With Whites

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is critical in heart failure (HF) and the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score is a validated tool derived from ~40,000 patients. However, few of these patients self-identified as black, raising uncertainty regarding performance in blacks with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study analyzed a racially diverse group of 4046 patients (1646 black and 2400 white) from a single center from 2007 to 2015. Baseline characteristics were collected to tabulate MAGGIC score and test its discrimination and calibration within race groups. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Death was detected using system records and the social security death master file. Discrimination was tested using Cox models of MAGGIC score stratified by race, and combined analysis including MAGGIC, race, and MAGGIC×race. Calibration was assessed using linear regression models and plots of observed versus predicted data. Overall, 901 (21%) patients died during 1-year follow-up. MAGGIC score discrimination was similar in both race groups in terms of C statistic (0.707±0.027 versus 0.725±0.014, for black versus white; P=0.556) and the hazard ratio (HR) per MAGGIC point was 1.12 in black patients (95% CI, 1.10-1.14) and 1.13 in white patients (95% CI, 1.12-1.14). Race was a significant correlate of survival, with better survival in black patients compared with white (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78), but the interaction of MAGGIC×race was not significant (β=-0.013; P=0.16), and adding race to the model did not improve discrimination (C statistic for MAGGIC versus MAGGIC+race, 0.721 versus 0.722; P=0.79). In calibration testing, the slope was not significantly different from 1 in either group, but the groups differed from each other, and it was closer to unity among black patients (0.94 versus 1.4; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of the MAGGIC score to risk stratify black patients with HF

Performance of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure Score in Black Patients Compared With Whites

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is critical in heart failure (HF) and the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score is a validated tool derived from ~40,000 patients. However, few of these patients self-identified as black, raising uncertainty regarding performance in blacks with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study analyzed a racially diverse group of 4046 patients (1646 black and 2400 white) from a single center from 2007 to 2015. Baseline characteristics were collected to tabulate MAGGIC score and test its discrimination and calibration within race groups. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Death was detected using system records and the social security death master file. Discrimination was tested using Cox models of MAGGIC score stratified by race, and combined analysis including MAGGIC, race, and MAGGIC×race. Calibration was assessed using linear regression models and plots of observed versus predicted data. Overall, 901 (21%) patients died during 1-year follow-up. MAGGIC score discrimination was similar in both race groups in terms of C statistic (0.707±0.027 versus 0.725±0.014, for black versus white; P=0.556) and the hazard ratio (HR) per MAGGIC point was 1.12 in black patients (95% CI, 1.10-1.14) and 1.13 in white patients (95% CI, 1.12-1.14). Race was a significant correlate of survival, with better survival in black patients compared with white (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78), but the interaction of MAGGIC×race was not significant (β=-0.013; P=0.16), and adding race to the model did not improve discrimination (C statistic for MAGGIC versus MAGGIC+race, 0.721 versus 0.722; P=0.79). In calibration testing, the slope was not significantly different from 1 in either group, but the groups differed from each other, and it was closer to unity among black patients (0.94 versus 1.4; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of the MAGGIC score to risk stratify black patients with HF